job growth in the u.s. economy. later, the nuclear energy institute will talk about nuclear energy with their studentcam grand prize winners. this is "washington journal." . .

i want to get your reaction to the floor vote in the senate. and here is the headline in "the wall street journal" today. finance bill hit an impasse.

this debate behind closed doors where financial industry lobbyist and watered-down reform or kill it altogether." before we go to calls, one more graphic. both sides are spoiling for a fight over this bill. democrats say they will use the

votes -- republican said there will now be able to win concessions. chalk on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i make of the senate voted pretty much the same thing that has really been going on in washington in the last years. lots of stalls, a lot of posturing, not really looking out for the good of the american people, and my opinion. also looking out for wall street. as you know, we have 100 + days to the november elections and i think a lot is riding on it. i believe the stalling, posturing, behind the door -- backed ordeals are just really trying to pull voters to one

side versus the other side. host: all that being said, what should be next? caller: i believe they should pass the financial reforms for the betterment of the people. in a household when you have a certain amount of income coming in, and you put the money on a table in a metaphorical way and you decide what needs to be done. we really should come together as democrats and republicans and independent's and figure out how we will lower the debt, how we will better this particular country. this is really, in my opinion, a lot of posturing and a lot of politics and the american people, the good american people who work every single day, those who are unemployed in trying to get back to work are hurting. host: that was struck from the your city. now let us get to the republican

line. caller: did you read the article from the washington post this morning? host: we have a it in our staff and we will get to it. something you saw there? caller: the reality of the vote yesterday was that it was a bipartisan vote and i believe the coverage in the post calls ben nelson a defector. host: what do you think about that? caller: i think the bipartisanship is to get it right. host: let us get to the ben nelson part of it. he is in several papers. next in our stack. but "the wall street journal" points out that before monday's vote, democrats agreed to kill a provision from a derivatives portion that would have helped warren buffett's berkshire hathaway avoid a big financial hit. they write --

we have philadelphia, mississippi, on the independent line. good morning. caller: it is just a matter of both sides being too cozy money- wise. earlier you mentioned $30 million over the past 10 years. but until we get the lobbyists and the money men out of this -- the main street people have a voice, this will never change. thank you. host: chicago, mary, line for democrats. caller: you read from "the wall

street journal." that is the rupert murdoch paper. he is the main one pushing hatred and vitriol. when people say both parties do the same thing. all you have to do is go to senate.gov, you will find of the vote on repealing glass- steagall, republicans owned the house of the senate and clinton was president and you had 45 democrats in the senate and 44 of them voted no, the one that voted yes was hollings, a conservative from south carolina. all republicans voted to repeal the last-steagall. -- glass-steagall. host: the front page from "the philadelphia inquirer." they write that republicans did

in 9 did the democrats say time and the public are on their side. and if you go and "the washington post" today, here is their lead. votes lacking to start debate. one democrat defected -- talk about ben nelson. negotiations continue. one of the takes from "the washington post" is one of their own polls and they write that about two-thirds of americans support stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their businesses. this is from a post/abc poll. citing their own pole in the lead to the story. lorraine, republican, good morning. caller: good morning.

i think that they have to further negotiate more to change some of those things that the majority of people are against. host: like what? caller: like, they cannot become like a socialist company by owning everything -- for anyone to invest than any institutions. that is not right, either. ed, let us hear from ithaca, new york, independent color. what do you think of the senate vote? caller: i think it is crazy republicans can continue to pretend they are on the people side when they continued to block legislation people want. people wanted health care and people wanted a financial reform and they keep blocking this stuff and pretending they are on the people's side. like the previous caller, seem to think we are heading toward

a socialist path which is the most absurd, like the people who think obama is not a citizen. enough is enough. host: some of the names and "the washington post" piece. they say the democrats say they have about half a dozen gop lawmakers open to switching their votes, including senator olympia snowe and susan collins of maine, senator scott brown of massachusetts and senator chuck grassley of iowa. they talk about mr. grassley, a conservative facing reelection in november, surprised colleagues recently supporting strict new rules for derivatives. santa rosa, california, elizabeth, democratic live. hi, there. caller: ideally think that there should be -- i really think there should be something to protect common people from fraud on wall street.

it still would you think of the debate in the senate and they voted to stall the bill and not move forward on this? caller: i think it is lousy. host: anything else? caller: i really think that there should be -- i really think that there should be a step -- i really think that there should be some regulation protecting -- i think there should be some regulation to protect the public from bank fraud. host: thank you, elizabeth from california. a lot of time for your calls in the next half hour or so. but we want to learn more about the president's commission on debt. a bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility and a reformed. they what do you will hold their first meeting today, they will cover it. stephen from mcclatchy newspapers is reporting on it.

white house correspondent. explain for us how the commission was formed and what is its mission or job at this point? guest: first of all, it is 18 members. i think he said five. it is formed by the present by executive order. there were proposals by congress to create a bipartisan commission and it cannot get it through congress which is evidence and case #11 a need an independent commission to settle these questions about the case number 1 that you need an independent commission did the president appointed six, democratic leaders 0.6 and republicans appointed six. their charge, the president asked them to come up with recommendations to cut the budget deficit. in particular, to cut it to a target of 3% of the total economy by year 2015. his own budget has not done that. he has not been willing to propose that himself. his proposed tough -- budget would bring the deficit down to

4% of gdp by 2014 but by his own projections it would rise again immediately after that. he asked this group to take kind of the political heavy lifting here and come up with ideas on cutting spending, raising taxes, or other things, to bring the deficit back down from its sky- high heights right now. host: look beyond that phrase, everything is on the table, and explain specifically, if you can, realistically what items might they recommend and might it passed as a way of reducing the deficit? guest: that is a very good question, paul. i rode over the weekend in our papers and i continue to believe this morning that the prospects of their success are slim. under the rules of the commission set up by the president, they have to have 14 out 18 votes to recommend any one thing. that is the way of assuring they have a bipartisan proposal to take to congress. i think 14 out of 18 votes for

any tax increase on one side is virtually impossible. republicans go into the meeting this morning with a statement late last night saying we are absolutely against any tax increases. we think the president is using this whole commission as a political cover to push through tax increases. and on the spending side, we just saw recently in congress, they could not come up with a $9 billion in spending cuts to offset or help finance some of unemployment benefits and it tied congress and not. if they could not come up with a $9 billion, i can't imagine how they could come up with hundreds of billions of dollars. host: let us keep you on the line for a second because we spoke to congressman jerry lewis in our newsmakers program over the weekend. here is what he had to say. >> i think the commission -- input from the commission might be interesting, but it is absolutely a mechanism for legislators and politicians to

avoid their responsibilities. it is our job. that is why we are elected, to deal with the people's treasury and only spend their money after careful thought. to have the commission take over the response ability is irresponsible, in my judgment. and most importantly, it is a political tool as opposed to a real tool. host: jerry lewis saying it is interesting, but it is a way to avoid responsibility. give us more of your take on that line. guest: two quick thoughts. he said he can have the commission takeover. the commission would not take over but in the end it would make recommendations that congress would have to vote on and the president would have to sign into law. it kind of cut out the middleman. he said it is a political operation. of course, purely a political operation. they don't need this commission to run the numbers. there have been countless commissions and groups in washington doing nothing but

coming up with ideas on how to cut the deficit and pointing out how bad the deficit is for the long term economy. there was a good in-depth study by the national academy of public administration of the national research council, they put out a book, it is terrific. you will hear a lot of the people from that report talking to the commission today and in the coming weeks. so, none of the ideas is the new. the idea is politics. how do you forge a consensus around any one of these ideas. host: how about the rest of the work of this commission? beyond the opening sessions, what happens between now and december? guest: they will meet monthly. after today, of course, opening statements from ben bernanke, chairman from federal reserve, peter orszag, director of the white office of management and budget, and then two former congressional budget office director, rudy penner and robert reixschauer, they will lay out

why budgets are bad and a long- term threat to the economy and was something must be done. then statements from members of the commission. today is just laying down the markets. in future weeks and months they will start breaking it down issue by issue. first, they will look at taxes. a big question about a value added tax. the president specifically refused to rule without. of course, they refused to rule out anything -- the president's goal -- if you rule out something they cannot do the job. but there will be a lot of debate and drama about a value added tax. then a lot of tax increases -- such as social security, that will be discussed. and different meetings talking about different spending cuts. longer-term things like social security and medicare which are really the biggest problem in the budget. host: before we let you go, what

other specific items is congress going to pursue in the weeks and months ahead on the debt, deficit, budget? what should we look out for? host: they have not passed a budget resolution for this year. senate democrats in the budget committee have passed their version of a budget resolution. kent conrad pushed it through. it will pass on a very close party-line vote. what is interesting is can't conrad did in the budget what the president has been unwilling or unable to do himself. he proposed a deeper cut to the deficit that would go faster and deeper than what the president targeted for the commission. if he can hold democratic votes in the senate -- that is far from certain -- you could see the senate get ahead of the commission. host: thanks for the inside of the commission and the economy in general. appreciate your time this morning. guest: my pleasure. host: back to your calls on the financial regulations vote in the senate.

they failed to advance the bill. it was 57-41. a couple of headlines. "the wall street journal" says the finance bill heads an impasse appeared to the right of the headline, "the washington post" at 9 says financial overhaul blocked by gop. both sides, though, think it will move forward in some four. we will see exactly how. chris is from river 10, wyoming. independent color. fans for being patient. -- independent colubrid thanks for being patient. caller: i think financial reform is an absolute must in this country but it is a big battle. it will be a big struggle to get anything passed because our government since the reagan years particularly with deregulation has set the path for american corporations to basically ruled the country. so, our representatives who are

supposed to protect us with this sort of behavior have actually become participants. i am sure numerous of them have become very rich from all of this. well, who wants to see the candy store closed? i really hope that obama can get financial reform back on track because the country desperately needs it. host: let us go to larry from towson, maryland, outside baltimore. democrat 9. caller: i think what the democrats really need to do is let the republicans go ahead and filibuster. to go on record about financial reform. it will show just how much they are the main culprit in whole situation -- the financial situation.

they sat on our hands and did nothing for eight years, there was no oversight of any of our regulatory facilities in our government for that whole eight years of the bush administration causing our economy to go into a spiral. no oversight. the only oversight they did in the whole time they were there was oversight on the baseball players and make sure they were not using steroids which was a total waste of public funds for congress to get involved in baseball. host: that was larry from towson, maryland. reminded that twitter.com/cspan- wj. here is one message.

some more of the names from "the washington post" step. olympia snowe had two main concerns, including a proposed $50 -- $50 billion fund to be used in liquidating distressed financial firms and restrictions on community banks that engage in certain types of small business lending. from "the washington post." cincinnati, lewis, republican

caller. caller: i have been a republican for 30 years and all i can say now as i did not think i'm any more. i am totally disgusted with the position on the bill and just the silly things that are said in the media, assuming people don't watch c-span or read, i don't have any hope that the senate can get anything done this year and it infuriates me. i think it is time for people to vote with their feet and head for the credit unions and by their stocks, companies themselves. cut the big financial institutions out altogether. host: danny, independent caller from va. caller: thank you for having me. the financial reform package and that the senate is trying to

pass, i think they are missing the basic problem that existed in our financial collapse before and that is the fannie mae /freddie mac allowing people to borrow money on homes that they knew the people could not afford. of course, these mortgages had to be sold to a bigger corp., they had to do something with them. the main thing is, right now we are in a very bad situation with the economy and i do not think we need to initiate another agency of the government that has failed in the past -- of course, sec has regulations but they were too busy watching pornographic stuff on their computer than for excellence looking out for the people. they need to spend more time -- coming up with regulations to protect but rather than rush something through like they seem

to be trying to do. host: moving from virginia to tennessee. bien that, at democratic blue line. the -- glenda, democratic line. caller: plenty of the things people are addressed will be addressed and amendments to the bill. senator sherrod brown from ohio is planning to address that with an amendment. and then the caller who just called then, he talked about fannie and freddie, that is going to be addressed separately following enactment of this bill if it gets enacted and then also in the bill to be addressed in the amendment, if it is not in the bill itself, which i have not read, is a limit and the amount of interest that can be charged on credit cards, surcharges, limiting it to a

15%. host: what affect will all of that have? caller: that will have a wonderful effect on consumers. so, all in all, it seems like a big plus. host: this story is the off lead in "the new york times." two parties began on bill to shape financial system. d of the blocks early bid, fight over the economy with midterm votes clearly in play. this piece goes this way in part --

windgate, texas, julie, republican but how about the senate vote? caller: actually i'm real proud of global economists -- i am proud of oversight on the red cross. to pull us through the recession. over fort -- red cross and is in that. and our military. i think they have done a real good job and a lot of them have

pulled together and it took that to get through this. host: new brunswick, new jersey, sylvia, independent caller. an impasse, writes one of the headlines. what you think of that, sylvia? caller: i think republicans and all of the people need to be fired, the regulators need to be fired because if we don't do our job well, we are all fired. host:anne from pembroke pines, south florida. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling because i'm so frustrated, when you have and they say that the major reason why the bill was blocked yesterday is because of fannie and freddie and fannie and freddie was not addressed in the bill. what people tend to for gatt is the right blames the financial collapse before get is the right

blames the financial collapse on fannie and freddie but the banks erode the loans, they are responsible to make sure that they got their i's and cross thier t's. fannie and freddie only guaranteed the loans. it is clear from what happened wall street that these banks have a vested interest in not dotting the eyes and crossing the t's. they were pushing people in homes. i know, because i live in south florida. i do get people knocking on my door trying to get me to refinance. when i purchased my home 20 years ago the t's were crossed and the i's were dotted. the bank representatives knocking on a door begging me to either sell my house or get me to refinance.

host: input from anne from florida. if you take a look at "the washington times calls " from page you will see the story -- filibuster, they call it, stahl's finance reform bill. if the camera can pan down a little bit, they focus this morning as well on the so-called bailout. they write that treasury has profited from big bank bailouts. that is the headline. to the left is a chart that the title bailout balloons and there is a lot here, but it is illustrative in the eyes of "the times."

and they go on and on and on. they point out the big wall street banks got blamed but they mostly repaid their funds without dividends. that is the point they are making. we could keep the camera on this for a second or two as we take a call from cleveland, tom on the republican line. caller: i am registered as a republican but i will vote either way depending on the candidate. you know, it seems to me that people look at this is to weaken as democrats versus republicans, and as you said it earlier, there is a lot of anti-incumbent sentiment out there. i am one of those people. it seems to me that as we look at these issues we go from democrat to republican and back

and forth and all that really changes is the issues. the way things get done remains of the same. it is along party loans. it has a lot to do with big money. it has very little to do with the interest of the common person in this country. i think it is time for a change. the only way we can make it clear to everyone is to -- i like to say, both incumbents out, all of them. if you let them know that their job is in jeopardy, just like ours -- when we screwup, with those are jobs and when they screw up, they should lose theirs. host: front-page news, as you could imagine. pittsburgh post-gazette -- finance bill stalling in senate. gop members seek to gain more sessions on regulatory bid. denver post from page. republicans say they want a better measure, a deal is expected. and if you look at the front page of "the orange county register" in california,

financial overcall -- overhaul bill hits gop wall, they write. austin, texas, jerry, independent. what do you make of the senate mode and the impasse? caller: the same old same old. it does not matter -- democrats and republicans did they vote to throw money away. they are incompetent and you just have to throw it out. instead of just saying it, go libertarian. i have been voting libertarian sent to george one, and it is up unbelievable people both democrats and republicans. host: what do libertarian's bring to the table in terms of the debt, deficit, financial regulation? caller: first of all, there would not have been this tarp thing and the bailout. free markets work with success and failure, and as i sit here

on my couch watching tv saying the country is over when this tarp thing passed. it is inconceivable bailing out general motors. inconceivable. and both of the republicans and democrats did it. maybe the democrats worse than the republican. host: the front page of "the hill" newspaper. they have a picture of senator shelby and chris dodd who will run the finance committee, banking committee of the senate. senator ben nelson joins republicans. here is the front page of "the politico." one down but many votes to go in a reform, they write.

i want to point out we will cover on c-span3 all day today the goldman sachs executives that will testify before the subcommittee on investigations. it starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. it will be live on c-span3, and also c-span.org and c-span radio. mr. blank find -- blankfein speaks at the back end. it states the vote could come as early as tuesday and wednesday, say democratic aides and it will keep voting until the peel off one or two moderate republicans who did not want to take a pee are hit in blocking the reform bill. but minority leader mitch mcconnell has promised to hold his members together against the democratic bill, and he

succeeded monday, blocking a democratic effort to open debate on the bill. massachusetts, norman, a democrat. thank you for waiting. caller: i am democrat unlike the previous two colors, but i have to agree with them on both parties being inept and dishonest. democrats, 100% have cooperated with republicans to put up this false front of a filibuster. a filibuster is not part of the constitution -- when rockefeller, the brief time when he was there he changed it twice, that no one could filibuster court nominees like john paul stevens, and as he was leaving office he changed it again so that they would be able to filibuster carter's nominees but in the eyes president can change at any time. for democrats to complain about filibuster's, they are not telling the truth. joe biden could change any time

he wants to. host: topeka, kansas. dawn of the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to mention -- i keep hearing all of the blame and i agree with the past three callers, blame it on both sides. but i want to mention republicans were sounding a warning on a financial meltdown with fannie mae and freddie mac back in 2001 and 2004 and everytime it was brought up, even by president bush, -- it was thrown down that they were trying to stop helping less fortunate people. another thing about fannie mae and freddie mac is, what about franklin raines and jamie gorlick, those two were in there running the operation during all of this stuff that were going

on and the cookbooks and got these huge bonuses. also, we need to look at, you know, both parties do take tons of money from those on wall street bankers. and the democrats did take more money. so, you know, it is just aggravating that people just don't look at all of the facts. i blame both sides. but i just think that it is just a big game they are all playing up there. it just gets frustrating because no one is really looking at what truly caused the meltdown and i do think it started with fannie mae and freddie mac, and why that should not be in the old original bill and be taken care of the amendment is just ridiculous. host: viewpoints from dawn, and you can continue to watch a discussion on this on c-span2. not formally on the bill -- at least not yet. we may see another tried today or later in the week. here is a twitter message.

if you look at the business section of "the new york times." the talk about mars, the maker of m&m's and sneakers -- snickers.

this is according to an analysis of lobbying records by "the new york times." carroll county, maryland, bob, you are on the line for independents. caller: the root causes of this thing are just the sorely ignored. to start with, glass-steagall having been repealed allowed a lot of the money to flow into these things. separately, the community reinvestment act laid the groundwork for this. thirdly, nobody has to fall on the sword when they make a mistake because somebody is going to be there to bail them out. i believe if you are going to have a free enterprise system, it means you have to be free to lose your money. and then someone would pick up the ruins of those assets and learn to run them in efficiently. as long as we have this red mess, this casino atmosphere,

and knowing the american people will bail out whoever fails, you are never going to -- right now it is all for political gain. i don't see the american people represented in all of this. host: tim is on the line for democrats from davenport, iowa. what is the viewpoint from middle america? caller: thank you for taking my calls. i would like to say how outraged i am seeing this stalled. this should have been taken care of long ago. we have seen this coming, the fed will reserve was putting in billions into the stock market to keep the federal reserve was putting in billions into the stock market -- the federal reserve was putting billions into the stock market to keep it afloat. i hope the american people wake up and realize the people who are supporting these tea party is and so forth, start looking

at the fact and the people forming these parties and what is behind them and what they are really supporting. host: to that caller in iowa and everyone else, the president will be in iowa today, several stops, including a main street for, what they are calling it. he will toward an energy facility in fort madison and then he will stop in mount pleasant, iowa, and later in the afternoon he will call a town hall meeting at indian hills community college. we will have coverage a little bit later particularly if for the town hall meeting. what is your reaction? caller: my reaction? somebody earlier said they felt it was a conspiracy between the republicans and democrats to make it look good on the service. i did not know if there is any truth to that. but i know what the truth is -- you should have a gentleman on

the tried to expose the bernie madoff fiasco, with a lot of things to many people. i watched him on television. it was not just him. there were several others -- and some staunch republicans -- and it is not just republicans were said democrats board of this bill is a fraud to the people. even what the democrats put in. the talk about the people -- dotting -- got to survive for the sake of the country. if you look at the people in wall street did this, and a look like the ghost laid the golden eggs. two things along. the golden egg they will not share with the people. they have not now. millions of people losing their houses, maybe a small percentage of them deserve to. i do not want to say they did but millions and millions of people are losing their houses and everything else and going bankrupt and no jobs, and that golden egg was made by a corporation to represent the

white goose eating everyone's food -- i am republican, disgusted with the republican party and i am disgusted with the democrat party and i want to challenge you that you should have that man on. and several other people, to show the sides. because this bill is weak, very weak. almost everybody here that i watch -- i had the sound off, waiting to come on -- but this bill is weak. the democrats are telling you it is a strong bill and they are talking baloney. these people have to survive. the derivatives market needs to be completely reined in. the simple statement -- not saying it is the answer. host: you laid a lot out for is. one last caller. tony from laurel, maryland.

caller: i am a registered investment adviser. thank you for taking my call their one thing that has been stripped from the bill -- senator dodd had initially included the concept of having full disclosure of the financial professionals and have everyone be regulated as a fiduciary. what happens is the investment arena and the insurance arena both pushed back. they did not want all financial professionals registered as fiduciary. what does it mean for consumers? there are two types of financial professionals. those who meet what is called sibylla the standard and those who meet the fiduciary standards. the fiduciary standard is the only standard by law, as ec act of 1940, that requires the professionals to put their clients' interests first. there are 700,000 financial professionals in this country.

only 24,000 of them meet the standard. host: as someone inside the industry -- it has not been amended yet, and they have not talked to the house about anything yet, but is their strength in this bill at all? caller: not for the consumer at all. not whether rubber meets the road. from a corporate standpoint, they may be doing a little bit of maneuvering here and there but where the rubber meets the road for the american consumer, on where they are making transactions by buying insurance, mutual funds, investment, retirement planning, that whole area, that has been taken off the table and that is really unfortunate. from my perspective being in this business for its seventh in c-17 years, when they initially had been there i said, it is about time. but that was the first thing taken off the table. no, we don't want to have final professionals all working in the best interest of their clients.

host: tony, thanks for sharing your perspective with us. we will continue to watch this story. c-span2 on the senate floor. we will let you know if some other votes are coming, or any deal in the works. another key part of the financial story is the goldman sachs story. executives are testifying today on the hill. a hearing that we will have on c-span3. our next guest after the break, zachary goldfarb of "the washington post" has been all over the story for some time now, and he will take your calls. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this morning, the look at the role that goldman sachs and other investment banks had in the recent financial down corn -- downturn but several former and current goldman sachs executive testified before a senate investigations subcommittee. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. >> sunday on "book tv's" "in depth," and pat buchanan on conservative ideology in today's political climate. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. three hours, sunday, live at noon eastern, 1 c-span2. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: at the table is zachary goldfarb, financial reporter in -- for "the washington post." probes and sui for as goldman to address financial crisis. you say -- is goldman sachs, the bank that not only survived but prospered the arnot crisis, whose executives of being called before the offended -- firing line. guest: thank you for having me. goldman is facing allegations on two fronts right now. one is a legal allegation that goldman broke the law when it sold a complicated investment to investors three years ago and that it misled investors about the nature of the investment. the second obligation is much broader. that is the subject of today's hearing. this allegation is that goldman did a whole range of actions that helped fuel the financial

crisis, bundling toxic mortgages into securities and selling them, betting against the housing market when it started to decline and therefore accelerating and magnifying the decline, and finally that goldman also misled its clients and double back against them and sort of pushed them in the one hand but bet against them privately. a range of allegations goldman is facing and those will be the subject of today's hearing. host: what is the time frame? texas back several years to the start of all of this. -- take us back several years to the start of all of this. guest: this really begins in late 2006. the housing market had been heating up. house prices have been rising very fast. executives at goldman had bets on housing market, like everyone else. then the debate begins. goldman executives began an internal debate -- should we

continue to be exposed to the housing market or should we reduced exposure? at that time they decided to reduce exposure. we foresee trouble. there is continuing debate that the decision to reduce exposure, to go against the housing market -- then despite the concern goldman continued to allow investors to go in favor of the housing market even if goldman bet against it. in july of 2007, goldman created the security to bat for the house a market but sold it to investors who didn't know that the person who helped create the security, john paulson, a hedge fund manager, wanted to vote against the housing market. all the contact -- conduct occurred in early to mid 2007. host: it brings us to this hearing -- goldman sacks, senate committee on investigations.

it will be on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time and also on c- span.org and c-span reappeared zachary goldfarb is our guest. he is from the washington post. we will put the phone numbers -- we will get right to your calls, but more with zachary goldfarb first. "the wall street journal" has the competing codeys -- quotes. by early 2007 the company blew right past the neutral position and that heavily -- bet heavily. "we certainly did not bet against their clients. come tell us more about his

testimony. what i expecting? guest: he will be quite contrite and apologize for any damage that was caused, acknowledged that it should be more forthright and what it is doing and weighed the risks and challenge of doing exotic investment practices at the same time responding to public concerns about wall street. also expected to say we did nothing wrong. that he is simply trying to protect the bank from the fallout affecting the rest of the market and suggested basically if other banks did what goldman did they would -- would be in a lot less trouble. host: what is the position of goldman? guest: very profitable. hawaii bonuses. blankfein got a pay cut this year, but back to normal. host: what are you expecting to hear from the members of the panel? guest: and 18 month

investigation involving millions of documents and they released stinging charges against goldman. that it made big profits of the failure of the american homeowner and the economy and we are expecting senator levin and others to begin to blankfein and other goldman executives on their convent -- conduct. host: the first phone call is from massachusetts, stephen on the republican line. guest: -- host: are you there? go ahead, please. we got you now. caller: -- host: go ahead, westfield. i don't think we have stephen. let us try scott from spring hill, florida. are you there? caller: yes, i am. good morning. i'm curious to know if anything

really is going to happen to these bankers. they are collecting huge bonuses. they are continuing to do the same practices they did before, in the face of outrage. i wish these tea party people will -- would really focus their energy on the real culprits in the economic downturn in this economy now. that is really all i have to say about that right now. guest: thanks for your call. the big question on the legal fallout from the crisis is will any bankers go to jail. some lower-level people have gone to jail who were involved in mortgage fraud. but to date, there has been no big banker or financial person going to jail as a result of the worst financial crisis in many years. it is really hard to prove on a

criminal level financial fraud when you are involved in these types of complex instruments. there were questions about whether there were bad judgments made but not criminal actions. even the very significant charges goldman sachs faces, which involves financial fraud, was a civil action brought by the sec and not criminal by the department of justice. so, even if goldman sachs loses the case, the worst it faces a solid reputation, various kinds of limits to its business and a big financial farm. -- find. but so far, at least, no one is going to jail. host: why is it hard to prove any wrongdoing and what kind of resources to those who investigate have at their disposal? guest: basically three main players doing investigations into the financial crisis. a whole range, but three key agencies. one is the justice department, a criminal agency. one is the sec, civil authority.

third is the attorney general of new york, andrew cuomo. criminal and civil lawsuits have -- civil is preponderant of evidence and criminal as build beyond a reasonable doubt and many of these cases you could make a reasonable argument that the participants in a transaction should have known about the various risks involved or that people who were selling risky investments kind of believe these investments would work out and maybe they were deluding themselves or suspended common sense or they believed it would work out. proving this mindset was not the case beyond a reasonable doubt is very hard. by contrast, getting enough evidence to say that they were negligent, that is much easier. that is kind of the reason why it is easier to bring a civil action in these financial cases than criminal action. host: phil is on the republican

line from baltimore. caller: i have a question for mr. goldfarb. given the financial reform bill came out of marked up by 7:00 a.m. and a vote at noon that day -- is that enough time to really cover such a complex subject that is really too complicated for must -- most people to understand. guest: you are right, the actual technical rollout of the bill was very past but the components -- while there were many and very complex -- has been discussed and debated for well over six months to nearly a year now. and that was clearly a strategy by senator dodd and majority leader reid to try to get a vote as quickly as possible because they felt negotiations with republicans really after several attempts would not go anywhere

but the individual components of the bill have been known pretty well for a while for those following this and the house went through a similar process, and while there are differences between house and senate bill, but principles are the same. host: no differences between the bill. guest: no major differences. host: back to the hearing today -- there are several other goldman executives and i want to walk through the list of folks and you explain what you might hear from them. panel 1 will consist of daniel sparks, former partner and head of the mortgage department -- michaels went in, managing director of structured product group trading at goldman, joshua birnbaum, former managing director at goldman, and fabrice tourre. what are you expecting of them? >guest: these are individuals

directly involved on a day to day basis in mortgage-backed securities. they are the people who did great bets before the housing -- housing market collapse, that housing would rot -- fall and then really great bets that houses would fall. it shows a range of debate and discussion both on what companies should do about the housing markets but also showing that there really proud betting against them that they made a lot of money when housing collapse. one individual that will probably receive a lot of questioning, fabrice tourre. he is not only a mortgage trader in goldman now based in london, but he also is the only individual named in the sec lawsuit. .

valencia, california. . . independent caller. caller: we have christopher dodd in the mortgage scandal. charlie rangel does not pay his taxes. conductor does not pay his taxes. none of these people have any integrity. -- tim geithner does not pay his taxes. guest: it is hard to weigh the

allegations of the committee against goldman sachs'response. it is probably somewhere in the middle, but we will probably expect some the answer today. some people like it, because we get to bring the executives before a fire line, and after this recession, of of people will want them to sit under oath and discuss their business practices. whether or not is lead to any great accountability, it does play a somewhat proactive role in what has happened to our of our economy. this story broke in the past couple of weeks. the initial stage intensified in the fall of 2008.

but perhaps the middle of last year, we knew that that was on likely to happen, and that it would be a slow road to recovery. host: our guest has studied public policy at princeton. how have you been able to rise before had a round this, what kind of advice do you have for the viewers? this is complicated stuff. guest: that is right. this is why wall street higher quantum physicists, astrophysicists to create these products. you used math and the numbers game to out-do common sense, in the hallway. -- in a way.

they broke some old traditions of how we funded homes and try to create new ways, and, in a lot of ways, was smarter, but people need to know when to stop. the post is launching a blog today which will cover financial crimes, all the topics we are talking about. there will be a section about the hearing. host: ron on the democratic line. good morning. caller: do you remember the movie "is a wonderful life?" this is just like that. they need to be cut down to size. you are not going to stop the

corruption. people are not going to go to jail. these banks are just too large. keep have corruption small so that you can deal with it. i would like your opinion on what is in the bill that will help community banks, and what is in the bill that would put community banks under and get swallowed up by the big guys? guest: the bill does not really address that. it does perhaps level the playing field a bit between community banks and bigger banks when it comes to regulation. bigger banks are more likely to face tougher regulations, which is a change under the bill, if they pose a risk to the economy.

smaller banks could be exempted from these tougher regulations. smaller banks have more trouble paying for all of the audits and regulatory fees related to government oversight. community banks, while they did some wrongdoing, were not the primary drivers of that mortgage loans, although there are cases where those loans were made. so a slightly more even playing field. the bill does recognize there is more risk to the system for the biggest banks and, therefore, imposes higher standards on them. there is a debate about whether they should be broken up into smaller parts. host: troy, new york.

olga. troy, michigan, i apologize. caller: i just finished reading "a big short -- "the big short" and even people not familiar with the market can get a good point of view. i am appalled that standard and poor's and moody's have not been brought to task. after all, they were the ones that issued the ratings. when people talk about the bank in germany that bought basethes derivatives, they were told that these were a and aa-rated instruments. if someone told me that i was

buying something that was worth a c or d in a couple of days, i would not buy it. so whoever sold those things -- we should be looking at standard and poor's and moody's. they used to be good rating companies, but i would not look for their ratings for anything. host: great question. guest: credit rating agencies issued grades to invest in companies about the quality of these investments. all lot of evidence has come out in the past few years that the credit rating agencies were deeply conflicted -- would often give high grades to securities that it didn't really understand, that it worked in pursuit of these anfees from thr

clients. the agency says that they have been reformed since then, and there is debate on capitol hill about whether or not they should receive a production that they have done in the past. they say that they are just offering an opinion, the first amendment protect them. but the other side says, no, you have to provide more objective views. you should face liability if your direct that are wrong. so the credit rating agencies are coming under much more scrutiny. their future is not totally resolved by any of these bills, but their time is coming as well for reform. host: to the bill, this is one headline --

this gives republicans time to barter with the democrats. what do you think they will get out of the process before they start debate? guest: i think they will not change any of the big headlines about the bill. many republicans do not like the independent consumer regulator. that is unlikely to change because we have been through that debate, and it is clear, republicans are willing to let them go through committee. they may change some of the sub-headings around the banks to make it perhaps a little less strict. perhaps give support individual senators to get over that 41 vote. host: there are three panels. the second panel will be the vp of goldman, the chief risk

officer as well. what will they say today? guest: you could probably merge panels 2 and 3, but they probably wanted to have lloyd blankfein. these are the people who are overseeing the process, making the high-level decisions about overseeing the company. the cfo is featured in many of the mills that have been released, talking about reducing exposure to housing. he is a character that comes up a lot. host: one twitter message -- guest: probably not. they will probably not comment on the sec suit.

no one is accusing them of criminal wrongdoing. host: the zachary goldfarb covering this for the "washington post. philadelphia, don, independent caller. caller: i spend most of my life talking to high-level executives and i usually use third grade language. i would bet that most of the folks listening do not know what a hedge fund or what a derivative is. most of us know what a savings account is. the point is, a lot of the folks in dealing in these high-level complicated financial things are getting blamed after the fact.

they are doing their job and are investing money according to the rules. i am just an average joe. goldman sachs, and all the illegalities aside, these financial issues are complicated, folks. it is not just like putting money in the bank. you have to realize that these folks have complicated capabilities, sometimes they go good, sometimes bad. host: just doing their job? guest: there is some truth that the people were creating complex investments, and that was their job, figuring out how to transfer their money. in a way, wall street created these vehicles in order to shield what they were really doing.

one of the bigger e-mails called into question is that of fabrice tourre, who wrote an e-mail to his girlfriend and said, i do not really understand what i am working with. i am doing this for the economy. i am convincing myself that this is good. so i think wall street used these things to shield what was going into these investments, like toxic securities. while there is no doubt that the nature of these securities is partly responsible, you do not want to give too much due deference to wall street for creating this. host: next phone call. caller: yes, i would like to say something in my opinion.

in my opinion, they are not serious about reforming the ir actions on must change the rates. the average person does not have a clue what they are being charged, interest rates being compounded daily. host: make this connection to lending. guest: interest rates that you pay on mortgage rates, credit cards, student loans, are set by a party of factors, the most important of which, is what the federal reserve sets as its baseline rate, which is what banks borrow at.

interest rates right now are extremely low. both bills have this consumer regulator. the consumer regulator is empowered to issue rules that will make it more difficult for companies to play games with their clients. they cannot, sort of, surprise customers anymore with interest- rate hikes that you do not expect, lots of legal limbo that allows them to do tons of things that you do not realize. this tries to address lending abuses by banks and other lenders, credit card companies, mortgages. the goal is to focus on the consumer. that is the idea behind this regulator. host: in the new york post --

guest: in his testimony last night, he said that the sec suit was one of the worst days of his professional life. if you remember, barbara rubin, hank paulson became treasury secretary. a is more of a bankers banker on wall street. he is being forced to be more contrite with the public now,

and that is what we expect to see. host: what can you tell us about wall street, what is the mood up there? guest: first of all, they are happy that good times are bad, bonuses and profits are back. that is, in large part, thanks to the government. government programs have really helped the financial sector. bankers are not overly happy with the kind of regulations that they will face now, but what ever they are, they want them to pass. they hate uncertainty. if they do not know the future, they cannot create future products. the sec has made many concerned because if they win, there could be more suits about financial

products, rules about disclosure, and people being charged with wrongdoing. host: were you surprised that a suit was filed? guest: it was quite striking. usually you hear about a case against a firm and the company usually settles. we are still learning about the backroom discussions between the old man and the sec. the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but it sounds like the sec could have done a settlement, but really did not want to. it seems like they had discussions with goldman sachs and decided quickly, we are going to file, they do not look what they want to settle.

goldman sachs says that they were caught blindsided. they say that this is the sec just trying to win political points. so it was rare for there not to be a settlement, but right now it pretty much come down to going to trial. host: cliff on the republican line. caller: i see this as a sure great to take the blame away from where it really belongs. if you look at the time line, the cra forced banks to make loans that they would not have otherwise made. fannie and freddie created the market which pushed up prices which made everyone happy. people could make money from their house, local governments

could increase property taxes, everybody was happy. about five years before this came down, alan greenspan said that we have a housing problem, and. the bankers -- housing problem coming. the bankers knew that this is on the way. to make goldman sachs guilty for doing their job, i think, is wrong. the whole point is to obscure the fact that sarbanes ardsley -- sarbanes oxley changed things. guest: well, you mentioned every key issue in the past 10 years. this financial crisis clearly

had all lot of causes, including inappropriate lending, the expansion of fannie and freddie into subprime markets, inappropriate diverted transactions, excess of the low interest rates. goldman is being used as a case study. going back to something we said before, they survived the crisis. it is sort of an irony here that they are being called, given that they have profited the most. did they profit the most because of the action that were duplicitous? that is a good question, that is what the committee is examining we do not know what the truth will ultimately be. there is no question, goldman is

being used as a case study, a whipping boy here, even if it does deserve a lot of the blame. host: this is from a contributing editor @ "vanity fair" -- what do you make of that? guest: there is a lot of truth that congress did not push regulation. that was the bush and clinton administration. there is no doubt washington deserves as much blame for not having the foresight to stop these types of things from happening around the country. that said, i do not think many people would agree with the

notion that companies have no ethical responsibility beyond what polos says and that there is no concern to how it affects other people. legally, it is fine, but ethically, there are higher rules that should apply to companies. host: the article goes on -- this is an op-ed in the "york times. next phone -- "the new york times." next phone call. caller: i think it is deplorable that the republicans blocked the wall street reform bill. i was really upset about that. in my opinion, this sounds like

insider trading. when martha stewart was accused of perjury, it was basically insider trading. i think they should all go to jail. thank you. host: any response? guest: fabrice tourre, he refers to himself as the fabulous fab. obviously, some of these executives should probably go to jail. there was a prominent case against two bear stearns hedge managers who were accused of something similar to this case, about the circumstances were much different. that case failed at the criminal

level. a lot of people were disappointed by the failure to pass the finance reform legislation, but i do not think we are near the end of that road. in the next few days, there is a better chance than not that we will see something emerge in the senate. host: . democrats -- illinois. democrats line. caller: someone said earlier that this hearing is going to just the theater, but it will only be that if we allow it to be. we have to pay attention, tell our congress people and center is what we need to be done. we might get something of this, but we have to pressure them.

host: what is most surprising about today's hearing? guest: there would be a surprise if the committee releases some e-mails or charts that we have bought seen before. it would be fun for the public to see, that would certainly be interesting. if any of the traders are very apologetic for what occurred, beyond acknowledging the mistakes that were made, that would be somewhat surprising. we have heard some contrition, but it seems to just be responding to public concerns and also someone not authentic. host: so we blended into the discussion about legislation on capitol hill.

when this so-called the year is over today, the headlines are made, what happens to the committee's work? guest: it is memorialized on the record. they have really done some fabulous work about what happened in the crisis. the goldman sachs lawsuit will continue in the court for another year or two, depending on if they settle, and then people will go back to business. i would imagine some additional reforms to respond to the concerns of the committee. host: 1 last phone call, olney,

maryland. caller: i have heard all about this issue. it is strange that this came up when they were trying to push the financial bill through. it bothers me that there are so many goldman sachs executives that work in the white house and they have such a tremendous monetary relationship with the democrats and republicans. it is almost like goldman sachs is the sacred cow, we are going to use you as an example, but there is probably not much merit going through the prosecution. this will probably lead to another 100-page bill that no one has read has loopholes in it that will protect the financial

industry, but it will just be grandstanding, here is another piece of legislation that we are going to pass. it is really deceiving. i wish we would stop this crisis management. we do not need to give the government another layer of power over capitalism and private industry. guest: think there is a reasonable debate that too much of the wrong kind of regulation may have to feel the crisis, perhaps not enough. i think there is solid evidence that there was not enough regulation to stop the kinds of publiproblematic behavior that e saw. while the caller expresses concerns about exploiting the crisis, we had a crisis that put the economy on the principles of disaster. it is probably not an overstatement to say that we

need some serious response and reform to ensure that a similar crisis will not repeat to. however, in 10, 30 years, we may have a similar crisis. there is no government regulation that will be able to prevent that. host: zachary goldfarb, a washington post reporter. thank you for your time. the hearing is at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you can watch it today, we will be talking more about this, i'm sure, in the days ahead. we will talk more about the economy. some good information up there, if you look at the national association of business economists. we will be right back.

>> a look at the role but goldman sachs and other investment banks had at the -- in the recent financial downturn. career and former executive testified before a senate investigations subcommittee. >> sunday, a television analyst,

author, and columnist pat buchanan on conservative ideology in today's political climate. he will take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. sunday, noon eastern. host: our guest now is shawn dubravac, an industry survey analyst at the national association for business economics. who did you talk to and what did you learn? guest: each quarter we speak to a number of our companies across the economy. this quarter we talk to about 68 economists at different firms to get a feel for where they see things. we continue to see things improving. industry demand is picking up. profit margins are picking up. unemployment is starting to

improve. we continue to see this slow, measured recovery coming out of survey results. host: what industries are heading in the positive direction? guest: it is really across the board. it depends on what indicators you are looking at. of course, the story behind that macro theme is a different story behind each sector, but things tend to be improving across the board. host: the cover story in "usa today" -- and they go through a lot of different sections of the country, but speak to us in terms of regions of the country. can you point to a particular bright spots right now? guest: this particular study does not look at regional differences across the country.

certainly, areas hard hit by the decline in residential real estate, some of those are starting to show recovery, which is a good time. new york, which was hit by all of this financial distress, is starting to recover. the industrial midwest, as some of those industries are to come out, is improving. of course, the west coast, as the country recovers, and imports begin to flow back in, that will help. a different story lines playing out but different story lines across the country. host: our guest is an industry survey analyst at the national association for business economists.

republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. what else can you tell us about this survey? what to me be taken from this? -- should we take from this? guest: there were some indications of cost increases, pressures brewing on wages and salaries. employment was probably the best takeaway coming out of this quarter's survey. we sell more firms reporting they were hiring and employment was increasing. that was the first time that that was larger than the number decreasing in two years. continuing to look at capital

expenditures so there are willing to make those investments to take advantage of a recovering economy. a large number of firms still reporting that current credit conditions are impacting them, however, directly. so that is probably the biggest negative in the story. host: were you surprised to hear positive news as soon -- this soon? guest: i think we are right in line of where we expected things. three quarters in a row of positive industry demand. this quarter more firms reported a growing demand then trithan shrinking demand. as the economy recovers, you might expect them to hire more, relieve pressures on cost.

those types of things are things that we would expect. host: more details from the newspaper -- so there is plenty of room for the company to get back to normal, and for other companies as well? guest: yes, the u.s. tends to recover faster than the rest of its trading partners. as the world begins to recover, we will see more demand for heavy equipment, jets, things

like that start to recover. the survey this quarter we saw strong demand for things like communication equipment, technology has done well. from the consumer side, we are now starting to see the business side come back. as they hire workers, they will need to get computers and phones for those individuals. host: plenty of phone calls for our guest shawn dubravac. maryland. independent call. caller: i have a comment and a question. i heard judd gregg on the floor yesterday say that we were overreacting to the financial problems. i wonder what planet he is living on?

almost every problem that we have had in this country goes back to wall street. my question to you is, in your survey, where do you see the green jobs being created, a specific part or state in the country? guest: we did not ask specifically about green jobs. demand for renewable energy, for some of these other technologies continues to grow, and i think you will see those sectors to grow as well. host: don on the democrat's line. caller: i am in the real-estate business. i draw a lot of analogies of our current situation back to their real estate situation. we have created a bad neighborhood as a result of this

financial mess. once the neighborhood goes bad, it is difficult to turn around. there will be people to invest back into the situation, but unfortunately, they are going to want to take another look at it. host: more about real estate. guest: if you look at the broad economy, globally, to continue your analogy, the u.s. continues to look like the best house in the neighborhood, if you will. looking specifically at real estate, we have had this major correction happen across the country, some states had harder than others.

we are starting to see recovery in many of those markets. some of those markets that burlesque-severely hit are starting -- were less-severely hit are starting to come back. host: talk about the condition of lending. guest: we have seen problems on both sides, the consumer side, difficulties buying property, and on the industry side, companies looking to take advantage of a recovering economy but cannot get access to those funds. i am the chief economist for a day consumer electronics association. i have heard from smaller companies say that access to capital continues to be a major constraint in growing their

business. they see the opportunity but are having a difficult time to get access to those funds. host: when will it take to improve those areas? guest: some of it is a matter of time. historically, recessions bounced hard off the bottom and are driven more by the investment cycle. this one was different. as a result of that difference, it will take a longer time to recover. we know that banking-induced financial crises have recovery periods of about six years. it will take a number of years to fully work through the troubles that we have seen. host: russell on the republican line. phoenix, arizona. caller: i personally believe obama does not know how to

tackle this because he is new fag. host: let's move on to another phone call. hopefully, a substantive one. caller: it looks like you are on a time delay, so it is difficult for me. anyway. i have been a business man, i have had more government against me than anything in my life. my father is 88 years old. all i want to do is make sure that he can live out his life. my mother is 79. they are good people. all my life, we have given to them. anybody that came to us, we gave to them. now, you cannot make work.

i do not know what is going on. host: what do you see as the role of government over all on economic matters? guest: i think -- caller: i think you have an elitist group looking to take control. host: simply put. anything there? guest: i think we are working our way through the issues that resulted from the downturn. some things take more time. host: in the "wall street journal" -- speak more to international sales. your survey touch on that.

-- touched on that. guest: we looked at the current number of sales from respondents coming from overseas. many of these companies need to sell not only to u.s. customers, but global customers, certainly, highlighting the role that free trade placeys. that has been on the back burner lately, but that will be a key for recovery in the years to come, opening up markets for u.s.-based companies, relying on overseas revenues. host: from the ap --

also from the ap -- can you speak more about them? guest: you are seeing more growth in consumer purchases, that is helping to drive shipments. we mentioned some of the large purchases that consumers are making here and overseas during a recession, we tend to delay those purchases. obviously, automobiles were hurt, and durable goods, major purchases. we are starting to see them come back. the article touches on maytag earnings. we are starting to see that part of the economy recover.

where consumers in the past few years have delayed these types of purchases, they are now willing to go out and make those purchases. so we are starting to see a recovery in those categories. host: connect this to the unemployment rate. lots of positives, but for those who have lost their job, connect the dots. when might unemployment go down? guest: certainly, unemployment has been a major issue in the economy one of the key aspects of that is we have had a long downturn and it has cost long-

term unemployment to be extended. about 32% have been unemployed for over six months. the highest we have seen in in a long time, even going back to the 1981 recession. so not only a high number of individuals on unemployment, but they are there for a long time. what we know from the past recoveries it is that unemployment tends to be a lagging indicator. it recovers long after the recovery of the rest of the economy. that is a story that is playing out now as well unemployment will recover over a much longer time. it compared to the rest of the economy. companies were looking to cut costs in late 2008. it will be many years until we

can get back to an unemployment rate near 4.5%. for areas that had over-hiring in the good years, many of those individuals may have to look at other sectors for jobs, and that will mean a longer process to find a job in a different field. host: nabe.com is the web address. shawn dubravac is an industry survey analyst. next phone call, marty. caller: thank you for c-span. i appreciate what you said, but i want to ask you some questions. it is not the beginning of sending our jobs overseas. we need to bring in workers from overseas. is that not what happened?

i know our maytag factory went to mexico. we live in a small town. also, plastics factories left the town. i know it will take a long time because of the reality of this whole thing, but is there any way that we can speed this up? i have been in medicine since i was 14. i am a nurse. people cannot afford to go to the doctors. that also has to do with our jobs going overseas and insurance disappearing the.

for someone like me, it is heartbreaking to see this guest. guest: certainly, it is heartbreaking to see some of these areas around the nation go through these changes come at inundated by this new global economy. what we want to see our policies that allow companies to form, here in the u.s., the headquartered here, create the value here. take the google. -- take google. they were started here in the u.s., employs thousands of people, and the company was started by people who came here seeking higher education. we want to allow these individuals to come here and

start businesses to create commerce directly and indirectly. host: next phone call. caller: i live in an area where the unemployment rate is approximately 20%. they are just hiring temps to which is low pay, no-benefit jobs so it may look like some of these companies are doing great, but they are not. guest: definitely, the growth rate is coming off a bit when the labor and employment market begins to recover, we typically see temp jobs come back first. the fact that you are seeing that is a good sign. those are the first jobs that typically come back. windows have been killed in companies continue to grow, --

when companies continue to grow, they are able to higher. host: brooklyn, new york. caller: good morning. i have a question. one of the significant thing that is part of unemployment is the efficiency of computerization in the world. i remember back in the days when we had mainframes and computers were meant to create jobs. now with an ally capabilities, we have computers building cars

24 hours a day with barely a person necessary for maintaining the computers. i wonder whether employment will ever get back to the levels that it used to be, given the current situation. guest: we definitely think the labor market is recovering but it will be a slow process. survey results bear out the fact that companies are looking to hire more workers. they plan to do so over the next six, 12 months, so we do start to see the market coming back. it will be several years before we see unemployment lawless like before the recession started, at 4.5%, but things are recovering and the labor market will come back. whenever i hear that we will never see those days again,

certainly, we will get back to a time where there is wide employment across the country. host: rochester, minnesota. rita on the democrat's line. caller: i am concerned about the sentiment in america, what that sentiment is doing for our overall productivity. this tea party, sentiment of anger and discontent, it encourages discouraged and and pessimism, as far as our own recovery. it seems from what you are saying, there are businesses that are recovering and jobs are forging ahead. however, it seems that we have to surmount this type of spirit that we should be angry, be constantly angry. the question is, how long is this spirit of anger going to

last? we need to heal. there are changes, but those changes do not seem to be translating across to the american people. when should we be positive, when is this recovery actually going to reflect our feeling? host: comments about the mood in public discourse. guest: i think that jibes with our country's history, we are always seeking something better. that is the duty of america, you can take an active role to improve things. the general sentiment, we will start to see that improve as well with the economy. we have had equity markets already improved significantly.

and that helps. as the real-estate market improves, that will help. businesses are booking quite strong in the u.s. they have cash on hand and they will put that into play once they have a good sense of what the future it looks like. host: making the connection back to legislation. there is a point in the survey that i wanted you to speak about. you write -- anything else you want to add? guest: we asked our panel around two questions about jobs. if the stimulus in february had any impact, 73% said it had no material impact on their firm. so not about the broader

economy, but their specific firm. then we asked about the jobs bill and whether or not and would impact them. about two-thirds said that it would not. 30% said that it would impact, at least moderately, and limit at their firms. some of these things are slow- moving. some do not hit every firm, company. i think that is what we are seeing now. the sector that was impacted the most was the financial sector, real estate sector. perhaps that area would have been harder hit, had we not seen the stimulus. host: how about a new health- care laws? once they are implemented by these businesses, any sense of how it may have an effect on all of this? guest: did not ask specifically about health care.

certainly, some of the smaller businesses that responded will be taking a close look at the costs associated with those bills. even the larger firms will look at the costs associated with policy changes and how that will impact their ability to bring new workers aboard. host: how about potential changes in immigration? that issue is coming back. guest: definitely something that companies will have to pay attention to. perhaps we will talk about that in the next survey. . .

caller: has a recent college graduate i want to know if there are any trends i can afford to, you know, with employment. -- that i can look forward to, you know, with the employment. is there anything that i should be paying attention to? guest: we do not ask

specifically those types of questions in this particular study. i think that one of the things that an earlier caller mentioned is that despite the mood in the country, productivity is quite high and that is a good sign with respect to employment. high productivity can only run so long before firms need to start hiring back some places are bringing in temporary workers and then those will transition to full time positions. those are good trends to watch. part of the economy that were hardest hit are finally starting to recover. host: can you tell anything about younger workers verses older workers and how things are trending and changing? guest: we did not ask specifically in this survey about that. certainly, one of the things we have seen throughout past recessions and something that is very applicable to this

recession is unemployment across things like education differs pretty significantly. those with higher levels of education seemed to experience lower levels of unemployment. even though it was across the board, those with less education were hit more severely than those with higher education. we did see in the survey that with any shortages -- about 14% of our firms said they are experiencing shortages of skilled laborers. again, whether that comes with education or on-the-job experience, skilled labour is in much higher demand. host: the tir from denver, on the line for democrats -- let's here from denver, on the line for democrats. what we caller: call globalization a and free trade is really rigged in favor of

corporations and labour is suffering. corporations are allowed to move money, allowed to move new entity's all over the world where they can find cheap labor. they are able to move in tire factories overseas in search of cheap labor. whereas labor is forced to go where there is cheap labor. but we do not have environmental laws, we do not have child labor laws in other places of the world. until we insist that any place we manufacture respects the rights of workers we will never have -- we will never grow out of this recession. we cannot possibly grow out of this recession under the circumstances because we move to places where cheap labor of bounds. look what happened in mexico, for instance. there is a book out called

"murdered city" about a place in mexico where people are murdered daily. it is grotesque. the reason they are running to the united states is because we have -- we are the cause of the tremendous crime wave in mexico. our trade policy has caused it to happen guest: what we saw -- has caused it to happen. guest: what we saw in the service -- in the survey again was that there was a shortage of skilled labor. if you look at technology in the u.s., for example, while we might not be doing manufacturing year, we are doing all of the net value added benefits here. they are doing the design, the engineering, marketing for

global products here in the u.s. being able to have an environment where those types of businesses can foster a, and specifically small businesses. the window a lot of our job growth will happen because of small businesses. -- we know a lot of our job growth will happen because of small businesses. having the ability to hire workers without suffering significant costs and other things will help see the job market come back. host: that was reported in the baltimore sun that. the sun's angle is that maryland loses the bid for northrop to virginia, the defense contractor northrop grumman, to move jobs to the state. they closely watched competitive

deal -- a closely watched competitive deal. back to the qualit"new york pos also in the "new york post toda," today, a store about wal- mart.

wal-mart in the news in a big way today. palm city, fla., robert you are on the line with shawn dubravac. caller: i think the big problem with the politics and taxes here is that the politicians at the capitol and at the state capital need to look in the mirror. we need to redo the government. a we cannot pay enough taxes to satisfy all of these guys and all of their perks. they are not trying to solve problems. they are trying to find another way to tax us to keep this government going. that is all i have to say. the would like to your from you on that.

guest: certainly, generally we want to create an environment where businesses and small businesses in particular can drive, so they have the ability to provide products or services to markets, whether in the u.s. or abroad. insuring in an armor were these businesses can thrive will ensure an environment will -- ensuring an environment where these businesses can thrive will ensure an environment where it can grow. host: next call from the independent line. caller: you are a nice guy and all of that, but honestly you are just spitting out the same talking points we have been hearing out -- hearing forever. i could sit in that chair and say the same things. host: what is your concern?

caller: everything you are saying is just bogus, really. temp jobs are coming back. no, jobs have been going into temp jobs for the past decade. i have people wanting to pay me the same thing they paid me 20 years ago. that is what they're talking about when they say they cannot find any skilled labor. the what they mean is they cannot find anyone to find work three jobs for the price of one. -- find anyone to work three jobs for the price of one. guest: in a recovering economy there will always be these different regions that are going up or down. certainly, even in the boom years here in the u.s., parts of the economy and parts of the country that were falling into recession, or at least falling behind, those are very consistent with a country where

some things are moving up or some things are moving down. host: you do these surveys every quarter, and you said. but what would you be looking at next specifically? guest: will be looking to see if things are kind of forming a base. we are in a recovery. is it a favorite -- a sustainable recovery? things like credit markets and credit concerns, are those starting to recover. those will be important things to look for in the quarter ahead. host: let's hear from texas know, ruby on the democrats line. caller: you need to pray and ask god for guidance.

host: from ruby to that in michigan. -- pat in michigan. caller: i may have missed this earlier in the conversation and for that i apologize, but what does the effect of temp jobs on the rise have on the present unemployment numbers? guest: we look at a couple of different unemployment numbers. the major unemployment number you here is for people who are looking for work but not currently employed. another employment number, and it takes into account some of these temp workers that are more discouraged, that number as you would expect is much higher. close to 17% or 18% in the country. so, one in five feel like they are unemployed or under employe. it could also -- underemployed.

it would also include temporary workers. it is not a sustainable position. that number is much higher. the number we look at typically, the number right now just under 10%, it looks at those that iraare unemployed, but seeking employment. if they're looking for full-time jobs, some individuals, especially thailand -- retirees, they are happy with part-time jobs. there will be some better looking for work even though they are not currently employed. there will be some that are temporarily employed, but still looking for full-time work. part of the natural cycle and the labour market. host: baltimore, lesley on the

independent line. caller: the thing that amazes me the most instead people study the history and one of the things they could do is go back and see on c-span some things that were said about what was going to take place in north america. that is, the whole hemisphere was going to be bordered on the same power. right now, we're going true -- what we are going through is the process of getting this hemisphere ready where everyone is basically making the same amount of money. because just like the gentleman that called before, the reason why they let immigrants across is because the jobs in america that americans will not do. well, that is not really true. the truth of the matter is, like the gentleman said earlier this

i personally applied for a job recently with comcast in their help desk services. that means i have to sit in a remote location and provide customers with computer services. in other words, get inside their computer and fix it for my location. when that first became a job, they would pick up words of $20, $25 per hour for the job. now comcast would want to be a need for someone who would take the job $12.50. host: final thoughts on the economic conditions? i think guest: we will begin to see recovery, a -- guest: i think we will begin to see recovery, certainly in muted recovery. the for those that are unemployed or underemployed, they will want to see things recover more quickly.

companies are well-positioned to go out and make not only those capital purchases that will drive jobs, but also bring workers back as demand continues to increase. as the survey shows, the man that has continued to increase. that bodes well for some of these lagging indicators like employment. host: shawn dubavqac thanks for your time this morning. we will round out this "washington journal" with a look at nuclear energy in a very special way. first, our guest on site will be kathryn gewrlach of the nuclear institute to give us an update on the nuclear energy, but also our studentcam winners will be here, all three of them from milwaukee.

here is a -- and eight-minute portion of their radio. it >> this morning, a look at the role that goldman sachs and other investment banks have in the recent financial downturn that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span3. sunday on in-depth, pat buchanan on conservative ideology and today's political climate. he will take your calls, e-mails and tweet. >> "washington journal" continues. host: cure is a look at that

winning video called "i've got the power." >> when we ask 100 adults and 100 students how many power plants are there presently operational within the united states, their responses were all over the grass. fax a couple hundred. and >> i have no idea. -- >> a couple hundred. >> i have no idea. >> in a fusion reaction demonstrated by the students of our school, a slow-moving enters the atom. which, in turn, split. these three neutrons strike other items, causing a reaction as the mr. the vides ping-pong balls. this energy is used to turn water to steam.

host: just a piece from the winning studentcam video. and on the screen for milwaukee, wisconsin are our grand prize winners. from left to right, madison richards, samantha and olnoll ad lauren nixon. congratulations, ladies, and think you for being here. guest: thank you. host: tell us about what put the topic of nuclear energy in your head. guest: we like examining issues that are new to us and we did not know much about nuclear energy, just tell everyone expected it to be. we liked examining it closer. host: that being said, samantha noll, also an eighth grader,

what did you learn and tell us how you did your research? guest: we went on to nuclear sites and we learned a lot from them, mostly about safety and how the process generally works. we learned that it is very safe and not how people perceive it to be. host: and women from samantha to laurin, also in the eighth grade, -- and moving from samantha to loren, also in the eighth grade, was there something that surprised you in your research about nuclear energy? guest: what surprised me the most is just how safe it is. everything has a backup plan, or three or four, actually. we visited a power plant and it was very interesting. host: tell us why you think the whole issue is very important to be talking about today. guest: populations continue to grow and there is an energy

shortfall -- there is going to be one. we think of nuclear energy is what we can use to fill the gap. it is important to keep up with the demand of energy. host: we have you and your classmates here for about 40 more minutes. we are so glad to hear about your winning video. and at the table where does here in washington d.c. is kathryn gherlach, senior project manager of the nuclear energy institute to give us more detail about the future of energy in this country. first, the promise of that -- the premise of that is to build maybe hundreds of nuclear plants in the country. how many are there in the country are operating? guest: there are 104 in the country right now and they provide about 20% of our energy. host: what about the classic

issue about safety, what about that? guest: you are the girls talk about safety and is billed with a lot of redundancy -- it is built with a lot of redundancy for safety. host: let's walk through the states that have nuclear energy generation in the united states. the vermont leads. tell us about that. guest: they will be getting a high percentage of their energy from the nuclear power. host: other states, connecticut, a south carolina, new jersey, they leave the country -- lead the country. what can you tell us about those particular states? guest: if you have a smaller stake you will be getting more

from haut nuclear power. some of the stunned how -- southern states are looking at building new nuclear plants. and some states have to create a bit more cold generation and they want to move to something that is environmentally more friendly and lower costs. host: what does it take to build a new nuclear plant? could take guest: to lot of things. it is going -- guest: it takes a lot of things. it is going to take home a lot of a estate financing credit market regulators in place to -- -- regulators in place to finance it. host: we will put the phone numbers of the bottom of the screen for our discussion about nuclear energy.

here are the numbers. we will talk about the action here in washington and putting forth ideas to build nuclear plants. but another clip from this winning studentcam video about how nuclear power is portrayed in the media. >> when nuclear power is portrayed in the media it creates the skepticism and fear. >> it is dangerous. the courts do not worry. scientists in the future will fix everything. >> can't power plants have meltdowns and kill people? >> that sounds like a lie that the communists made up. >> we have a serious issue here.

>> what are some of the drawbacks of nuclear power? >> one of the main drawback is the issue of steel and what to do with it. >> the problem of radioactive waste is very overblown because it is not hurting anyone where it is right now. it is stored safely and securely at reactor sites in large concrete and steel containers that weigh 80 tons that are not going anywhere. they will be there for a long time, safe and secure. if host: we are looking a little bit of media perceptions. what is your view on how the media portrays this issue of nuclear energy? guest: when people think about nuclear energy they just think about newnuclear and it is

really scary. they think about nuclear bombs. once you research it and find out more, you can really know that your perception will change. guest: we spoke to one person and she is a strongly against nuclear energy. she thinks it is unsafe. we talked to patrick more from greenpeace and he is kind of in the middle. sometimes he thinks nuclear is right. he thinks it is safe, but he is a lecture on the issue. her -- he is on insurer on the

issue. host: part of the debate is, of course, whether to build more nuclear plants. what message do you have for the folks at the capitol? guest: nuclear energy does not have a carbon footprint, so it is a good option for the future. i then we should build as many as we can. -- i think we should build as many as we can. thanks host: to our young guests. -- host: thanks to our young guests. we will keep them around and, of course, kathryn gherlach you can speak to them as well. and what exactly is going on in washington on the debate over nuclear energy? guest: as the girls so ably pointed out, it does not have a current for print. we are seeing a great bipartisan support -- a carbon footprint. we're seeing great

bipartisan support. host: first call from maryland to members on the republican line. we are talking nuclear energy with our studentcam winners and our guest here on the set from the nuclear energy institute. caller: i'm watching your show and i would like to state that i make it -- a mechanical engineer and i've worked in the utility industry for almost 30 years. i have worked at a couple of nuclear power plants, specifically calvert cliffs, nine mile point, too and beaver cliffs. i would like to ask kathryn if she has ever taken a chance to look at the in poker -- the info report. guest: yes, it is an industry group that takes a look at our

ports and makes recommendations for we can run our plants better. host: next call from north carolina, paul on the democrats line. caller: would like to make three points. and i am an -- a mechanical and an electrical engineer. and i'm very familiar with folks mechanical stuff that is used to operate these plants. all of these are very safe even with the back of systems. number two, these plants are very vulnerable. i know of one in the south where a rocket launcher could be placed in a van and it could be pulled right up and blow a hole through the cold in -- cooling power. and number three, the waste is forever. it does not go away. there is nowhere to put it, just because it is put in a

capsule, these are time capsules. i know of people who worked in a plant in the industry and died before they were 40. guest: i will address his last point first, which is the question of cancer. and a good thing about having 104 plants in this country is that there are 30 years of data on 104 plants. people have been tracking the safety statistics at these plants for 30 years now and we know that there is no increased risk of cancer four people work in nuclear plants. host: part of the video that you folks did, i've got the power, focus on nuclear waste. what did you learn and who did you actually speak to about that aspect of the issue? guest: we learned a lot about nuclear waste. we actually learned about yucca

mountain, which was going to be a place where it would be stored, but then they deemed it unsafe because they thought it would crack and leak into the earth's core. we talked to patrick moore about this and right now they are safe. but everyone is thinking of options for storage of the future. what a host: is the issue with storage -- host: what is the issue with the storage? guest: the president has appointed a panel of high caliber experts to look at all of the options and hopefully come up with the best one that provides the best environmental stewardship for the longer term. host: from wisconsin, joe on the independent line. caller: that is exactly what i told your screener wanted to talk about. about a month and a half ago i

saw these panels that she is probably talking about. wow, the rap of nuclear scientists get, they deserve it. they are some very intelligent and seemingly educated people. but the point i was going to make is -- well, first of all, all of your studentcam winners make me jealous. my video-game playing kid does not even come close to these kids. i want to congratulate all of them. but this one nuclear scientist in very complicated terms, but i was able to understand him, was saying in the future and depending on the amount of research and development that goes into the projects that the world will be vying for this nuclear waste, the spent fuel rods and the technology to turn those in your energy. he was bemoaning the fact that it was moving slowly, but he

assured any questioners in the audience that this was the future. yucca mountain was going to turn into a gold mine. it was going to be, well, like he said, we would be dealing with trying to buy up all of france cozy ways to end of the big countries that produce a lot of this waste and have storage -- all of france's waste to produce a lot of this waste and have storage. in the week would scoop up all of this waste and the way ahead of this -- we could scoop up all of this waste and the way ahead of the rest of the world in dealing with this power. he talked about half lives and things like that. i wonder if any of these girls

from the chief said state looked into -- cheese head state look into the possibility that you can use this ways to create energy. host: let's ask madison richards that question. is that something that you looked at? guest: although i did not see that, it definitely looks like something to look into. but we also have to be careful because if we keep producing power plants and put our faith in the future that someone someday will create this technology and then it does not happen, that could be a major problem. host: from one of our eighth graders there in milwaukee, catherine turlock -- kathryn gherlach, any thoughts? guest: countries like france and japan have chosen to recycle their nuclear fuel. they're getting additional

energy out of it. whether or not we will be vying for other people's nuclear fuel, i do not know, but it is a national resource and helps us to achieve energy independence. host: the last caller said he is jealous of you guys for being fairly advanced on this topic, but speak to the production of the video. how did you first get involved in connecting the idea of nuclear energy to the video making process? guest: the contest, the studentcam contest got us thinking about what topics to choose and we chose them because we thought it would be interesting to learn about. that is how we got involved. host: and speak to us about your work in school itself with the cameras and editing. how did you gain your experience and knowledge about how to do things? guest: are in the documentary

crew at our school and that is how we get -- we are in the documentary creditors one that is how we get our equipment. we learned how to edit on final cut pro, which we just started using this year. host: $5,000 to our grand prize winners here. and portsmouth, va., dave on the republican line. caller: i am all for nuclear power. i am ex navy. it seems to work great and they have never had an accident. as long as the government' provide proper security and ways of looking into having the school in towers -- the cooling towers put out less steam because i think there is an issue there.

and they need to keep investigating and figure out ways to keep the actual output cooler. i think it will be a great thing to put in multiple places. it will eventually raise the temperatures on the planet putting out steam on a daily basis. host: two different points there. speak more about safety. what can you say to viewers who have a safety concern? guest: it is an issue that the industry has its eye on in terms of nuclear safety. as the girl said, if you ever have a chance to got to the plant, i think you'll be impressed by the levels of safety not only at the checkpoints at the plant, the security that you have to go through before you go on site, but also a level of engineering safety the projects the reactor itself. they showed the youtube clip of the plane going into the concrete wall. a lot of testing has been done to make sure the engineering standards of safety are as high

as the standards of safety currently. host: the caller touched on global warming and is said to be careful. guest: i think that nuclear energy has the potential to decrease climate change because we are not committing any -- emitting any greenhouse gases. host: was a difficult to get people to take part in the interviews at for the video? how did your process work? guest: we sent out e-mails to people would like to interview and most of them got back to us pretty quickly. since nuclear energy is such a controversial issue, everyone is really open about getting their point across. it was not that hard to get people to interview. host: samantha, getting back to

the training process, what was the most challenging thing? what was the most difficult or challenging aspect in putting this together? guest: the most challenging aspect was editing and figuring out how you want to put the video to get there because there are so many different possibilities. we have to think hard with that. host: 2 lauren, how about the story telling aspect of it as well? we talked about putting it together, but who led the way in telling the story? guest: we sat down and discuss a time line to use -- discussed a time line two years. we wanted -- we discussed a timeline to use.

and we wanted to show that. host: a tear from pennsylvania, michael on the line for democrats. -- let's hear from pennsylvania, michael on the line for democrats. caller: i wonder if the students were able to get a perspective from chernobyl and get their viewpoint on it, you know, human error. also, the drill baby drill and was going on in the gulf of mexico -- what is going on in the gulf of mexico with human error and natural disasters. also, natural disasters and their effects on the ocean and climate change. thank you for c-span and could work, girls. -- the good work, and girls. host: is that something that you

talked to anyone about or is it on your mind at all? guest: about the chernobyl disaster, the power plant there was not very safe. it was not advanced. there were very effective measures taken now to make sure that never happens again. host: kathryn gherlach, what kind of measures are there? guest: the thing you need to run berber -- remember about chernobyl is that it did not have a containment dome. every reactor in this country does have a containment dome. the accident that happened in trouble could never have been in the u.s. we have an excellent body of technicians and they do an excellent job of making sure we never would build the type of reactor here. host: and what about three mile island? what would you take away from that episode? guest: the thing you need to

take away from the three mile island is that there were no -- back levels. the city facilities of the plant partially did what they were designed to do and public safety was not at risk. there was no release of radiation. host: drill, baby, drill, the last caller said. speak to that, if you could. guest: use of a chart the girls put up in their video were they showed the difference between -- you saw the charts across put up in their video were they showed the difference between the energy that we produce and what we need. we think nuclear energy is an excellent solution because it does not emit greenhouse gases and is a clean solution. also, there is a very low " -- low variable cost, so there could be a cost solution as well. we really do need all solutions to be on the table. host: next call from new jersey,

out on the independent line. caller: i am a retired particle physicist. i worked on the genome project when i lived in new mexico. and i am very pro-nuclear energy because of the safety. one of the big secondaries when you're looking at justification, in other words, we take the hot shield out and put it back into the act -- the reactor and the cold shield is vitrified into large cylinders. it produces less radiation than a wrist watch. and it produces a comfortable air temperature of about 270 degrees and is free home heating. i wonder if you ladies looked into the genome project of the last administration and the vitrification of fuel.

thank you very much. you ladies did a great job. give yourselves a big pat on the back. host: let's check in with medicine richards on that on the left of the screen. -- madison richards on that on the left of the screen. did you look at any of those issues? guest: we looked a little bit into the recycling and reusing of the spent fuel reactors, but not the other thing. host: we wanted to put a quick peace out there from the president back in february. and he made a speech in maryland about energy. here is that short piece. >> on an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot keep been mired in the same stale debate between the left and the ride, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs. our competitors are racing to

create jobs and command growing energy industries. nuclear energy is no exception. japan and france have long invested heavily in this industry. meanwhile, there are 56 nuclear reactors under construction around the world. 21 in china alone. six in south korea. five in india. the commitment of these countries is not just generating the jobs in those plants. it is generating demand for expertise and new technologies. make no mistake, whether it is nuclear energy or solar, or wind energy, if we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we will be importing those technologies instead of exporting. we will fall behind. jobs will be produced overseas instead of here in the u.s. that is not a future that i accept. host: samantha, it's great in milwaukee, -- eighth grade in

milwaukee, do you have a sense of the president's policies? what do you take from what you have heard so far? guest: at school we really do not talk about nuclear energy and stuff. we will touch on it a little, but i think we need to do more with nuclear. that is just my opinion because wind and solar are not as durable. they only last for 25 years. and a nuclear power plant can last for 60. host: 2 loren nixon about the future, you have when this video and one hour contest ahman but you have made -- and one at our contest -- won our contest, but what happens now? would you continue to speak on this issue? guest: we would love to get involved next year. sam is going to a different high school that has, but we will try

to stay involved. host: next call on the line for republicans, jeremy. caller: i'm glad to see the younger folks, that it has been brought to their attention. i also liked the other guy and i was wondering about the extent of the studies on at chernobyl. also, where they stand on terrorist attacks -- where do they stand on terrorist attacks? if 9/11 had been a nuclear power plant, where with the whole northeast of the u.s. vdacbe? host: samantha, how far have you gone in those studies in terms of the fallout? callers have said things are

safe until they are not. also, the link to terrorism, is there anything you want to say about that? guest: we researched terrorism because we know it is a big issue and we found out there was a study done in 1980 where they launched a plane in the -- into a nuclear reactor and nothing happened to the reactor. the plane was just destroyed. nuclear power plants are pretty much say from them. -- safe from terrorists. host: madison, what can you tell us about what you have learned? guest: terrorism is a concern, saw the clip in the plane that was strapped to the tracks and that the nuclear containment thing, it really did show that nuclear plants are safe from terrorist attacks. host: new jersey, charles on the

line for democrats. caller: first thing i want to say is to congratulate these young ladies. they have restored my faith, along with all of your prizewinners for the studentcam, they have restored my faith that we have a younger generation that is really thinking about things and learning. my question this morning is about a half life -- of the half life of the spent material. i understand, and correct me if i'm wrong, that the half life is 50,000 years for the material. and i understand id is stored in stainless steel and concrete, weighing several tons, but can we trust ourselves in 50,000

years if that is true that it is going to last? that is longer than we have been civilized. do you trust yourself or trust the country that we can, even under yucca mountain, make sure that things do not leak in 50,000 years? host: let's hear from kathryn gherlach of the nuclear energy institute. first of all, what does half- life mean? guest: it has to do with radioactive decay and how long it takes to decay. and your caller is correct, we do need a long-term solution for the spent fuel. and the president has a panel of experts to take a look at this and determine what we want the solution to be. and whether we want the solution to be deep geologic storage, such as yucca mountain. the science behind deep geologic

storage has been looked at a lot. we do think it's a safe long- term option. host: our call now is from olympia, washington, jennifer on the independent line. caller: my question -- and first, you guys are awesome. you three girls, i mean, i just graduated from college not too long ago and i am also amazed at the younger generation as far as the spirit of studying and learning about things. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. my question is about the mining of uranium. i know in the past, people who have mined uranium were not exactly told what they were doing. have they changed the process at all? host: kathryn gherlach?

guest: it is my understanding that, yes, there are stringent arrangements around the mining of uranium. and you have the epa that takes a look at this stuff and make sure that there are appropriate regulations are around it. host: back to milwaukee, we want to get to know our studentcam winners a little bit more. and a reminder that studentcam.org is the place to go to take a look at all of the videos and a great job everyone has done. lauren nixon, eighth grade, a a what is next for you? tell us about your plans. guest: next year i'm going to high school and i hope to stay involved with the documentary crew. i hope to continue to make videos. i'm not sure what the future role, but i want to stay involved with this. host: what will you do with your prize money?

guest: right now, it is going to go into the bank and save for college. host: good move. let's hear from samantha now. tell us a bit more about yourself. guest: i'm going to a different high school then madison and lauren, so we will still try to commute house to house to work on the c-span competition next year. we would like to stay in iraq and together. we really do not -- we would like to stay involved and together. we really do not want to split up. and i would like to go into a journalism career. host: and medicine from also in a critic and moving on to our school, -- madison, moving from eighth grade into high school also, what are your plans? guest: i want to stay involved with the documentary crew as well. i want to help out with things. and i want to go to usc film

school when i grow up. host: what kind of job would you like to have? guest: i would like to direct and produce a documentary video. host: and what about your prize money? guest: it is going to go into the bank for now. host: it is that the same for you, samantha? guest: yeah, it is going into the bank. host: good moves for all of them. the next call is from how wie on the independent line. caller: congratulations to the studentcam winners. i have a question for your other guest. would you believe that president wilson, whafdr and others practiced a form of socialism by

taking other forms of energy away? guest: that is an interesting question, but i would say that we need to have all forms of energy out there to address the energy supply and need. that includes nuclear energy, but also fossil fuels and renewals. host: what do you see on the debate here in this? where might it be in the next 10 to 20 years? guest: we are hoping to see four to eight nuclear plants come on line. beyond that, i mean, i just hope that as a country we really to open our minds and look at all options available and with the best solutions on the table to address climate change. host: where do the funds come from? guest: they are being paid by

the company's building them. and i'm glad you raised the question because i think there is confusion. the president just issued loan guarantees to a planned to be built in georgia and a lot of people have said that is the government giving taxpayer dollars to the utility. that is not what is going on. essentially, the government is putting its credit records, its credit rating behind the utility so they can get a loan with a lower interest rates. having a loan with a lower interest rate helps the utility finance their project in a way that is more affordable, but it is not a subsidy in any way. host: back to milwaukee, what has this whole studentcam experience been like? what were the broad lessons that you have learned? guest: it is a learning experience, definitely. we got to learn more about nuclear power. we learned how to interview and to read it.

host: great. last call from san diego, monte, a democrat. caller: congratulations on your prize. i hate to go back to the waist, but -- the waste, but the building and everything may be paid for by the industry with a loan from the government, but the waste is 26,000 to 50,000 years and that will be borne by the taxpayer. is that calculated into the price per kilowatt hour that everybody says is so cheap? host: kathryn gherlach? guest: obviously, when the utility is calculating, and we do look at the cost associated with the ways, yes. host: how about some final

comments on your studentcam experience? what has this been like for you? guest: it has been really exciting. the we do a lot of interviews to let the public know what happened and that we won. and we want to emphasize that nuclear power is safe when we do interviews. it was really fun. host: madison richards, any final thought from you? guest: this whole thing has been amazing. it is a really great opportunity and experience and i'm really glad we made the documentary and entered the contest. host: we thank all three of you for being here. they are our studentcam grand prize winners, $5,000 in prize money there. they're going to high school next year and say they will continue to study the issue and make more videos.

thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: what final thought should we take away about nuclear energy and the future? guest: i think the girls said it better than i could. it is safe, clean and reliable and will help us with the challenges faced by our country. host: kathryn gherlach from the nuclear energy institute, thank you very much for your time. the u.s. house of representatives comes in a little bit later today. the senate in session today as well. we might hear some more discussion about financial regulation bill. 10:00 a.m. just about now on c- span3 we have the interview with the goldman sachs executives. you can also watch said on c- span.org. the co will be there later on the day -- later on in the day. -- the ceo will