after that, associate dean on childhood obesity. and your e-mail and phone calls. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. the first vote that would add tougher laws to regulate banks is expected tomorrow in the senate. if it passes, the monday vote would then begin debate. the president gave all wall street address blaming greed for rain nearly every sector of the economy.

one lawmaker may go along with the bill which would give the 60 votes needed for passage. today, another protest expected outside the state capitol in phoenix following the new arizona law expected to take effect this summer which would crack down on illegal immigrants. the death toll in the mississippi from tornadoes is at 10 during this hour. president obama will give the eulogy for the 29 miners killed. we will focus much of this first hour of legislation which may change the way that wall street does business. the subcommittee is prepared to hear from the ceo of goldman sachs on tuesday. we will convert on the c-span network. here are the phone numbers.

-- we will cover on the c-span network. this is how the story is playing out on two leading newspapers, "the new york times" and "the washington post" -- chairs at goldman as the housing market fell, and here, goldman cited serious profit on mortgages. alison is joining us. she writes for bloomberg. her story says that the senate is predicting passage. thanks for being with us. she is live on the phone. guest: yes, can you hear me? you'll pass it says the financial overhaul has predicted. give us up to speed. -- get this up to speed. yes, senator dodd is negotiating

with senator shelby. he is the top republican to republican -- to corporate republican ideas and make a compromise. the staff had been reading through the weekend. so far the senate republicans are united in their opposition to the democrats' bill which they have labeled the permit bailout of wall street. the deal between senator dodd and senator shelby would be significant. the house passed its version of the bill back in december. both senators are in washington today to appear on "meet the press jidd." they are under some pressure of the deadline to come to agreement. it is hard to say whether they will have a deal by tomorrow. last week but both said they were between 80% and 90% there.

consumer protection, too big to fail, and derivatives are among those issues under contention. the too big to fail piece is the most controversial of senator dodd's bill. it is a fund that would be paid for in a dance by the financial industry. it would cover things should affirm collapse and threaten the economy. the republicans focus their criticism on this fund, it would perpetuate bailouts of mostar. senator dodd said last week he is willing to consider an alternative idea. then there will likely drop that idea inside the bill. host: here's an excerpt in a moment from the president's weekly address. some other things have been happening. this morning, cheers at goldman as the housing market fell in " the washington post."

the ceo of goldman will be testifying on tuesday. can you talk about the timing? the release of females that goldman sachs is saying is only cherry-picking among hundreds? guest: the timing is interesting. the sec, obama, and democrats have said that the sec is an independent agency, and it is a coincidence that this came out as senators are taking up the bill. the republicans have said otherwise, have said it is a little suspicious. the lawsuit against goldman sachs was announced april 15th, just in time for regulation reform. yes, , but happens on monday. the hearing and the permanent subcommittee of investigations on the committee where lloyd

blankfein another goldman sachs executive will come to testify. should republicans block the democrats from advancing the legislation and the vote on monday, you have a hearing on tuesday, and the optics of that are very bad for republicans because they would be portrayed as blocking wall street reform. and the hearing later with a further emphasize that opposition. host: you can join the conversation in a moment the a twitter or by e-mail. what these include will hear from senator shelby? appears he will be key in determining whether there are additional republican supporters, including olympia snowe of the state of maine. guest: what will we hear from

him today? he is still in negotiating mode, so will probably continue to drive his point home. he wants to end too big to fail, to boost protections, but in what he would call a reasonable way, and really go through all republican talking points on the bill. it is basically a game of chicken on this and who will blink first -- he will continue going through those issues. host: alison follows banking and financial issues for bloomberg news. thanks very much for being here with us on c-span. some of the other headlines this morning from "the washington post" and a copy of some of the mills.

let's hear from you. this is on the independent line from chicago. what do you think will happen this week? caller: they're definitely need to be some regulations put into place. i was on the ground when the ino dollar was developed at the chicago mercantile exchange -- though euro-dollar. it became the largest trading commodity ever. the banks would not take the responsibility of regulating their own markets -- this is what has to be done. they have to be brought into an exchange as a result. performance bonds need to be placed on both sides. that would be so that there is financial responsibility behind. when it derivatives first cannot i would ask people what a

derivative was. they would say you know, you know -- it is a thing. what there were trying to describe was a call and a put -- the right to be long and the right to be short, respectively. but they extended the meaning of a derivative into airspace. they came with all these financial instruments with no responsibility whatsoever behind them. the situation with goldman in contention is that they supposedly accumulated mortgages and the situation about the buyers of these, this instrument that goldman created, not knowing what was in it, is ridiculous. they talk about too big to fail -- a look a lot of these fund

managers and too dumb to manage. it has to be brought into an arena where it can be regulated. both sides, the long and short, must put up financial responsibility. host: charles, thanks for the call. let me go to the story and what goldman sachs was doing in this story -- it admits it had reduced its exposure. it had bought to limit possible losses that would make money if home prices fell. our twitter conversation is available on-line on twitter. myron joins us on the republican line from south dakota. caller: good morning.

this house began on the house side by ron paul, to what the federal reserve. barney frank and his cohorts regret the whole thing and included it to audit the federal reserve, but now on the senate side senate got has no mention of it. this is another power grab to get more control, to handed over to the federal reserve. it is the old story like bearair rabbit -- don't throw me into the patch. i wish you'd have a program on how the fed has nothing to do with the federal government. it is a private group of bankers and they are controlling the american economy more and more. host: thanks for the suggestion. from the best seller list in light of the economy, number one this week is "the big short" --

my guest michael was featured sunday night -- the people who saw the real estate crash coming and made billions from their foresight. that is number one this week on "the new york times" list. caller: good morning. host: you are calling on the democrats won. caller: i certainly am. we have to have regulation even if the republicans feel there is not enough or too much. we have to have some. we cannot go through like we have for the last two years again. as time goes on, if new regulations need to be added on, they should be. it is all of our responsibility to make sure that they go through with this bill. host: some other headlines, first from the arizona republican store that reached the pinnacle friday with the signing of the law by the arizona governor.

the court fight looms on that new law on immigration. also, from the boston sunday paper, the climate consensus collapses in the senate. the bill before us by senator kerry of massachusetts has been put on to hold. people on the week and were told that he is abandoning his effort, saying that he was irate with the senate democratic leadership, that they may proceed with emigration first before dealing with energy and climate. more on that later. jack joins us from tulsa, oklahoma. the first test of both will be tomorrow -- the first test vote. what caller: did you think well, i don't have much of an opinion on that, but i have a question about this new bill. host: will go to randy from st. louis, missouri. caller: i find it absolutely

absurd. this is about the banking issue. you should of had a line for those ford, and a line for those against it to call in. of senate reform bill. you asked if they should take it up? to leave unanswered the question, the fact is, either you are for it, or against it. -- to leave it so that you can answer the question. there are major problems. this is typical of you. you always run a front for the neo-cons. i just tune in. you probably do have bill kristol and someone else on your show today, or might start

reading from the report on a weekly status. host: i will read from "the weekly standard" because i have it ready to go. here they talk about our country's battles. it says it is increasingly likely the republican party in league with the more conservative democrats will have a decisive say in the congress following november's elections. the primary focus of conservatives is to repeal the recently enacted health-care legislation. given the magnitude of the bill and its impact on both health care and the economy, this is perfectly reasonable. but health care's not the only matter that should come under review of the new working majority of conservatives results from the upcoming elections. equally important are the obama administration's plans for america's military.

if the obama domestic agenda is implemented, discretionary funds available will shrink to a level at which maintaining the dominant military we have become accustomed to will almost certainly be a thing of the past. bruce joins us now from jacksonville, fla. caller: it never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are, the financial crisis we went into was caused byt congress causedhey passed the laws -- was caused by congress. they passed the laws, repealed the glass-steagall act. we just found out that the sec was sitting on their rear ends watching porn all everything was

going to -- whatever. we have all these agencies and we're still in this mess. i don't really know why we will create another agency to sit around and take our tax money and not enforce the laws on the books. host: thanks for the call. here is a comment on twitter, saying maybe a good question should be do americans believe in regulation? since there already is regulation, maybe we should ask do you believe in additional or new regulation? robert joins us from richmond on the republican line. caller: good morning to you, sir. i believe we already have way too much regulation which is just another word for manipulation. it is destroying the free market. every time i listen to your show you have someone call in -- a couple of callers ago someone

was at demonizing everyone and telling you what you should be talking about. that is the perfect example of the control freaks and the haters that we are dealing with. host: here are six questions on financial regulation overall. let me read three of them. why is the financial regulatory reform such a big deal? another question, if it sticks to prevent the next crisis, why is it so controversial? finally, what are the chances it will pass? pretty good, nearly everyone say that the bill is likely to pass.

the lawmakers do not want to appear as if they are defending wall street. in the absence of an alternative bill, republicans have expressed more willingness to get a bill done now than they did just a few months ago. caller: yes, we need regulation. before i say that -- we need people to make sure that the regulators, the sec, the fed, the fdic -- all these people are doing the jobs. apparently, they were busy during the eight years of bush, looking up porn and everything else. and not doing their jobs. so, that is why we have to have a new agency to make sure that these people are doing their jobs. i was an auditor. host: for whom?

caller: knowing about the government, what they did because we have bernie madoff and all these other people that over and over, people drop a dime, as they say. the sec just put their heads down and did nothing. host: "the new york times this morning" -- writing that congress is consumed by the proposed legislation to overhaul. lawmakers are clashing over the best way to regulate derivatives, protect consumers, and and taxpayer-supported bailouts. that is in the weekend review section. good morning, joe, from akron, ohio. caller: good morning. it has been said before, but it

was government regulation that allowed for all these mortgages to be packaged up insured with so many financial interests that were supposedly backed by the u.s. government. people got houses without jobs, without good credit. with little or no income, no down payment. it was regulation. president obama received three times the money from wall street for his presidential campaign as john mccain did. there is the bailout money of $50 million in this bill. again, wall street which supports democrats and republicans, they will not have to be responsible. if we kill off the derivatives market, it will go overseas. so, i don't think president obama really has a handle on economics. host: thanks.

the ceo of goldman sachs will testify tuesday. he will talk about some of the in bills that took place in 2007. we spoke with alison of bloomberg at the top of the program. the chance of lawmakers reaching a bipartisan compromise are north of 80%. that is a quote from a democrat of virginia. here is a comment by twitter. the president has been talking about this in his weekly radio address yesterday and on thursday at cooper union. >> there is a legitimate debate taking place about have to ensure that taxpayers are best held harmless during a crisis. that is legitimate. but what i do not support it is that somehow the future

legislation proposed will encourage future bailouts. that makes for good sound bite, but it is not factually accurate, not true. host: we will hear more from the president this week as he travels on both tuesday and wednesday. bob joins us from sherman oaks, california caller: hi, this will take a minute. one of the things we tend to do in this country is deal with the derivatives. actually, one of the derivatives that caused economic distress is oil futures, and commodity futures. it is amazing how whether it is war, the crisis that did not quite collapsed economy -- we do not seem to remember what happened to it and what is going on again.

[call breaking up] host: i'm sorry to lose you, bob. this is from another you're saying that derivatives began in the agriculture committee. do americans know that? here is a reporter writing that another piece of the decision getting a lot of attention is climate change. senator lindsey graham the spent weeks working on emigration measures that will appeal to both parties wrote in an open letter commenting on the climate bill -- moving forward on legislation is nothing more than a cynical political ploy, he says. he became convinced that democrats have decided to push for an immigration overhaul to

mobilize hispanic voters. a focus on climate and energy bill issues could ensure its passage. his spokesman says the suggestion that senator harry reid had factored political considerations into the scheduling of both climate change and emigration, saying if there is absolutely ridiculous. more on page 83 of "the washington post" -- page a3. caller: good morning. of course we need regulations on both issues, but republicans only believed in regulating what they believe in, like what is going on in arizona right now, or not legalizing marijuana. republicans only want regulations on what they want

them on. they are obstructionist and are ruining this country. wakeup, america. host: this is ralph here in washington, d.c. on the republican line. caller: i like to talk about derivatives. a think the banks are who are partially responsible, and a total financial committee who make money on derivatives. they ought to take the responsibility. they ought to pay for their mistakes. not the american people. not bailing them out, but let them fail. we are big, strong, powerful country. those guys could fail and it would not affect us. they should fail and pay the price. host: thank you.

the conversation is also happening on twitter online. in the meantime, the editorial that first appeared here, they write about the legislation. first of all, if you think that wall street beat a path to the beltway now, with until banks six to affect how regulators will define proprietary trading. in this conclusion, as in healthcare, democrats are intent upon ramming this through. republicans ought to summon the will to resist. next is john joining us from hawaii on the republican line.

caller: hi. host: next is bruce, from sruce -- spruce pine. a bigger story broke just a few weeks ago when a guy told when j.p. morgan and hsbc would be shorting thousands of silver contracts in order to knock the price down. cftc did nothing. he told them again before hand when they would do it, how they would do it, and how much. his name was andrew mcguire, and a major media reported this. "the new york post" was the only one reported any of it and

this is bigger then worldcom and many others. in the reporting from mainstream media about this? the story was last week. he was scheduled to testify in the hearing on march 26th and the canceled his invitation. it is just amazing that even have something that big and the battle comes down to the legality or illegality of having these huge, short contest on these commodities. i believe that the etf funds are basically taking people's money and then joining the products. but that is just my opinion. host: thanks. for the earlier caller, there are some who tried to get through try to denigrate what we're trying to do -- we apologize when profanities' tried to get in and we try to

monitor closely. from this paper, hold the vat. taxpayers may prefer spending cuts. the president saying he is open to a value-added tax. the presumption in some quarters that a tax increase is inevitable -- the public will not allow any significant decrease and the public spending. there is reason to question that assumption. voters may support spending cuts more than most american politicians have assumed. and much more than a value-added tax. will go next to charlie from fort wayne, indiana.

caller: the key thing about this financial reform chunk is that fannie mae and freddie mac were the ones who cost the housing disaster, and there is absolutely nothing in the bill about that. barney frank and chris dodd and all these other goons on the left have supported that. also, joe was right when we said we have to keep spending money to keep from going broke, because by the time the country goes broke he will be dead. host: this from eileen. here is an editorial from "the washington post" outlining the three approaches to regulating will strip. the first of be a firm and simple no-bail policy.

any farmer grows of size would be allowed to enter bankruptcy, or its creditors would have to take their chances with a federal judge. secondly, embodied by two lawmakers, it begins from the logical premise that too big to fail is too big to exist. the third approach is embodied in a bill drafted by the senate of the banking committee to establish an executive branch resolution process for systematically important firms that is separate from bankruptcy. it therefore allows officials to move swiftly in advance to resolve a troubled institution in a crisis. as you may imagine the issues on wall street and here in the washington are the subject of some political humor, as you saw last night. >> the sec on friday charged goldman sachs with a civil fraud, alleging they sold securities than it would fail. if convicted, goldman could --

what? make $10 billion? host: next is robert from davenport, iowa. caller: good morning. [unintelligible] years ago when i began to take my course, there was a statement made saying the banking system was very important and built on trust. if we ever lost trust in the banking industry, it would really have a bad effect on the entire country. i think that is what has happened. instead of the banks looking out for everyone, to make sure everyone could make money and have housing, and be good for the coming, they are not doing that. as a result, so many have lost

homes. when we talk about too big to fail, the whole problem is, people talk all the time on here about the free enterprise -- a problem with that is the fact that if we look at people's wages -- over 20 years, while profits and productivity have gone up, that is not capitalism -- it is thievery. host: thank you. mark has the story advanced earlier this week, the cover story of "the n.y. times" sunday magazine. it is a profile of mike allen of politico. he hit send on a mass e-mail newsletter that some of the most influential people will read before they say one word to their spouses. one day after the story appeared he had 7300 new subscribers to

his "playbook" e-mail. next is tim from california on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: it is a pleasure, and my first time to get through. many people do not understand the derivatives. we packed those derivatives one% -- we could solve a lot of problems here. i do want to it knowledge the fact that the goldman sachs suit is one of those things that we will go after before the other countries do. the other countries thegreece, and around the world, they have been ripped off the same way that our government has -- the other countries like greece. everyone knows that fannie mae

and freddie mac are the pseudo names for the government, so the gop will go after them. they ripped off everybody. host: this is your sense that republicans love to regulate a woman's body, but regulate drug businesses -- not so much. here is open with the houston chronicle" following another story that has all the other story concerning therig workers, the 11 who died. this bill is being called very serious -- 4,200 gallons per day are spilling. it could take months to stop that flow. we're joined by teresa from las vegas. she is on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have been watching the oversight hearings. i have been watching some of

the great book reviews written on this. i totally agree with senator brown. in the bank too big to fail is too big to exist -- any bank. watching the oversight hearings there is only one question, one answer that seemed to come from hours and hours -- what did they have e-mail's all this evidence? why did they do what they did? because they can. nobody is minding the store. nobody has been minding the store for a long time. it seems putting a new name and a new label on the same agencies, same people will not give the government -- the government does not have the will to oversee -- i do not know

what can change. the other thing that does it stand out is some of these products, these complicated products and derivatives should go through a process of pre- approval, like other products that are dangerous. food and drugs, medicines. but have heard many economists say, oh, if we would have seen this annual was happening, maybe we would have been able to prevent some of this. well, these are products, just like any others. they can obviously be very dangerous. host: the question then comes down to regulation. if they should be, by how much caller: right. that is the thing. they do need to be regulated, but if the regulators are not going to do their job, it does not seem that any amount of regulation or any new regulation will -- going to be any more

effective. they definitely need to break them up. host: inside a look at some competitive house races and trouble for leading democrats, including congressman obey of wisconsin, and another congressman of misery. there are 165 solid democratic seats -- looking at some of the competitive senate races with states like illinois and colorado in place for republicans. more this morning from the front page of "the new york times." next, this caller is from michigan. caller: good morning. in a first-time caller.

i want to inject a difference angle. -- a different angle. we should have let these companies fail, or they will never learn. there would just repeated. has anyone ever checked into the government officials, whether democrat or republican? how many of them hold the stocks and bonds in gm, aig, fannie mae, freddie mac? how many of them have bonds, stockholders? is the reason they bail them out because they have lots of stocks and bonds in these companies and did not want them to fail because they would lose their money? did anyone ever check that out? host: this person who served in the clinton administration, and a former center of wyoming -- they will begin work this week. the recommendation will be released after the midterm elections in november. on our "newsmakers" program

we'll talk about that debt commission and will likely come from it. >> the input from the commission might be interesting, but it is a mechanism for politicians and legislators to avoid their responsibility. it is our job to only spend the people's money after careful thought. to have the commission take over that responsibility is irresponsible in my judgment. most importantly, it is a political rather than a real tool. >> it begs the question, republicans have 177 seats, democrats have 254. how the make herself heard in the process? >> as an appropriate door would have to say in the last two fiscal year cycles, we had

almost no input. there were discussions that occurred, discussions at a very high staff level in which subcommittee staff people on the majority side were told, do not talk to your republican colleagues about this. if you do, you will not be in the meeting next time. that kind of style takes us back to the majesty, the day of the king. we came as a democracy to avoid dictate. and a small number in the control. we do not need to be a monarchy. america can do its business very well if we will. host: we hope that you tune in for "newsmakers." back to the senate voting on monday with live coverage on tuesday at about 5:00 p.m. it is a cloture vote that would

allow the senate to begin debate. here is the front page story -- goldman sites serious profit on mortgages. this says that in late 2007 s that prices gained momentum and many banks are suffering losses, goldman sachs executives traded messages and would make "some serious money betting against the housing market." the ceo of goldman sachs is testifying before a senate committee tuesday. we will cover that also. here is this comment by twitter. does it bother anyone that senator dodd is a one popular he is not running this fall? he is writing the bill. next, from a sister, new hampshire -- for exeter. caller: i have a small comment. every time a republican calls this seemed to blame the poor people for the mortgage crisis. i would like to ask the simple question.

if they cause the crisis, how come they did not end up with all the money? all the people, the rich people on wall street ended up with the money. this canard is perpetrated by fox news, and it is getting old. host: thanks. by the way, the president will travel to west virginia. he was spend the weekend in asheville, north carolina for what the white house is calling and get away, a weekend break. both the president and vice president will attend services this afternoon in the west virginia to honor the 29 miners killed in the explosion. we will go next to the republican line with rick. caller: how are you today? host: fine. caller: i have a question not so much related to the economic financial reform, but the basis

that many of the average americans no longer understand the financial system as a whole. you take an example like phil gramm -- a lot of the deregulation led to enron. many of the home mortgages that have been claimed to have caused a lot of problems -- which we saw the warning signs years before. no one did anything. now the government, certainly not the businesses who are perpetrating a problem. host: thanks for your call, rick. this comment by twitter from john. alan is joining us from portland, ore. on the independent line. go ahead, please.

caller: yes, i wonder, why doesn't all the money the banks are given to help, while they require to give 10% of all the mortgages they owed? it would do a lot to get things rolling if they had to forgive it 10% of all the mortgages that they hold. host: to go. we will continue the conversation on line. our sunday roundtable is coming up in a moment. two other headlines. mixed reviews for the new governor. the republican has won after two democratic governors have been in office. that is in the commonwealth of virginia. here is the front page, a strong first quarter is another sign of a rebound in the u.s. auto industry. later, a look at obesity.

the first lady's campaign to end of the city in the next generation, and also the ceo of spirit airlines as "washington journal" continues. >> good morning. the topics on the sunday shows will include the economy, immigration, the midterm elections, and as we have said, financial regulatory reform. it comes up for a key test vote in the senate tomorrow. the key guests on the "meet the press" include senator dodd, and the ranking republican senator shelby. on "this week" the white house correspondent speaks with the white house economic adviser. and, senate banking committee's brown from ohio, and tennessee republican bob corker. the guest on fox news sunday hosted by chris wallace include senate republican leader mitch

mcconnell and co-chairs of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. on "face the nation" bob talks with the national economic council director summers, and on opposite of the union" the guests will include the georgia republican senator and the new jersey republican. also, the michigan democratic governor. you can listen to all five talk shows beginning at noon eastern right here on c-span radio. it is 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c., nationwide on xm, and on the web. you can also follow us on facebook and twitter. >> i believe there is a huge neclack of knowledge about how this town works. >> when you're doing the research, you have to do it yourself.

>> tonight, award-winning historians will talk about their work, books, and profession, and revisit their first appearances on our network. >> monday, a discussion on fcc policy with one of the newest members of the commission talking about the national broadband plan. and what the comcast decision means for net and a trout. that will be on c-span2. next sunday, on the booktv's "in-depth" -- pat buchanan on conservative ideology in today's political climate. he would take your phone calls, e-mail, and tweets. next sunday, live at noon on c- span2. host: we want to welcome scott wilson of "the washington post" and gail russell chaddock from

the christian science monitor. let's begin with another big development from this weekend, the immigration bill an announcement yesterday by graham that he is pulling out of negotiations. what happened? guest: his upset. the senator is a key republican on the number of legislative issues. energy and immigration reform are among the. he is upset because there seems not to be given priority to the immigration reform as opposed to the energy legislation. he called it "a cynical political ploy." part of the reason is because senator reid is facing a very difficult reelection and immigration reform is extremely important to the union which has a lot of political heft in nevada. he believes that that is what is driving this. energy reform is far for their

long, and jumping emigration ahead of it is just politics. host: gail russell chaddock this segment says politics is not involved, and another says it is absolutely ridiculous to think it is playing a role. guest: gambling? no, emigration has been highly political for least a decade. the timing and upcoming midterm elections is a connection that cannot be ignored. it is interesting to me that lindsey graham is the one to pull the plug. he said after the health care vote that there could be no further bipartisan work if the house moved the senate bill through the way they did. i think this is an act ii -- he has become the key person for moving anything in a bipartisan way through congress. host: here it says there will be

more protest in phoenix today. a court fight is looming on the new law. here are a number of profiles on the new governor. guest: that is right. the truth is the white house about six weeks ago, president obama met with reform leaders. and the key senators on the energy. it looked like a lot of activity around two major issues on his agenda. behind the scenes, truthfully, the white house said we are now ready to do either this year. we will get financial regulatory reform done. we will try to pass legislation addressing concerns by the citizens united supreme court ruling that allows corporations to spend on behalf of candidates for the first time. it was a public act of looking busy on important issues. but behind the scenes not much. i would still be surprised if either got a lot of attraction between now and august, which is

really the affected end of the legislative session in a midterm election year. host: you have written of outbrewer who succeeded gen napnapolitano. will this have any impact politically or economically on the state? guest: absolutely. there have already been calls to boycott arizona for further conventions. the will also be court challenges. the department of justice will look closely at how laws implemented. they are talking about this in a way that could be compared with the civil-rights era. the white house important fence- mending to do with hispanics, especially after the healthcare bill, which because of the way that it went through explicitly

excludes not only illegal residents, but legal residents in some features of the bill. in exchange, the white house and congressional leaders said to the hispanic caucus that we would do something on emigration. it is an important promise. host: now we pivot to climate change and energy. the president will travel to west virginia. keeping in mind that the president has lost this state in elections -- guest: that is right. according to the white house he will be talking about the nature of the work of mining and and as such in some of his remarks -- it will be that these men were working toward the american dream. it is a way to get to a state he has never done well in to appeal

to them on a subject that could not be closer to how they live in the way they make their living. that is part of it. part of it is really to pay honor to them. guest: yes, republicans are hopeful about picking up these areas. there are key races in the pennsylvania. they claim that democrats are anti-coal. host: this talked-about seats long held by democrats. guest: no, we used to have talks about how narrow the range of competitive seats were -- 35, 40 -- is much bigger this year earning the because of the extensive voter anger, and the sense of republican mobilization. the pollsters have not seen this level of intensity on the

republican side since they took back the house in 1994. host: we have been spending much of the first hour on the test vote in the senate tomorrow on reform that could lead to some debate. and the release of the e-mail from goldman sachs. finally, the ceo will be testifying on tuesday before a senate committee. can you bring this together? guest: yes, you are describing in a garment favorable to the legislation that the president and white house welcome. they say that those sec investigation of goldman is at arm's length and they heard about it like everyone else. i have not reported anything to the contrary yet. this adds huge momentum to a bill they see as politically very beneficial to them in an election year. the republicans initially came out strongly against calling it a bailout bill. they pivoted very quickly when they saw that message now working. and very much not wanting to be

seen on the side of wall street with the economy still how it is. host: let me read why an excerpt. this e-mail is dated from july 25th, 2007, the chief financial officer of goldman sachs. he reacted to figures that said the company made at least $51 million in the profit from bets that the housing securities would drop in the value. guest: this will be all t-shirts all over thisthe place. the mills are very damaging. people say things that are very casual and don't expect them to make the front page. now they are. it could not have come at a more important time for democrats.

the republicans in healthcare bill had a huge advantage. most people liked the health care that they had. nobody likes banks, nobody likes big financial companies. they have a hearing on tuesday, in the hands of probably the most skilled investigator left in congress. it is senator levin and it will be quite something. host: our two reporters cover both ends of capitol hill. she is the chief reporter for "the christian science monitor." scott wilson works for "the washington post." you can contact us at any of these ways. let me ask you, gail russell chaddock, about your headline -- will healthcare reform passed the 2010 midterm election? guest: this is a law facing in over a period -- phasing in over

a long period. it really depends on how the down shifts politically and if republicans take back the house, and less likely the senate. it changes a lot in terms of how the law could be implemented. host: you have also been talking about races and leadership that could happen after the election. guest: the most interesting is the senate race, if harry reid loses. who will replace him? and senator chuck schumer. his in the competitive inside game. it is interesting how much of what they now do is being viewed in thatoptic. you cannot cannot to say you expect a leader to lose. it was traumatic when senate

daschle did, but that is the back story of a lot going on right now. host: let me ask you about a story concerning the nuclear arms summit. you said he has come, this professor reorial role -- how does that work on any of these issues we have been talking about? guest: it works quite well. i have quoted some diplomat saying he is really at his best when acting as the teacher. i think that the blair house event was very, he was very effective. some of the diplomats i talked to accepted that event as what he sounded like a lot of the closed door meetings at the summit. these are technical, complicated pieces of legislation that cover a lot of parts of the economy and society.

. . this has been the big upset of this whole issue. and it's causing an enormous amount of problems. we actually need to go back to a court case in 1974, lile

versus nicholas. the court overturned and gave people a right to come into the country to speak their own language and have their own schools, and this has caused a great burden on america. because we have to pay for all this. so that's the bottom line of the whole thing, is to change the way they come in. we welcome all these people into the country, but they need to come in and assimilate to us. that's the sentiment of most of the people i talk to. host: thanks for the call. it sounds like you're calling either north church or nathaniel hall in boston. host: yes, i am outside. >> >> i don't think that president obama would disagree with that in the sense that what he talked about is bringing the 11

million immigrants living illegally now into the mainstream, into schools, into ways that they can assimilate better into society rather than essentially be hiding out, working in shadow economy. so, but the caller does have a point. and of course the idea of english only language have come up in state referendums around the country and are very -- are issues that tend to energize the basis of both parties and get people excited. and this issue is certainly that. host: is there anything lingering in terms of the health care sentiment, the bipartisanship or lack thereof with health care that would then translate to these other issues? guest: i suspect that it would. republicans told me that the way this bill moved, scott brown wins the massachusetts elections, suddenly republicans have their 41st vote is going

to end the health care debate and the house said, you know, that senate bill that we really did not like, we're going to pass it. and pass it and avoid the filibuster in the senate. republicans said that is so outrageous that would color everything else they did. i don't think that's going to happen at this point. you go to the next case, and it's as if the health care bill was ten years ago in one respect. you go to the next case, and suddenly the voters are angry at banks. and you don't want to look as if the republican party is lockstep in fare of banks and resisting any changes in rules since a shutdown that gutted everybody's retirement. host: who do you think will break away. there's been speculation that olympia snow of maine is one of those. senator she will by is still working with senator dodd. could these two republicans

align with the democrats? and who else would they bring? guest: maine is always the first place you look. both of whom have talked about their interest in this bill. senator collins needs to see that 50 billion dollar fund that has come under attack as being a bailout removed. the white house has said they wouldn't mind seeing that removed either. so there is a probability of doing that. but my sense is that republicans don't want to be rolled again. if someone breaks, they would like a lot of people to break. that's why shell by's discussions are so important. host: what about senator brown is? guest: he's been lobbied heavily by president obama. i agree. i think that you're hearing that there may be quite a few that break if one breaks, and you may get 65, 70, 80 votes in favor of the bill ultimately. host: barbara, independent line, michigan. good morning. skiveragetsdz good morning.

i've been watching this for about an hour now, and i think it's time that we stop bailing people out and start working with our own american people. 11 million people over here in our country illegally are getting all the finances we've paid for their living equipment, their health problems. i've known reports where they get over here and they have babies and we have to take care of them. it's time that we start taking care of our own people that lived here and america. otherwise -- that are over here legally and not illegally. host: do you support the arizona law? caller: yes.

because of the fact, we have got to stop this illegal stuff. how many other ethical groups that do we cater to? we don't. they come over here, they come over here either legally or they're sent home or whatever. the only ones that we cater to are the mexican people and i don't understand that. host: thanks for the call. one component of this law, reasonable suspicion if you're an illegal immigrant. how do you define that? governor brewer said this is not going to be a random search but there has got to be some speculation that somebody is in this country illegally and they could face in arizona up to six months in jail. guest: exactly and i think governor brewer is putting forward a little wishful thinking there. scompleerl the racial component is going to be a major part of who police believe is in the

country illegally. president obama, you will recall on friday talked about keeping an eye on this bill and specifically civil rights violations. you know, but it's hard to see beyond race what being in this country illegally really is about. workers waiting outside of particular places to be picked up, taken off to work, those kinds of things, i'm from california you see all the time. but those tend to be hispanic men, and will likely be stopped and asked for papers now. but it seems that race is a major component. host: one viewer is saying mexico is determining our immigration laws. guest: that's interesting. did they say any more than that? host: that's it. guest: i think the civil rights issue is not obvious. when viewers hear that people could be stopped, they're

thinking i will legals. the danger of this law goes way beyond that. does it mean that any hispanic man or woman could be stopped under whatever circumstances are? i remember when i was in college it was just that era when a lot of black students were coming in when they hasn't been in there before. suddenly black girlfriends, any time their boy frends visit them on campus they were stopped. every time. it became a real tough issue. i think that's a larger context. how far will this reach? another feature of the law is if you as an arizona resident don't feel that the laws are being enforced including this one you can complain and that's a basis for legal action as well. host: this morning, court fight is looming in the law. another day of expected protest outside the state capital in phoenix. another saying 11 million

illegal? on the republican line joining us from new jersey. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate your show in the morning. it's really informative and it gives us an outlet to view our points. i did want to applaud arizona's jan brewer. obviously both parties have lost the meaning including the president of the word illegal. my father i am grated legally here through ellis island. there's nothing wrong with assimilating to american culture and laws. this puts us in the back seat. and us meaning american citizens. who are going to have to support and a couple of your callers called before touching the same thing. but we're going to have to give a support system out for these people that come here. there's nothing wrong with that. but when you take 11 million is an incorrect number of illegal aliens. there's probably over 27 to 33

illegal immigrants in this country. there's nothing wrong with assimilating to this country legally. there's poom in line from other countries waiting to come to this country legally. and the word legal has been taken out of our dictionary. it's been replaced by the president and politicians. so what jan brewer is doing is correct. come to this country legally where you abide by our laws, you assimilate to our culture and our language, and then we'll have a better country. this whole thing with the -- i'd like to see where the civil liberties of these illegals come into play. host: thanks for the call. we get your point. we'll get a comment from scott. caller: guest: i think a couple callers, you get how impassioned people get. i remember being in california in the 90s, particularly during

bad economic times and it was proposition 187 about illegal immigration and restricting emergency care to people in the country illegally. and i'd never seen an election like that. it electrifies both parties. i think that may be part of the context of the way that the fall campaign is waged in. but you can hear the passions and these points of view and i think only they're only going to get hotter as the year goes on. host: turn to the style section. sometimes i wish we could have the conversation as the guests are coming or going. i thought your point earlier in the "washington post" from your colleague michael sheer, the obama's weekend without washington. they spent two nights at the grove park in resort and spa in ashville, nk. they get back to -- north carolina. they get back to business today. but you had an interesting story about this resort. guest: i know the area from the

last of the moheekance, the film, which i rented just to see the site at the end, where did that final scene running through the woods along the chris comes from. and it's exactly the site of the president's vacation. it's a simply gorgeous area. host: and michael sheer points out that a local newspaper, maybe this is a sign of the times. the ashville citizen times blogging in realtime about the president ds activities, and dinner last night and a tour of the vander bilt estate. guest: i liked on friday after they arrived they went with a hike with 50 secret service officers along with them and actually passed four or five couples on the path of their hike. and one of them came across them and said are you two who i think you are? and what a stunning discovery on your hike to come across the first couple. guest: there is another angle

to this that we haven't discussed. perhaps visiting the built mor, this could be the largest conspicuous consumption on earth is leading into the financial regulation debate. don't you think? host: back to the phone calls. democrat's line with gale of the christian science monitor and scott of the post good morning. caller: good morning, i'd like to have some solutions instead of complaints. one solution to our national debt is to revamp our patent laws so that people are able to mine our creativity in this country. so that we're able to -- so somebody has an idea they don't have to go and do skem ticks or something like that. there's some kind of house where we can open our ideas that have been used, we should get a small profit from it to

protect the person with the idea. another thing we can do is have like with haiti where cell phone bills, we can all chip in to help our national debt, because this is a threat to our country. as per the immigration laws, we have to get away from this prohibition of drugs. that's what's causing the violence down on the border. we have to have a constitutional amendment to make it only one person that marries, the child can become a citizen. two illegal people their child cannot be a citizen if born in the united states. guest: thanks to the call. illinois, independent line. good morning. caller: i watched the program when the vote yesterday, and i about cried because i finally

have an american person -- person in the american government that's sticking up for the american dream for the americans. it's like for the last 20 years, i have been watching this country get invaded and nobody wants to do nothing because it's not politically correct. since when do you stick your head in the sand and don't see what you're actually seeing in saying, oh, no, they're not here illegally because i can see that they're totally out of context. they don't speak our language, they don't speak -- and we're supposed to stick our heads in the sand and say no. where i'm actually losing jobs, my wages haven't gone up in 20 years because supply and demand. the large supply of labor, you don't have to pay these people very much to work. host: let me jump in. you're calling on the independent line so i assume

you vote both democratic or republican or third party. what do you think needs to happen in arizona specifically or here in washington as they deal with immigration? caller: well, i just recently heard somebody mention that our president dwithe d. eisenhower actually deported 13 million. that's another thing. our counting is off. it's 30 million at least in this country. and -- host: 30 million? who did he deport? caller: i didn't understand you. host: you said he deported up to 30 million. caller: 13 million. yes. you consider they set up safety checks on cars to make sure people aren't drinking and driving and stuff. man, come on. we've got to do something about this. host: thanks for the call. that's an example of the

sentiment out there. caller: absolutely. and that's an independent. it also raises the political difficulties of doing this. i mean, immigration is a wedge issue for democrats as well. it's not all democrats vote the same way on this. and it varies by geography what states are most affected by immigration, what states rely on immigration for their economy. so it's a very complicated political problem to tackle for those reasons, too. host: go ahead. guest: both of the last two callers made reference to jobs. it is interesting how ever since the president came in i've been hearing from democrats and especially union activists, we must make jobs the focus. and here we are heading into a mid-term election, and jobs are not yet the focus in any way that i think people out there recognize. host: there will be focus over the next few weeks over

president obama's supreme court pick. if the president slects somebody who is viewed as too liberal, they could make good on a filibuster threat. guest: it's interesting, senator schumer had hearings last week on the filibuster. raising again the issue of whether or not the senate should rein it in either further. i think the supreme court pick almost regardless of who it is is likely to produce very dramatic floor activity. host: we're hearing from the white house that the president will make his selection probably before may 26, and that date is important because that's with when society myor was elected. so that's while expecting a retirement this year certainly has confirmation of that earlier than they did last year. but who is involved in the process? guest: it's being run by bob bower, the white house counsel, and so his office is really

doing most of it. you know, they begin ahead of where they were for the sota myer. they've got a list of vetted people already. that's expanded a little bit. and last week white house officials were saying we're stilled in the adding mode, not the subtracting mode. but the president has begun talking with candidates. i don't think it will be long now. that's an important date because what the white house does not want is for this to bleed into the fall election season. they want it finished by the august recess. guest: republicans also complained during the sotamyor that they didn't have enough time to vet her thoroughly, so the sooner the president can make this nomination, the more likely it is that the republicans or the less likely that they can claim that they're being rammed on this. the president would like to see this done by the august recess.

host: we've been hearing names of elainea and cagen and maybe die anwood. is there anyone on the list that you think could be a surprise pick? guest: not really. we pretty much know the main candidates. those are the big three. you know, janet nap tano is a possibility. she was interviewed the first time around. but the real surprises will be if she really does decide to pick a politician rather than a judge for this. and although what we're hearing really are the big two really are elainea cagen and marea garland. those are the two that are spoken about most. and those two seem to be the favorites at the moment. host: and while they're not on the list, senators white house and clobe char shade they want to stay in the senate but if you want to pick a sitting u.s. senator how is that the

process? guest: it's an interesting point. it almost eliminates the filibuster. it's the last area in which there is still a strong sense of fellow feeling. senators do not typically filibuster other senators. it's kind of the in the dna of the job, i think. it would be interesting. host: rod is joining us from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to comment from your two guest this is morning and see what they think of this. i think everybody is missing the legal aspect of the illegal immigration. people that are here from all four corners of the world, which maybe 20 million, they say it's just a misdemeanor to stay here, sneak into this country. i think they're wrong. i have a very good friend who is a decorated vietnam veteran, very nice guy, and he had a lot of problems over there.

agent orange and a lot of other things, and his wife divorced him, and then he went to depression hand a lot of different physical things wrong. so he decided to change his life and disappear into society. so he went and he got a driver's license and social security card and a lot of documents faked and forged and wanted to disappear and make a new name. he ended up got caught and got arrested. i believe, i'm quite sure that a great percentage of these people in this country illegally have fake or forged drivers license, marriage license, social security numbers and so forth, which are felonies. now, that's a great percentage of those people and i think they ought to be arrested just like anybody else and go to fine and be fined and go to jail and then be deported. what do your guests think about that? guest: well, i think many

illegal immigrants are deported. and so i'm not quite sure about what the caller is getting at. but when you are picked up without papers, you are generally sent out of the country. so i think that the caller is -- i'm not quite sure how many of them have forged documents. it would be very serious situation if that were true. but illegal immigrants don't like to get caught because they get sent home. host: this is a town that loves to focus on itself, and maybe that's the reason why this is the cover of the "new york times" sunday magazine. the man the white house wakes up to. a profile of mike allen politico, and how mike alan is part of the politicalization of washington. do you read mike allen's playbook? guest: of course. it quickly became an absolute

must read and also one of the last places, he used to be recruiting print journalists. what an astonishing thing. host: welcome to the program. caller: thank you, steve. i have to agree with ms. gale on something that she said. i'm from mississippi. back in the 60's my friend's grandfather bought him a brand new car, a cadillac. and we were going through alabama and we were pulled over. because they thought we had stole that car. so if people feel that these police officers are not going to be racial profiling these people, then they are completely got their head in the sand like one caller said. and one other thing that a caller said, that is totally off the chart, when he said that people in america are not

prejudice. i don't know, have you ever heard of clue clusm clan before? i don't know maybe so. anyway, i think it's totally wrong. this law is totally wrong. there's no doubt about it. there's going to be racial profiling. host: thanks for the call. dennis had this twitter comment saying the immigrants can stay but the politicians need to go. guest: that issue of what, where is the stand for legality? it's no surprise that so many people have called about that. that's really basic. and especially at a time when people sent the government is failing them on other fronts, it's just a toxic issue. i would check one thing, though. one of our last speakers referred to sneaking into the country. i think about half of the people believe to be here illegally didn't climb over or dig under any fence.

they came on a visa om some sort and simply stayed. and so this idea that we solve the problem by a massive fence. i remember doing some work on the border and some of the border guards told me, look, a 50 foot fence is just going to create a demand for 51-foot ladders. we're not going to solve it that way. and in terms of the identification, now, it really hearks back to the 9/11 debates. a lot of the investigation into 9/11 was to how these people got into the country with forged dockments and so forth. so the fix was to have docksments that could not be forged. that hasn't gotten very far. and i think we have happily not had another terrorist attack on that scale. if we did, i think once again ulede see the immigration and the terrorism issue uniting in a push for more solid documentation. host: and going from issue to issue, but going back to the early point of mike allen, does the politicalization of d.c.

mean that the drudge fiication is over, referring to matt drudge. if so, hooray. guest: well, there has been commentary after the piece on mike allen about who would you rather have cure rating your news, for your morning briefing sheet which is essentially what playbook is, mike drudge or mike allen. so there is a contest going on there, and i think many in washington at least turn to play book. and that's the tip sheet that many of us turn to. host: mary, independent line from dayton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. may i speak to the financial reform bill? host: sure. we're dealing with it all this morning, so go at it. caller: thank you. yeah, i would just like to express that i'm a single divorced american who feels

that i hope this financial reform bill passes, especial thri consumer protection agency to be created. and the thing is that i feel that women divorced women are financially oppressed here in america. and i would encourage them to educate themselves to understand what's going on financially. and i hope that the government in the oversight committees would take a stand and refuse lobbying money from the bankers. get government for the people back in control. , because i know i'm one person that has worked very hard throughout their whole life, and i don't have anything to show for it. i raise twod children by myself . and i just hope that anybody

who has power in the government, please vote for this reform. host: thanks for sharing your story with us. caller: there's exhibit a why the republicans are likely to end up supporting this bill in pretty big numbers. it's very powerful testimony from the caller and it's a political issue that you don't want to be lining up with goldman sasms against a caller like that. host: back to immigration. the difference is legal versus illegal. who is in this country legal versus illegal. if you're here legally you won't find any repercusions. if you're here illegally, you're going to pay a price. guest: that's the problem with the arizona law. if you feel you're going to come under increased scrutiny and stops because you look like

you might be here illegally, that's, that really change it is quality of life dramatically. and i think that's what the department of justice is going to be focusing on in terms of how this is enforced. but it is deeply discouraging to people that politicians are again talking about what looks like an amnesty program, like happened in 86 that didn't work in 86. and i think that's fueling a lot of the anxiety as well. they sbli do not trust washington to do this correctly. host: let me ask both of you with your extiss first on capitol hill, we talked a lot of issues on the key vote from. walk us through what you're looking forward this week on the hill. guest: i think that monday evening vote is critical. will republicans allow the senate to begin debate on financial regulation. i think the next question would be, you know, i may be reading too much into this but it doesn't seem to me that senator

lindsey graham and senator reed, the majority leader, are that far apart. senator reid said we will bring up whatever bill is ready first. immigration isn't ready. it's not even close to being ready. the bill that's ready is energy. so i see a kind of obvious meeting here if there's a will to go forward on this, and i think the -- i know, if this president can get through health care and an energy bill, and financial regulation, it will be astonishing. and i think democrats have every incentive in making that work. and i think the logical next step would be financial regulation, and then energy. and immigration, maybe. i suspect they're going to talk a great deal about it. i can't really imagine that it will come to the floor, especially with the supreme court nomination. host: and scott wilson, the president today. tomorrow, he honors the new york yankees. he then travels the middle of the week and ends the week with

the white house correspondents dinner. guest: i will be with him in the middle of the week. it's a very campaign-like trip. a lot of stops each day. this is his so-called main street tour that he is doing to talk about economic issues. he will speak and he will also take some questions in some of these venues. but looking for him and looking for what kind of populism he is using out there particularly on financial reform as it moves through congress. and then ats you said, the big event each year, the white house correspondents dinner. and he was very funny last year. so. guest: a big event only for those who are invited. host: but live on c-span. guest: exactly. jay leno will be the entertainer. so thank you for being with us. and scott, appreciate your time. host: he calls himself cheap and proud of it based on a piece last year in u.s.a. today. he is also the c.e.o. of an

airline that wants to charge for overhead baggage and members of congress want to stop. we'll have a conversation with c.e.o. spirit airlines. back in a moment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> i think there's a huge lack of knowledge about how congress works. >> when you're doing the actual research work you just have to do that yourself. >> tonight, award winning historians will talk about their work, their books, and their profession and revisit their first appearances on our network. tonight on c-span.

>> washington journal continues. host: ben is the c.e.o. of spirit airlines joining us from the fort lauderdale area. thank you very much for being with us. >> very happy to be here. thank you. >> let me begin with some of the news this week, and that is that airlines will begin facing some hefty fines if the planes are on the tarmac for three hours, fines that could range several thousands per person. your reaction to this latest regulation? >> well, i think that this regulation is addressing clearly a frustration for customers, especially those who have been caught on airplanes that are in very, very long delays. i worry, though, that it may be somewhat of another case of a good idea that in practice doesn't work as well as people hope, as a number of the larger airlines have stated, rather than accept a fine of this amount, they'll cancel the

flight before it gets to that point. and that may leave more customers stranded than in the current situation. at spirit airlines, we have an internal rule that is more rigid than the current rules in terms of we bring airplanes back before the three-hour point. so we don't see it being a real issue for our airline. although i think for broad airline customers, i think we're likely to see more cancellations as a result of people having to look for new flights, rather than accept flights are running late. >> your airline getting a lot of attention for the fees for those who want to place their luggage in the overhead compartment. how did this come about? have you been surprised or did you expect the reaction? >> well, we certainly expect add reaction, although it has been bigger than maybe we expected. it all started last fall. we were starting to look at why our airplanes are delayed and what we could do about it and the things that we could control. and when we looked at our gate

delays, the reason airplanes were delayed once they were at a gate, we determined that our biggest single reason for gate delays was dealing with overhead bags that didn't fit on the airplane. we have 145 feets on the airplane. the overhead bins hold 130. and the fact that people bring a lot to the gate in an effort to avoid checked baggage fees has created situations where many times every day we're delaying airplanes because customers are trying to find a place for their bags above the feet or in the airplane, or we have to take the bag from them usually in the jetway and check it at that point. we estimate that we delay between 5 and 7 minutes on flights just for that issue. so we have asked ourselves how do we fix that? and we looked at a lot of things, maybe not charging for the cherked bags, even removing the overhead bins completely and saying you've got to check bags and we thought that would

be punitive and we didn't like that idea. but we came up to really a four-part solution that we thought was quite creative and when looked at in total is actually a fair way to approach it. we added a fee to the carry-on bag to neutralize the current incentive to carry on, essentially. and looked at on its own, that's kind of dramatic and maybe outrageous to some. but we also, within that, protected a personal item that you could bring on as long as it would fit under the seat in front of you and created a long list of exemption items that would never be charged. strollers, baby diapers, formula, foods you're going to eat on board, coats, reading material, any medical assistive devices. and then we said that those who have bags who pay that fee will board the airplane first in order to make sure that they have the best chance to get space above their seat for their bag. we thought that was very pragmatic and quite fair. another big airline southwest

today charges customers $20 to board the airplane first. and if you ask why people might pay that $20 and in many cases it's so that they can make sure that they have space above their seat for their bag. and the fourth thing we did, which is really the most important, is we lowered our fairs by the amount of fee or more. so the net effect of those four initiatives although you can still carry on all your essentials for free, you will pay for a second bag that you carry on that needs to use an overhead but your total picket price won't go up. and we taught that the net would help solve the problem, reduce our gate delays, improve the customer experience for all customers, those who carry on and don't. initially when we put this out, i was going to say, the initial reaction on this focused almost uniquely on the fee and that created lot of the tension at least early on. host: that was my next point. the headlines charge $45 for

carry-on baggage and senator schumer saying your airline is nickle and diming the consumer and he wants to put legislation forth that would stop this. guest: that's right. and i was able to meet with senator schumer in his office and he is a very intelligent guy and he is a very cord yl guy to deal with. and i think his motivation here is founded in something that's legitimate. the idea that you can't charge for a carry-on on its face is a little odd to me. when it's a private industry and private company. but i think what senator schumer seems most worried about is not necessarily that spirit is doing this especially when we've had the corresponding price drop that makes the total price of the ticket not go up. but he seems concerned that the industry may broadly match this but only match the one piece of it, the fee, and not the other pieces that we put in place and

i think he is concerned that that could be detrimental to american consumers or american fliers. and so i think i understand where senator shumeser coming from, i think he understands our airline and why we're doing what we're doing. and i think we've sort of agreed not to agree at this point in terms of let's try to find a way that airlines that do the complete package that we're doing maybe can move forward where as others maybe he has some issue there. host: our conversation on this sunday morning is with the c.e.o. of spirit airlines, joining us from florida where the airline is based. our numbers are on the bottom of your screen. before we get to our first call let me ask you a story about the british newspapers. ryan air, which is a low-cost carrier in great britain and throughout europe is now looking for a way that would charge coin operated toilets,

about a british pound to use the facilities on board a plane. your reaction to that idea. guest: well, i certainly think that's an interesting thing. that announcement was made almost concurrent with our announcement on the bag fee, and they have been linked in a lot of media reports although they're very different. at spirit airlines certainly we don't believe that charging for lavetris make sense. our general view is that if something is necessary for a flight, it should be included with your base fair. but if it's truly optional that we're happy to lower our fear and then charge that as an optional fee. that's why, for example, we protect the personal item in our bag fee because we think that is essential that people can carry on medsance, reading materials, and other things, but we're willing to charge for the second bag. in case of the ryan air, they're a successful airline that has taken the idea of low

prices to levels that europeans hadn't seen before them. and the fact they're looking at this is interesting for them. i've traveled some in europe and i've seen coin operated toilets outside of airplanes in europe that you don't see in the u.s. so it's at least possible to me that the population there may see that a little differently than americans may see it. i don't think that's an idea that would fly 2349 u.s., however. host: ben, former employee with american and northwest, continental and u.s. airways, now the president and chief operating afser of spirit based in florida. one final story before we get to calls. u.s. air yeas and united talks broke down on a possible merger. why? guest: well, it's hard to say. i can't comment for either airline. i will say that most of the industry of the larger industry has been looking to consolidation as a way to improve their economic situation. airlines, big airlines have

lost a lot of money over the last couple of years. so finding ways to become more efficient and get rid of costs but keep all the revenues has been a big play. so it doesn't surprise me at all that carriers like u.s. airways, united, continental would be looking at merger situations. why specifically that particular pairing broke down yet the united continental talks seem to be going on, i don't have any background why that may be the case. host: i want to show your audience how you announced this fee for spirit airline passengers ear earlier this month. >> hi, i'm p president of spirit airlines. we're seeing customer frustration due to overcrowded bins resulting in long lines. we see this as an opportunity to lower your fair even further so that's what we've done. we've lowered our fairs, checked bag fees and introduced a carry on bag fee along with priority boarding so now when you board with your carry-on

bag you'll find space above your seat. we expect total prices to go down while speeding up security lines and the boarding process. everybody wins. had we not implemented this, there's no telling what people would try to put in an overhead bin. host: who came wup that idea? guest: wep, you mentioned it again just a few minutes ago, you said the $45 ball bag fee. i do want to point out that it's really a $30 bag fee. most people pay dels 20. and the $45 is only at the gate. and since that $45 fee became such an issue tht first 24, 48 hours, we realized we had to do something to try to refocus the debate on what the broader issue is. not just a fee to customers but as a real operational challenge and process. so we tried to think about ways

that would do it in a way that may get some attention, maybe be a little humerous but also make the point that people travelers know that overhead bins are very, very crowded today. so i think this was a combined effort by a couple in our company and we decided to record it. and it's gotten a lot of views right now. and i hope that those who view it, even if they still don't agree, they can at least respect and understand that we're trying to solve an issue bigger than just adding a fee on to a bag. host: luke joining us from moim, florida, with the c -- miami with the c.e.o. from spirit airlines. caller: this additional fee that you're putting on all the passengers, it actually is going overboard. the reason that i say that is because in some locations we have only the they have the regulation that allows you to carry one checked badge.

but this is going to be an additional fee for all those people who are going to a location where they are going one checked badge that requires you to take to that location. it's going to be like $45. and i think regulation means something. this is why congress has to regulate the airlines. you cannot let them do anything that they want. host: we'll get a response. thanks. guest: well, i think the caller is referring to the fact that on some of our routes at times of you're wee do restrict the check bag to one bag at times and i see his point. if you're resfribted to one check bag and you have to pay for the carry on that could be a real problem. we understand that point. however, i think the answer to that isn't we don't solve that problem by saying if you can only check one bag that you can bring whatever you want on board because it doesn't fit and it creates big delays. i think the bigger answer there is to find a way for customers

to check more and find a way to make sure that they can get their items that they want to take with them in some form. and we're looking at things beyond the checked bag fee that we announced to allow more and more checked badgeage especially to international destinations. the caller also mentioned the $45 fee showing how successful the bheedia has been at putting that price point out. but the fee is a $30 fee and many people pay $20. no one has to pay the $45 fee. and that's an important point. host: let me go back to a twitter question. guest: that's a good point and that's effectively what we've done. pragmatically, it's a little bit harder to do it that way. but that effectively is exactly what we've done. you will pay less if you don't carry a second bag on our

airplane. and the reason you will pay less is you will not pay that carry on bag fee and your ticket price is lower. so that is what we've done. we've lowered that price. and what it does is it gives the customer the choice. they can still carry on a bag and pay no more than they pay before but also get priority boarding, which is good for them. or, they can choose not to carry on the bag and they will get a big discount on their airplane. -- on their flight. so while it's not in the exact structure as the caller recommends, the effect of what the customer recommends is exactly what we've done. host: ken from fresno, california. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i've got a question to the c.e.o. sir, let's be honest, what is your bottom line in this arrangement? and i would like to know your projected profits or your estimated extra income from this arrangement.

could you tell us exactly what your profit would be on this one? guest: i will tell you exactly the way we're thinking about it. in terms of the number of people who fly spirit today and continue to fly us after august 1 when this becomes expected we don't expect to collect any more revenue from that group because the fees are lowor by the amount of fee. so anyone who is still carrying on will pay no more revenue and those who don't carry on will pay us less. so we expect this to be even a little negative to the customer base that is flying today. why are we doing it? there are other values. we expect to save five to seven minutes per airplane turn. a turn is the term we use when an airplane pulse up to the gate and pulse out again. let's talk about why that is so important to us. our average plane flies six

times a day. if you take five minutes times six times 30, you get over 20 hours a day of airplane time that is being lost to delays due to overhead bagage. so we believe we will be able to operate several trips a day more as a result of this. so we'll make money on those new trips. and that's how we will make money on this. also, we have a fair club or like a cost co club where customers pay $39 a year and in the past when you join that club you were able to buy low-priced tickets at certain times of the year. now a value of that will be you get discounts on your baggage charges both checked and carry on all the time. so we expect more people will join the $9 fair club as well. so our operations will improve, get more flying out of our existing airplanes, which will make money, and more people will join our $9 fair club and that's where we make money.

but the important point is that in everything i've said there's no more dollars coming out of any single person's pocket. we'll carry more people and we'll save costs on the turn. and that's why this is economically beneficial to spirit. host: how many planes to do you operate and where do you fly? guest: we operate 30 planes today. we operate the air bus a-320 family armse, which is the 319, 320, and 321. primary base of operation is at fort lauderdale. from there we fly to many destinations of the united states and about 30 international destinations including most caribbean islands, five cities in central america, five cities in south america. so we fly as far west as los angeles, and las vegas, as far north as boston, massachusetts, and new york. as far south as lima, peru. host: and this from maverick

johnsance if you've compared that with southwest and spirit. guest: we absolutely have. and southwest is a good airline that does things pretty well. but one thing they do is their ticket prices are a little higher than spirit's on average because they need to charge everyone for checked bags. what southwest does is they allow, they say bags fly free. what they really mean is bags are included as part of your ticket price. what they do with that is they let customers carry on bags and bring bags on board for no charge as well. but their ticket prices on average are higher than ours by about 20% on average and they don't give customers the choice. if you check a bag and fly southwest it's a good deal. if you don't check a bag you should ask yourself why you're paying for the infrastructure because southwest could charge you less if they didn't have to pay for that infrastructure. but they don't do that. host: wess from louisiana with

ben, the c.e.o. of spirit airlines. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm familiar with airplanes, i worked on them for about 16 years, i know what all your problems are. and have you ever thought about just charging people by the weight of their bags? guest: that's a very good question. and we have thought about charging for the weight of the bags. but in the problem we're solving here, it's not really a weight issue. it's a volume issue. we're voluming out on our overhead bins. there's not enough room. it's not the weight of the bags that's causing the delays that we're trying to address here, it's the volume and size of the bags. and so while charging for weight could be a legitimate way to sort of charge especially for checked badge, for the issue we're trying to solve here, reducing the frustrations at the gate, reducing the number of times we

have to take a bag from a customer in the jetway, it's not weight that's driving that, it's volume. host: daniel has this twitter comment. guest: well, the answer is if that back pack meets the dimensions, then it will be free and fit under the seat. if it's bigger than that, they'll need to pay our bag fee if they want to bring that on the plane. host: steve, democrat's line. good morning. you're next. caller: good morning. i was thinking that the air traveler has brought this change upon itself because, well, some air travelers are very obnoxious and they try to bring huge bags. and stuff them into an overhead bin. since we can't regulate obnoxious these guys have to change their policy to accome date everybody. host: is that what is

happening? guest: well, he makes a very rel vanity point and he said it in a way founier than what i could say it. but i think that's true. and i think there's another issue we might want to talk about here on this show, which is the fact that the transportation security administration, the tsa, runs the checkpoints for airlines and they do a very good job of that. but their mandate is to make sure that the wrong things don't get on airplanes, not necessarily that the amount of things is checked. so the tsa doesn't check the number of bags going through or the size of bags. that's not their mandate. nor am i necessarily suggesting it should be. but the result of that is that customers can bring anything through the security point as long as it passes the screen and then we end up with it at the gate and that's when we end up with the no room on the airplane for it. if you go to europe, for example, the situation is a little different. the security regulators in europe also run by federal kind

of officials, they are very rigid about the size that you can bring through the security point. so european airlines generally don't have this problem because it's taken care of at the security point. in the u.s., we don't do it that way. there's nothing wrong with that. the t.s.a. does a spectacular job of keeping people safe and that's their mandate but it ends up putting the problem at the gate at the time the airplanes are starting to take off. so the issue that your caller jist mention ds is in fact happening more and more, and that is why we've put this policy in place. host: whether it's the additional fees that we've been talking about or the security checkpoints that you've indicated now part of t.s.a. in particular since 9/11, one of the general sentiments, is it is just no fun to travel any more. what do you tell that passenger? guest: well, we say that there's certainly some truth to that, especially compared to ten, 20 years ago when it was a little easier to fly. but the other thing about 10 to

20 years ago, it was a lot more expensive to fly, too. and it's gotten cheaper to fly. flying has become something that the average consumer can afford to do fairly often. and in an airline like spirit, our average ticket prices are well under $100. people think about an airline ticket being a high ticket item. but when it's under $100 to fly, it's not different than going out to dinner once in a while in terms of the amount that you've pay. that's brought travel to a much larger universe of people who may not travel all the time but still have the opportunity to go see family once in a while, go see a ball game they'd like to see, just go visit a city they've wanted to visit. in that sense it's good. it's a trade-off. it's a little more frustrating, more crowded, there's a little more hassle but also quite affordable of and the trade-off is sort of how the industry has evolved. host: one of the e-mail questions, you touched on this earlier. but what about those traveling with very small children who

require diaper bags and toys in addition to their personal toiletries? guest: those things are by our policy excluded and you need to bring them on board. we love families on spirit airlines and we would love to see you with your child and the thing that is child needs on board. and this is a policy about charging for the large, 22, 24 inch roller bags that only fit in the overhead bin and that's what it's all aimed at. it's not aimed at keeping kids off the airplane. host: how did your business model compare to say airplanes jetblue versus u.s. airways and united? guest: well, our business model is somewhat unique in the north america, the most zpare rabble airline to us probably in terms is ryan air who you mentioned earlier or an airline in asia called air asia. jetblue and air tran are largely product-based airlines. what i mean by that is they say a product vision to their customers.

jetblue sells lots of leg room, 36 channels of tv. i'm not here to do a jetblue commercial but we know what they say is important about flying jetblue. air tran has a business class cabin, serves business markets. i don't know a lot of people who are flying between atlanta and flit, michigan for vacation. some do but not a lot. they serve a business set of markets and a business client tele. they have a business class cabin to try to make that happen. try to drive some of that revenue. and at spirit, we're neither of those things. we're happy to get business travelers but we don't spend to money to attract business travelers. between south florida and new york we're high frequency. we don't have a business class cabin. we don't have a lounge in the airport. we don't provide special check in if you pay a certain amount on your ticket. we don't have a -- we have a frequent flier program but not one that gets you an upgrade

into a nicer seat or free trips to hawaii. so for all those reasons what we are is we're a price-based airline. air tran, jetblue, and the legacy airlines, the united, delta, continental of the world, they all sell a product vision and try to get people to pay more because they want that product. that's great. and consumers, american consumers are better off because they have those options. but at spirit we sell price. we try to push the lowest price possible to make the trip from a to b. and then we add on additional services that are optional that you can buy. again, if you want to go back to this bag fee, we're not telling you you can't bring things you must have with you on board. you still can and they're all free. but if you want to bring the big roller bag that has to go into the overhead bin, we're going to make that an optional piece and lower the fair so that you can make that decision as to whether you still want to do it or not. and there's no other airline in

the u.s. that we see that is as i guess as pure, if you want to say that, about focusing all our business on making sure you get on the airplane for the lowest price possible. lots of airlines sell low fares, most of them aren't nearly as low as our fares. but they sell low fares as a way to phil seats after they've gouged customers for whom they can charge more because they're selling a product or they're selling a service in terms of high frequency. . .

for the same reason u.s. airways can't fly from los angeles to boston, we cannot. spirit airlines can't fly from dublin to london, either. host: a headline from "usa today" described you as "cheap, and proud of it." do you agree? guest: i like that, and i agree with that. we spend all our time thinking how to make the fares lower.

we think about, how do we get people on the plane for free, if we can. we are proud of that. we are proud that we can give a low-fare option to people who previously did not have that option. previously, the only option was a high-fare airline. today, they have that option to fly to jamaica for $49. when customers have the choice, they are better off than if everyone has only one option. host: our guest is a graduate of syracuse university.

caller: you mentioned the issue being the volume of baggage. i want to address why that is. i've come to the understanding that a lot of baggage gets lost. people have carryons, laptops, cameras, things like that, and they feel, hey, i don't want to get stranded without a change of underwear, i should bring other clothes. in the industry overall, 5,000 bags are lost a week, a high number. that pressures people to carry on bags. people feel they have to, because they don't want to get stranded without invaluable personal items.

host: and to add to that, the liquid you carry on. guest: he's right on a couple of points. but that's why we've lowered fares at the same time we aded the fee. so if you're a person who feels it important to carry a large amount of items onboard because you worry it might be lost or damaged, your trip price still is not going to be any more. most of the time baggage is lost or mishandled is when a

customer is connected. backs have to be taken out of the plane, taken to another plane, and that is fraught with issues. connecting bags is where most of the mishandled or lost bags happen. our ratio of lost bags is lower than the rest of the industry by a large amount. not a lot of bags are lost. there are lost -- lots of reasons people carry-on bags, legitimate reasons that do not change the fact that too many are being brought onboard,

causing serious delays. these policies we have put in place are meant to address that without increasing costs. host: are you traded on the nasdaq or nyse? guest: we are a private company right now. we are owned by private investors right now. host: san juan, puerto rico. caller: i was a flight attendant for many years, and i applaud your idea.

you should push a rule for one roller bag, that's it, as an faa requirement. when i went to europe, half of the over bins were empty. european passengers take only one bag. but the carribean or central america, the old 737 would be overweight. so i would like to see this as a requirement for all airlines. thank you. host: thank you. guest: flight attendants are supportive of what we are doing. they are injured by bags, helping people with them and so

on. so we expect this to make things safer. the idea of restricting to one roller bag makes some sense. we tend to like the idea where we give customers the choice, to decide what they use, pay for what they use. you can pay for services you like, but you do not pay for them if you do not use them. host: what is the average salary?

guest: first officers make about $55,000 a year, captains make about $100,000 a year. host: caller, go ahead. caller: [inaudible] a profit for the airline in the way that income is recorded in bag fees versus flight fees, and the way it's recorded and passed is at two different levels as a result, showing a different flight income, and bag fees are at a different rate. it is all about the profit.

i'd like to hear the comments, please. guest: there's an excise tax charged to customers on tickets they buy. money from the ticket goes to the f.a.a. and others. that tax today does not apply to baggage fees and other fees. in spirit's case, since we're not raising the ticket price per passenger in total, that's not the motivating factor. spirit started charging from checked bags in 2007. most of the industry matched

the fees in 2008, but they tacked them on to very high fares. that is different from what we have done. the fact that there is a tax applied to the baggage fees is not a motivating factor. one of senator schumer's arguments is that fee should be taxed, and that seems to be what he's focused on. and while that may change the views of others, it won't change stewart's view of what we're going to do. host: good morning.

caller: because more women are flying these days, would it be possible to have one bathroom marked "ladies only." host: thank you. guest: that's an interesting idea. we have two bathrooms. we hadn't thought about that before. our view is, let's keep the bathrooms clean and available. interesting. we'll have to think about that. host: where do you see spirit airlines expanding? guest: we look to expand in places where we can offer a low- fare option to customers who do

not have one. that is where our mandate is best-applied. when there are a lot of options, spirit jumping in isn't adding as much new as much. from the u.s. into closer foreign markets, latin america, and canada, you find in many cases the only option is a high fare and full-service airline. that's great, but they need an option. imagine if you moved to a city and there were only ruths chris and morton's. you might welcome a mcdonalds there. host: are there lessons for you

in trying to get the message to the media? guest: i think so. we're lowering fares, running a carryon bag fee, and we talked a lot about the priority bord -- boarding. the fee is on page two of our press release, and only in the situation where there is a transaction. i think we will think more about how we pitched it initially and what the media wants to jump on. if there is a fee, it's $45.

a lot of time has been clarifying the message to mean the bag overhead. but initially, we face the reality. host: how do you get it inside the compartment? guest: i just waltzed into it. the bin holds about 275 pounds, and i weigh a little less than that. it was legal. they are pretty big, actually. host: thanks for joining us here on c-span. we appreciate you coming. we'll turn our attention in a

moment to the issue of childhood obesity. one winner on the issue also prompted c-span to work with the first lady's office as she hosted a discussion on the issue at the white house. first, a look at other issues and guests dominating this sunday morning. >> the economy, immigration, midterm elections, and financial reform. we'll cover the senate tomorrow for a key vote. "meet the press" guests include christopher dodd and richard shelby. on "this week," jake tapper will talk with austin goolsby, and

sherrod brown from ohio and tennessee republican bob corker. "fox news sunday" guests include mitch mcconnell and the cochairs of the commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. on "state of the union," saxby chambliss and robert menendez. listen to all five talk shows startnig at noon eastern on c- span radio, nationwide on xm satellite radio, channel 132. follow us on facebook and

twitter. >> one thing i want to say is the solution has to come from the bottom up. the government can't be in the position of telling people to do things in their homes. that doesn't work. it will require all of us working together. the government, business leaders, students, everyone has to come together. when we think about the federal government when it comes to school lunches, the child lunch

reauthorization act is one way the government supports, and we hope to get more money put into implementing that act so we change the food you get in your lunches, that the quality of food goes up, because a large percentage of kids in the country are getting half of their meals at school. >> matthew, you chose an issue important to michelle obama and got to ans -- ask her a question. what was that like? >> it was neat.

i'm glad we got to talk about childhood obesity. it was a good time. i did not know much about obesity before i did it, but i did a lot of research. >> what triggered your interest in it? >> i decided on the issue after i saw that kids were not getting lunch and exercise on friday in my state, and that could lead to obesity. >> did you know the first lady was interested? >> i chose it in october, before she did. >> did anything surprise you about the issue when you started

looking into it? >> there are so many layers and factors to the program, so it's difficult to figure out what made it a problem. people's patterns, and not only that but on a personal level, people not getting enough exercise, not eating healthy, but on a social level, people not getting enough nutrition or exercise in school. >> which is the biggest challenge for people? >> the biggest challenge is breaking habits. they have been doing it a long time.

it's something they are used to, and it can be tough to break. >> do you think enough people know about this issue? >> more people know about it now than before, but it still needs to be advertised to the general public. >> how should that be done? >> maybe by having more announcements or things in schools that talk more about it. >> do you talk to your fridns about the issue? >> yes. it's like a chain reaction effect. i talk to them about what obesity is, because they don't know, and why it's bad, things like that. >> one issue that came up was

the word obesity. it's a big word. do you use other words? >> i think childhood obesity is a good term for that. obesity -- i think it is clear for most. >> since you won the competition for our prize, have you stayed active in the issue? what are you doing about it? >> i have told my friends about it, and my video has spread the word. people -- all my teachers know about childhood obesity and are doing things to help. the fit kids act was passed by

the house. >> what are people telling you about your video? what sorts of things are they doing? >> they are becoming more incorporated in childhood obesity. the home economic and outdoor education teachers are involved. >> how old are you now? >> 13. >> in 20 years, where do you see this issue? >> i think it will take a long time, because people have to break their habits. >> you were asked to find various points of view on this

issue. was this easy or hard to do? what are different points of view in the video? >> it wasn't a controversy. everyone believes it is an issue, but there are many layers to the problem, so i found that complicated to do. >> what about the government being involved in telling people what to eat? what did you find out about those issues? >> i think the government should put regulations on food so people know how many calories are in it and people can make better food decisions. >> other kids your age, tell them how you went about doing

this. >> i started doing research about childhood obesity, i wrote my script for it and put it in postproduction. i used a sony camera. >> was it hard to do? how long did it take you? >> i started in october around halloween and then worked every weekend and christmas break until martin luther king day. >> was any aspect hard for you? >> the research. i am not that good a writer, and there are many things i could

choose from. my mom drove me around, which is nice of her, and i want to thank my doctor for letting me interview him. he informed me about different medical problems that childhood obesity causes prematurely. >> will you do another video? >> yes. i hope to do more in the future. maybe on science or the environment. >> what about science? >> recycling, things like that. i hope to enter a science competition for that next year.

>> will you enter the studentcam competition again? >> i hope to. >> what are you going to do with the money? >> saving for college. we are just putting it in the bank. i would like to go somewhere good, like stanford. i will probably study filmmaking. i want to be a documentary filmmaker. >> thank you for your time. >> "washington journal" continues. host: guewe are joined by our guest, laura hayman. thank you for being with us.

four of ten americans will be obese. you can see the increase. among preschool aged children, 5% to 12%, and between 6 and 11, 4% to 17%. as we move to adolescents, an increase from 6% to almost 18%. what these numbers tell you? guest: patterns and trends like this do not augur well for the help of children out and in the future. i would like to congratulate map to on his award winning video which really addresses the issue on a societal level.

host: one issue from the town hall meeting that took place in the state dining room at the white house was, where are the changes or to come from? >> how do you think the government can improve nutrition in the schools? >> i think first of all, one thing i just want to say is the solution to this challenge has to come from the bottom of. but government cannot be in the position of telling people what to do in their own homes. that generally does not work. it will require all of us working together, the federal government, business leaders,

food manufacturers, farmers, students, everyone has to come together. when you think about the federal government when it comes to school lunches, the child nutrition reauthorization act is one of the ways the government supports school lunches, and one of the things we're trying to get done is to get more money put into implementing that act so we change the food you all get in your lunches so there are more fruits and vegetables in it, the quality of the food goes up. a larger percentage of kids in this country are getting half of their meals at school.

>> joining me, a discussion of whether we need to demonize soft drinks. guest: i agree with michelle that we need a multifaceted, multipronged approach. schools are in critically important positions, and i contr -- could curb with what the administration is requesting in the investment of $10 billion over the next 10 years, starting in 2011, to improve nutrition in the schools. host: a quote from david

kessler, who says the administration has been pitched- perfect in its message, and the leadership seems determined to address the issue of obesity. agree or disagree? that this country is determined, that the government is determined to fight obesity. guest: i totally agree. pending legislation is designed to address this major public health challenge. host: let's get to your phone calls. mildred from rochester, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for the program. i am older, and i had the advantage of not a lot of addit ives in my food growing up. my friends and i enjoy good health. i find some problems with the labeling of additives in food. when they put additives so callous would give more milk, we started seeing people more heavy. why don't they leave our food alone? why can't i get eight," with the bone?

they take all of the bones out of meat and make broth to sell. the bones add flavor. there is no flavor and york. there is no flavor in the food. guest: we need to increase transparency of food labeling. host: one in seven low income preschool children is obese. chicago, good morning.

caller: [inaudible] i applaud you -- hello? i disagree with the show. i am glad that she addressed it from the lower level, but it is a corporation problem. i encourage everyone to see this documentary "food, inc." it also goes along with illegal labor. you have kids now with low self- esteem, being obese is a label, so we have to be careful. perdue could get away with things because these corporations -- monsanto. o mike chard.

you can support farmers' markets. you can shop for good food. even if you are poor, you can make a choice. host: thank you for the call. guest: part of michelle obama's campaign is to empower families to make wiser choices and be better consumers, and i think with the increased public awareness and awareness at all levels, i am very optimistic we will see changes in food availability in terms of health foods that will prevent an mitigate this obesity epidemic. caller: i agree with the

assessment. i'm 54 years old. i agree that [inaudible] and i saw a commercial where they were saying that corn was filled with syrup and sugar and calories, but people do not understand that high fructose corn syrup is in almost everything we eat. i would like to know what you think about that. thank you.

guest: thank you. we would totally agree, added sugar at a calories to our foods, and initiatives are in place to decrease sodium in foods. caller: until you go in and evaluate these lunches, it is hard to speak on them. every morning at breakfast i'm sitting and seeing five fruits and vegetables. unseeing wheat toast, i am seeing vegetables. i'm seeing sliced turkey, and all of the fruits and vegetables

are there. until you evaluate, it is part to speak on it. i am thinking that maybe until they do that, they will never know. host: we received over 1000 documentary entries. you can watch the winners on our website, the 2010 studentcam contest. brian from florida, your next. good morning to you.

caller: my only question is if you think there are certain preservatives causing this problem? guest: patterns of intake and activity are influenced by the internment, the community, opportunity to exercise and access to help the food and the policies that includes all of but at multiple levels. so to reduce it to one cause

would be an error. it is multifaceted, and many initiatives in place, across organizations, they are for repairs on this multifaceted challenge. host: our guest is a director of research. under in america, americans do not have enough money to put food on the table and rely on school lunch programs. guest: absolutely. over 30 million children participate in school lunches and over 11 million in the breakfast program. i think it increased money to bet -- vat to support -- that to

support nutrition, that would be a good way to address that. host: go ahead, boston. caller: i think child of the city -- childhood obesity is not the problem. it is policies like -- be implemented policies, they put in aspartame, lithium and

flouride in the water. this is the problem i see. monsanto and people like that are hiding the unsafe results. the food affects your kidneys and your lungs. host: would you attribute the increase in obesity as a result of the additives in food products? is it the food we're eating, and lack of exercise, or other factors? >> it is a combination of those and other factors.

elementary school children should have 150 minutes of practice as a week, dietary increases, consumption of fat food in higher caloric density, more meals eaten outside the home and apartment. it is multifaceted, and we need a systems approach.

>> we planted at the white house kitchen garden a year ago to start a conversation with young people about food options. maybe they would get more engaged in fruits and vegetables. and what we've found is working with those kids, they would be excited about it and eat it. they would not only change their own habits, but it would go home and tell their parents. what i told them what to leave, they were monitoring the way more than i was monitoring them.

they started making help the choices for themselves, and when i wanted to cheat, they pulled me back. so my hope is young people run the country will take that interested in tehran health. -- in their own health. we do not want kids to lead it shorter lives than we do. >> eric is next. good morning. caller: can you hear me? i to understand the food component, but if you are going to get a percentage, what would

you estimate but is, and why do we not hear more about sedentary lifestyles? guest: obesity results from an imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure. in my rule as a research director at gokids boston, we promote physical activity as part of the center designed to help children become healthy adults, and by engaging children physical activity, they've really enjoy and appreciate and want to be more physically

active. muscle and bone strategies have been promulgated, and we're trying to increase that message on how important physical activity is for longevity and help, for consumers, providers on multiple levels, but it is equally as important as dietary intake. host: laura hayman is associate dean of research at umass. democrats line, good morning.

caller: good morning. i was outraged last week by the discussion of how the military is concerned, that they were starting to concern themselves about the nutrition of kids from the perspective of having soldiers. host: is that an issue? guest: i understand about 27% could not qualify because of obesity. we know that overweight and obesity is a major risk factor for heart disease as well as other conditions and associated with elevated blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.. it is an issue. it argues for what you need,

population approaches. a corporate and tailoring to our dippers populations. -- appropriate and tailored to our diverse population. host: the film from the week, maryland. independent line. caller: i have worked in sports professionally before.

i have come up with a product, [inaudible] i invite you to take a look at it at www. [inaudible] the key is to start out the day, get your kids out and active, and perhaps that can make a difference. host: is that feasible? guest: it could be. physically active children have better learning outcomes and performance.

host: battle. , michigan. were kellogg his front, by the way. -- where kellogg is from, by the way. sweet cereal. caller: absolutely. there is movement to cut the amount of sugar, absolutely. by being able to be informed consumers, we would be able to

determine bettered the sugar content of the serial. go ahead. caller: i am a former nutrition teacher. i used to teach home economics. it all started in 1961. at the time i ended my career, our problem is they are not getting the food value they are paying for. i do everything from scratch.

i feel it is a lack of education that people do not know what is good for them. guest: our guideline support fruit and vegetables, low-fat dairy, with the content of those. host: good morning.

caller: we need to learn about the basic food groups. today, they do not have it. host: a response to that statem ent? guest: date eat breakfast, then they go to school and each breakfast? host: like we heard from michelle obama, the lack of recess and physical activity today in school. guest: yes, that is a major contributor