arizona state representative discusses her state's new immigration enforcement law. . . he talked about the oil spill and he says that the system

failed and failed badly. want to see what you think about what the president had to say. the numbers, 202-737-0002 for democrats. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. if you're calling outside the u.s. this morning, 202-628-0184. you can also reach us by email. the address there is journal@c-span.org, and you can send us a twitter. the twitter address is c-span wday. this is what the inquirer had to say. it's from the associated press. erica is the author. declaring himself as angry as the rest of the nation, president obama assailed oil drillers and his own administration friday as he ordered extra scrutiny of drilling permits to head off any repeat of the sickening oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

in his speech in the rose garden, the president said the system failed and failed badly. this is more of what the president had to say. >> i understand that there are legal and financial issues involved and a full investigation will tell us exactly what happened. but it is pretty clear that the system failed, and it failed badly. for that there's enough responsibility to go around, and all parties should be willing to accept it. that includes, by the way, the federal government. for too long, for a decade or more, there's been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. it seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil company. that cannot and will not happen anymore. we will trust, but we will verify. >> that's what the president

had to say. we'll have more of his comments from the rose garden, as well as other items in the newspapers this morning about his speech regarding the oil spill in the gulf of mexico. let's go to the phones. our first call comes from richard in gillette, wyoming, on our line for independents. good morning, richard. caller: good morning. host: when did you think about what the president had to say? caller: i agree on holding them accountable for what they done. i've been 30 years in the oil field, and there's a lot of things they did wrong on that one. host: you say you spent 30 years in the oil field. tell me what kind of experience you have and the difference between drilling on land and drilling -- or were you drilling in the ocean or the gulf? caller: i've been in the oil field up here in wyoming, california, oklahoma, and i spent years at halliburton myself as a seaman or with them. they did things wrong down on that well. and i think the mineral

management services, you know, they have a responsibility too, so i'm glad to see them in on it. host: richard, you'll want to stick around for a little bit later in the program. we're going to be talking about the government's role in regulating off-shore drilling and the minerals management service with jennifer dlouhy. she is the "houston chronicle" reporter with the hearst news service, and she'll be with us at about 7:45 eastern time. next up is norman on our line for democrats out of amherst, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: go ahead, sir. caller: thanks for taking my call. yeah, i don't think that the government is seriously addressing this problem. the president made it clear that he intends to do more drilling just to put off licenses for a few more days and then to go ahead with it. it's a disgrace. they really got to get off of oil drilling, and we're in a

climate emergency. they just ignore the science. it's wrong. host: thanks for your call. glendale, california, thanks for weighing in this morning on our line for republicans. caller: good morning, sir. petroleum is chasing profit. i don't know why we can't see through that. housing recovery and oil great, fine. let's stop the bleeding. you pour sand in there, you pour concrete, you pour gravel, you rebuild the bed of that ocean and you stop the oil coming to the surface and ruining that whole gulf coast, all that wonderful -- it will be a hundred years to recover from this. that's all. we need to be outraged. we need to send in the navy, the coast guard, get it done, that's it. host: on the front page of the financial times weekend edition this morning, the headline, "obama, b.p. anger on regulators."

the reporter writes about the reaction of b.p.'s chief executive and said he shared mr. obama's sense of urgency and that the company was doing "everything in our power to stop the leak." heyward added, "about the we are participating full until investigations that will provide valuable lessons about how to prevent future incidents of this nature." green bay, wisconsin, john on our line for you understand penalties. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: yes, good morning. i'm glad that they're going to hold the feet to the fire of all the regulators finally, along with just making the companies be held responsible and to get this done, but i wish the president -- i wsh we had a great conservative president, which we haven't had since 1963 when we had john f. kennedy, and he created the people's money, certificates, and l.b.j. on the plane back

home after the central bankers did what they did -- host: john, what does this have to do with the oil spill? caller: i want regulation. i want everything regulated the same way. i wish he had the same outrage against the central bankers of europe. host: let's move on to davis, california. melanie on our line for democrats. good morning, melanie. caller: hi, good morning. host: what did you think about what the president had to say? caller: well, what i think is that, you know, if he's really interested in true reform, everybody at m.m.f. that was involved in all the corruption needs to be fired and there needs to be a change of guard. usually in private companies, you don't do your job, you mess up, you get fired. so that's what he needs to do. and also, he needs to take all of the funding and the subsidy toward coal and oil and natural

gas and nuclear power, and all those subsidies should be put directly -- i mean, we need to be spending billions and billions in clean energy, wind, solar power, all of that. that money should be going to clean energy. apparently there was this moratorium, ken salazar said no more permits. quite frankly, there should be a new law that if you don't follow the law, you break the law, and you get fined, and if you don't fix it, like with coal, with massey coal, and if you don't fix it, guess what, you get put out of business until you pay -- until you give the money that you were fined until you fix all of the safety problems. that's real reform. we need to just move away from our dependence on foreign oil, oil over here, doesn't matter.

we need to get out of this whole fossil fuel, archaic way of thinking. host: we're going to leave it there, melanie. again, we will have a discussion on the minerals management service in about 25 minutes, actually about 35 minutes. lawton, oklahoma, joe on our line for republicans. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: thank you. speaking of foreign oil, it's kind of odd that you got british petroleum over here tapping the oil and stuff, but, you know, where's cheney's remarks at? he's the expert in this field. he's always there to jump on obama's back. it's like we heard nothing about what cheney's opinion is right now. i think we need to use his expertise. host: the jump page of the new york "time" this morning has the headline, "obama ripped oil

firms for pointing fingers." this comes in a statement that he made yesterday in the rose garden after a cabinet meeting with, among others, interior secretary ken salazar and energy secretary steven choo. this is a little bit more of what the president had to say yesterday. >> i hope b.p. is committed to pay for the response, and we will hold them to their obligations. i have to say i did not appreciate what i considered to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter. yet executives of b.p. and trans ocean and halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. american people could not have been impressed with that display, and i certainly wasn't. host: as we continue our conversation regarding the president's comments, we go to atlanta. joe on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i have the same type of questions that everyone else has called this morning.

they're drilling into the gulf of mexico, it makes no sense. the united states controls absolutely no oil production at all. even the opec nations, oil-producing nations, right in so if it's so important for us to have these fossil fuels that our government doesn't invest in the infrastructure and hold the oil above the ground, that way they know the regulations are done correctly. that way they know if there is a fatal -- the american people are going to pay for it, because obviously we're going to pay for this anyway. british petroleum is probably going to pay $75 million on something that's going to cost a trillion to fix. wow. that's america. that's this economy that we work in right now. the american people keep bailing out everybody, yet we're the ones to pay the cost. host: joe, do you see this as a problem of who is doing the drilling as opposed what the process was or where they were drilling? caller: you know what? it's the little things that happen. ok, who did the drilling i think at this point is extremely relevant.

if we had the military or we had the mineral management service actually do the drilling themselves, that way the protocols that were involved were all intact. that way the regulations were all being followed. that way the chain of command was spot. it wasn't trans ocean owned the rig, british petroleum actually owned the oil and halliburton did whatever they did. and by the way, what are they still doing in iraq? but anyway, that's for naught. we have to have somebody who's extremely accountable if we're going to destroy theth and the mining of these minerals. because if we can't have it both ways. and this shows us what's going to happen if we get a nuclear react tore that goes down. host: thanks for your comment. in the "new york times" article it says, "even as obama outlines the latest reaction, his administration was coming under fire for allowing the mineral service to continue with business as usual in granting the permit even after mr. obama came to office vowing to clean it up. environmentalists and proponents of greater

restrictions on off-shore oil drilling question, for instance, mr. obama's decision to expand off-shore oil drilling announced in march before tackling the close relationship between government and industry at the agency." the system failed and failed badly says the president in his short speech yesterday in the rose garden. our next call comes from wood bury heights, new jersey. richard on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: hello, guys. i worked in the oil fields of west texas for a little while, and what i thought was interesting was that it was either wednesday or thursday in the "washington journal," they had a n article that outlined the sequence of events that occurred when the initial oil spill and the initial explosion happened. that would be interesting if you guys could find that and outline it. i think you can do it a little

better than i can, but it involves the cement work that goes on with the well and the cement job and lack of a proper squeeze on the well. but i just -- just wanted to you outline that and basically say as the guy who was saying that the government should control it all, it's better in this area. it's a better way to go. anyway, that's what i've got to say. host: athens, georgia. meredith, go ahead. caller: good topic. this is probably the biggest story going on right now. nobody thought it was a very big story, but i think it's a big story and it's getting bigger. my big question on this deal is

b.p. not giving out legitimate numbers on the amount of oil coming out. but are they doing that to cover up how much oil they are expecting to take out? my understanding, this is a field that goes all the way up into arkansas, parts of tennessee. it's a huge field of oil. and i was kind of wondering whether they're taking out x amount of minerals and paying the government for that and actually, you know, taking out x times 10. i wonder if that's why they're not showing how much oil is coming out of the broken well. host: obama says testimony on spill is ridiculous. it talks a little bit about b.p. and what they're trying to do. says b.p. engineers who have struggled to plug the gushing leak since last month's

explosion plan to launch a new attempt overnight friday. remote-controlled robots operating at the well head would insert a six-inch diameter vacuum tube into the leaking pipe and funnel the oil to a tanker at the surface of the water. i will oil our line for independents. anthony, you're on the "washington journal." caller: i've got one thing to say. sorry to be this rude, but our country knows what we're going through. we're being stupid. we understand what we have to do. come on. we're still using oil when there's renewable energy all over the place? i mean, you guys, come on. you just want your dollars, you know? next up is marty on our line for republicans. marty, go ahead. caller: this oil spill has been a number of years since it's been occurring, and it seems

like the oil companies are really responsible for what's been going on. we always have to bail out every major firm there is, and we all are tightening our belts, our children's belts and neglecting ourselves to help the country. one president said don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. so now this has came about, what is the country going to do for the voters to get us out of our financial predicament, our hunger, our poverty, our ghettos? host: when you go to the polls in the november, is this going to be a priority in deciding who you're going to vote for, the clean-up of this spill in the gulf of mexico?

host: when you go to the polls in november, is this spill in the gulf of mexico and its clean-up, is that going to be a key factor in who you vote for in november? caller: not necessarily, no. it all depends on whom is running and what are they speaking about, and every time one runs, they always speak about the voters, education. it's always education, how our children are going to have nourishment for education if they do not have the proper clothing, eating, and parents have the proper income. host: all right. we're kind of getting off the rails there. the lead story in "the washington post," obama contains oil spill and fallout. fierce rebuke of executives. this is, they write, scientists and environmental groups expressed doubt about the government estimate of the size of the leak, saying it m more than five or even 10 times the rate of 5,000 barrels a day

that has been cited for weeks, and now playing almost continuously on cable news, there is video of what those fighting to contain the leak are up against, a serious plume of oil and gas from the gulf floor. next up is derek out of new york on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, robb. how's it going? i think it's shame they're letting that oil pour in there like that. i don't think they should ever have been drilling in the ocean in the first place. but a lot of people have been talking about votes and what's going to happen in november. but people have to realize, ever since kennedy was assassinated, kennedy and his brother, that ended people -- the president really trying to help the american people. our country is under control by zionists, and that's the only logical explanation, and that's based on fact. all you have to do is google why j.f.k. was killed, and you'll find the answers to why our problems are like this.

thank you very much. host: in london today from the associated press, british prime minister david cameron will have his first meeting with a foreign lead when he sits down with afghan president hamid karzai. cameron's downing street office says the leaders will meet saturday at checkers, the country residence of the british prime minister. we'll have more discussion later on in the program regarding the new government in great britain. this is from the "baltimore sun" that talks about the wrapup of president karzai's trip to the united states this week. he wrapped up his trip in fort campbell, kentucky, and you'llian barnes writes that on friday, karzai capped a u.s. visit with a trip to fort campbell to meet with u.s. soldiers from the 101st airborne division who are about to deploy to afghanistan. karzai's u.s. trip was intended in large part to help ease strains after months of

pressure from the obama administration to tackle corruption. back to our discussion regarding president obama's speech in the rose garden about the oil spill in the gulf, else the system failed and failed badly. spring valley, illinois, michael on our line for independents. what do you say? caller: good morning. i'd like to say i'm ballot foot lakotah. i belong to greenpeace, green party. many years we've been watching what we do to this planet, what we do to our society, and i think that's the key word, society. it's what we are. we're 5% of the world's population. we're using 20% of its energy, creating 40% of its physical garbage. this is just a microcosm of what's wrong with us. we're all guilty for this, because we allow b.p., exxon to

do what they want with no decent government regulation, and that's our fault. in a democracy, we're the bosses, we the people. and if the government doesn't do its job, that means that we the people aren't doing our job by calling our representative to tell them what we want. host: michael, what is the solution, reduces use of oil? caller: oh, yeah, of course, get away from fossil fuels. robert kennedy jr., he started this thing called water keeper alliance. now, the e.p.a. estimates one out of six american women of child bearing age now have unsafe mercury levels in her flesh, organs, blood, and breast milk, putting nearly half a million kids, american kids born each year, at a high risk for these diseases. host: we're going to leave it there. thanks for the call, michael. in the washington post this morning, this headline, bush would -- push would limit power

of states to enforce consumer protection. some lawmakers and financial companies are making a push to roll back a provision of the senate's financial regulations bill giving states more latitude to go after banks for violating consumer protection laws. in seeking to amend the legislation, a democrat of delaware is arguing a provision that would allow attorneys general in each state to pursue more of their own consumer protection cases could undermine the powers of a proposed federal bureau designed to stem abuses in mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products. that bureau could write and enforce rules against nationally chartered banks with more than $10 billion in assets representing more than 100 of the country's largest financial firms. in san diego, gloria on our line for democrats. good morning, gloria. caller: good morning. host: gloria, what did you think about what the president

had to say about the system failing badly in the gulf? caller: well, my concern is beyond the environmental impact of the oil itself, they're also putting in all of those chemicals to break up the oil, and they're putting in tremendous amounts of chemicals into our oceans, which we don't even know what kind of effect that's going to have in the long run. i saw swng on tv it the other day demonstrating a container full of oil in water. the hay an ors every bit of the oil, the water was clear, the hay could be scooped out. i mean, they could use something natural like that, just put tons of hay into the ocean to absorb all the oil, and then they can scoop all of the hay out and dispose of it just like the automotive shops dispose of oil safely, voormentally. and i'll tell you, i will never

again buy a gas-powered automobile. i will only buy an electric-powered car or at least a hybrid. no more gasoline-powered cars, period. and i realize our government gets the second greatest source of its income behind the income tax, which is the first source of its income. the second source of our federal government's -- largest source of our federal government's income comes from royalties on oil production, and maybe that's why all of the detroit manufacturers never got around to giving us anything but gas-powered engines in our cars, and i just don't want any more gas-powered engines, period. host: more of what the president had to say yesterday in his speech in the rose garden. >> from the day he took office as interior secretary, ken salazar has recognized these problems and worked to solve them.

oftentimes he has been slammed by the industry suggesting that somehow these necessary reforms would impede economic growth. well, as i just told ken, we are going to keep on going to do what needs to be done. so i've asked secretary salazar to conduct a reform of the minerals management service. this week he announced that a part of the agency which permits oil and gas drilling and collects royaltying will be separated from part of the agency in charge of inspecting the safety of oil riggs and platforms enforcing the law. that way there's no conflict of interest, real or perceived. host: we'll have more on the discussion specifically dealing with the interior department's minerals management service in about another 15 minutes on the "washington journal" this morning. back to the phones. lacrosse, wisconsin, robert on our line for republicans.

tell us what you think about what the president had to say about the system failing and failing badly. caller: hello. host: hello. caller: i'm want a republican. i'm a conservative libertarian. host: ok. caller: ok, i believe in the basic rights, and i'm a conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility of congress. so let's get that cleared up. host: now that we've got that cleared up, tell me what you think about what the president had to say. caller: well, i think what we have here is a lot of hysteria that's been completely blown way out of proportion. i had a business trip to cancun a few years back, and i was shocked when i flew over the gulf of mexico to see all these oil riggs. i did not know that we had that many oil rigs. and then i find out that we don't really own that many,

that this country, the oil is actually coming into our country. and it's kind of surprising to me that when obama and his policy was to expand -- i think it was a week or two ago, or maybe three weeks, that this cost was in his energy plan, was to expand oil and all this and that, and all the sudden this one rig blows up, and maybe we don't know, really, do we? host: and we'll leave it there. in the "philadelphia inquirer" this morning, justice kennedy, supreme court swing vote, disowns that label as the headline. out of west palm beach, justice anthony kennedy on friday decried the way some senators question supreme court nominees -- excuse me -- justice kennedy

on friday declued the way some senators question supreme court nominees, defended president obama's pursuit of empathetic judges, and defended the notion that the court can be activists. kennedy told an audience that the senate should not try to determine how high court nominee elena kagan would rule on specific issues, but should focus broadly on whether she has the qualities of a good judge. and coming up later on today on c-span at 7:00 p.m. on "america and the courts," a review of u.s. supreme court term moderated by elena kagan at the sixth circuit judicial conference. she moderated the discussion of the recent supreme court term. panelists include university of california irvine law school dean and the former u.s. solicitor general. and monday, as you'll recall, president obama nominated visitor general kagan to

replace john paul stevens, who is retiring at the end of this term. so you'll be able to see that discussion in front of the sixth circuit judicial conference later on this evening on "america and the courts," 7:00 p.m. eastern, 4:00 p.m. pacific time. back to the phones. indiana -- indianapolis, indiana. judy on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hello? host: hello, judy. caller: yes, i was calling about the spill, the oil spill. i'm really concerned, because the senator who put the hold on the legislation to allow the oil rig owners or whatever to be responsible for the expense was really -- she's really not concerned about the everyday working people, you know the rday working people that are going to be affected by this oil spill.

they're really like at the bottom of the food chain, so she doesn't seem to be concerned about those people. and i just heard on cnn this morning that a lot of the fishing industry or whatever up in alaska is still being affected by the exxon spill. the republicans are so upset. they want government to be small and all of this, but this is the only way. the government is the only energy that's going to be able to stop -- actually get the money that the people need to recover from this oil spill down in louisiana. host: mayor any oklahoma, you're next on the "washington journal." caller: yes, my major concern is the corporation laws protect everybody so much that there's no way to go back on anybody

for doing anything. why should these people making these big dollars get away with destroying the cost and they're going to walk away scot-free. no matter what we do, there's nothing we can do to them. host: thanks for your call. in the "baltimore sun" this morning, a report on the latest launch of the space shuttle, this one atlantis. it took off yesterday. emotions ride high on last launch of atlantis. there's just two scheduled missions left as we see the shuttle atlantis taking off. this is how it was written for the tribune newspapers. space shuttle atlantis thunder off at kennedy space center into cloudless skies friday and headed to the international space station on its 32nd and final planned mission during 25 years of service. can't see them because they're too small there on the ground, but tens of thousands of spectators crowded nearby

beaches and causeways to catch a glimpse of the historic flight. defense secretary robert gates, tv host david letterman, and anatoli romanoff were among the crowd of hoe,000 at the kennedy space center. back to the phones. panama city, florida, rex on our line for republicans. good morning, rex. caller: good morning. host: did you have a chance to see the shuttle launch yesterday? caller: no, sir, i didn't. i was working. host: all right. tell us what you think about what the president had to say about the oil spill and the system failing? caller: oink it's not mr. obama trying to get it done, but everybody that's held accountable for not only halliburton, but whoever is actually inspecting the pipe that can go from japan to brazil to the united states. whoever makes it because of the metals made and how it gets

corroded under the waters, it should be inspected more thoroughly because of the articles. plus the fishermen, the oyster men, the beaches, tourism down here on the coast, everybody ought to be held accountable. host: is your business going to be affected by the spill when it gets to the shores of the coast there? caller: yes, sir. my company is actually helping clean up out of mobile, alabama, and i've got a satellite here in panama city. we're doing everything as well as volunteering and working outs there. host: rex, what kind of process are you using for the clean-up? caller: whatever they ask us to do, from vacuum trucks to

vacuum up the spill with vacuum trucks. we've got a fleet of them in mobile all the way scattered from mississippi all the way to panama city. host: have you been out with the vacuum truck yet? caller: no, sir, i haven't personally. host: how is that working so far? caller: it's doing fairly well, but the balls under the boom itself have created over a million miles of boom right now. it's doing a pretty good job, and plus, the government, what they got out there with the guard they got in place, but still, the balls going underneath the boom itself is going to hit the beaches, and in panama city, we got some of

the most beautiful beaches in the world going all the way around the potential to appalacola. host: rex, hold up a second. based on what you've seen so far, there are discrepancies coming out about how much oil is actually coming out of the ruptures line down there in the gulf coast, or in the gulf of mexico. b.p. says it's about 5,000 gallons a day. other independent agencies say it's closer to 50,000 gallons a day. based on what it is, what you guys are cleaning up down there, what do you think it is,,000 or 50,000? -- 5,000 or 50,000? caller: i'd say more like 100,000 because of the diameter of the pipe. they ought to be able to engineer and predict exactly how much flow they got with the pressure and the diameter of the pipe itself. host: rex, thanks for checking in. janesville, wisconsin, you're next on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i just would like to

say that i think the government is passing the buck. i think that they should have jumped on this a lot sooner, why aren't we using our military that's supposed to protect our borders? it's like backwards. they're into things that they shouldn't be and not into the things they should be. host: are you talking about the military, scott? caller: yeah. with a y wasn't the navy and the coast guard immediately involved in this to protect our borders? host: what do you think that the nay or coast guard should have done as far as assisting or actually taking the lead on the clean-up in this? caller: well, i think the most highly trained people in the world, and they could have done a lot more help if they'd have been sent out there right away.

it just seemed like they were just like, oh, well. and now a month later it's a big deal. host: thanks for your call. more news from the "new york times" this morning from their business section. kansas mutual fund identified as traitor in mutual fund. a conservative 70-year-old mutual fund based in overland park, kansas, has been linked to the plunge during which the dow dropped hundreds of points in a matter of minutes. the company was identified in a chicago mercantile exchange document, according to reuters. in a statement, waddell & reid said it was among the firms that traded the stock index fruits contracts suspected of being a crucial link in the cascade of events leading up to the plunge that began shortly after 2:30 p.m. on may 6. back to the phones. alabama, diane on our line for

democrats. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: yes. how are you this morning? host: what did you think about what the president had to say yesterday? caller: well, i think he should have said this a long time ago. i think more presidents should have said this. by starting the oil rig back up, they should have been checked very well because of the corrosive nature of saltwater on lead and pipes and stuff like this. they went out there. they started it. explosion, people killed, it wasn't ready. it had not been used for too many years. host: where is clanton, alabama? caller: in between birmingham and montgomery. it's in the very center of the state. host: sounds like you have experience in the oil business. caller: no, actually, i'm a nurse. but i do care about my state. i do care about my beaches, because we have the sugar stand down here, and we love to go to gulf shores, and right now

we've got the fish washing up on dolphin island, which is right outside of orange beach gulf shores. and they're picking up the oil things that they found out there, you know, coming up in the balls, the dolphins are dead on the islands. there's thousands of people that are already dead. host: have you been down there since this accident happen? caller: actually i'm finding some company to volunteer for to go do some work, help our beaches. nobody else is going to do it. they offered $25 million from b.p. companies to go in and pay these people that are losing their life down there. i mean, they're losing their livelihood. i mean, they can't go out and fish. it's already coming up that unless they go very far out in the ocean. host: in the business section of the "philadelphia inquirer" this morning, congress nears a deal to extend tax breaks. dozens of tax cuts from tuition

aid to property tax deductions expired last year. also on tap, new jobless aid. you can read more about that at www.philly.com. southbridge, massachusetts, on our line for independents. dave, you're on the "washington journal." caller: hello, yes, i wanted to make a comment. we can put a man on the moon, but we can't stop an oil leak that we created? you know, with the box that they sent down, you figure that they could create a way for the box not to freeze. host: and what would you suggest? have you seen some of the other things that they're trying down there? you think any of this is going to work? caller: well, i worked with the gas company here in massachusetts, and we've used expansion plugs, you fill up the bags with air to stop the

flow. so that could be an option. host: one of the papers this morning reported that they're going to try and put a hose down, i guess inside of the leak, and try to suck the oil out that way. do you have any experience with that? caller: i don't think that would work. i mean, you really got to stop the flow totally, which i would think expansion plug or you blow it up with air would stop that. host: thanks for your call. in "the washington post," house democrats called out republicans on ear marks for dying party's ban. representative james oberstar, chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee, told house republicans in a letter thursday that their earmark requests will remain in his committee's bill on water resources projects unless they are withdrawn in 12 days. house republican leaders who proposed a moratorium on ear

marks in march, accused oberstar of trying to score political points and said he was aware that many republicans have already asking the committee's ranking member, representative john mica of florida, to withdraw their request. lafayette, louisiana. derek on our line for democrats. go ahead, derek. what did you think? caller: it's been a while since i been in there. i used to work for a company. it used to be called cooper oil. now it's called cameron. from what i'm understanding, cameron had warned b.p., trans ocean, that that valve had 250 safety violations. now, we're saying that these guys are only warranted for so many years. these valves could have been

pulled off, reworked or replaced. the vavels themselves was not even tested before the well even blew. i mean, that valve could have been tested to see if it was working and functioning right. apparently they knew a battery was dead, so that tells you that the battery's dead, or they tried testing it and it did not work? and he just left it at that. now, another thing with halliburton, as you can see, every explosion that happened, halliburton has something to do with it. when they asked a halliburton representative how often did you use it? now, as for working off shore, from my experience back in the years, there's many ways to get rid of the excess gas that come out of the hole when you drill it. i've never heard anything about turning off the gas other than pushing through the hole to keep the pressure of the gas on, you can also burn off the gas by setting up these funnels that pulls off about 20 feet

away from the rig, and you can burn the excess gas off. i'm going to tell you something about working off shore. they fly these company men in on the rig. and these tool pushers get very nervous, and what it is, they try to meet this deadline. from my personal experience, i was working on a rig, but we were uploading a case by halliburton to pour the concrete in. the weather got really bad, really, really bad. the boat captain radioed and said the boat is jumping up and down, we need to get these guys up before something bad happens. we need to get the last three cases off this rig. we need to get the job done. you know what happened? this big old wave came from the back of the boat, pked me up and damn near threw never over the side of the boat. host: what happened to the rig you were working on? was there any damage there? caller: no, there was no damage to the rig, but there was damage to me and my co-worker

that was on the rig. host: derek, thanks for your call, and we hope you've fully recovered. we're going to continue our discussion about the off-shore drilling. we're going to get into the government role in regulating the off-shore drilling and take a look specifically at the department of the interior's minerals management service. and here to help us understand some of that will be jennifer dlouhy of the hearst news service. we'll have that right after this break.

>> watch this week's hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill or look back at 1989. every weekend c-span2's book tv

features 48 hours of nonfiction books. this weekend on afterwards, "the reluctant spy." the former c.i.a. officer talks about life in the agency before and after 9/11. he's interviewed by former c.i.a. inspector general frederick hitt. find the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jennifer dlouhy of the hearst news service and the "houston chronicle" is here to help us understand the government's role in regulating off-shore drilling. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: tell us, what is the interior department's minerals management service and why has it been getting so much attention? guest: well, essentially it's an agency within the department of interior that is responsible for overseeing all federal drilling, oil and gas drilling leases on public waters, on federal land. it's also responsible for collecting royalties from any production of oil and gas on

these lands. and at the same time, it's tasked with regulating the agency. it's tasked with inspecting the rigs, making sure they work right, that the regulations that they impose will ensure the safety. host: and the concern expressed by the president regarding this minerals management agency is -- or minerals management service is what? guest: well, we should actually go back just a little bit and note that this agency has been in the news for a while now. it's been criticized for having an inappropriate relationship, an inappropriately close relationship with the industry it regulates. so most recently, president obama yesterday criticized it and has come under criticism on capitol hill for basically having lax regulation of the industry. there's a concern that the royalty collection functions and the issuing of leases for drilling, that that mission conflicts with their goal of

regulating the agency or regulating the drilling operations, regulating the industry. yesterday president obama said that he was tired of the cozy relationship between the m.m.s. and the industry that it regulates, and there's just concern that they haven't been as strict as they should have been all along. host: when he says cozy, can you give me a specific example of what exactly that means? guest: well, i can cite the inspector general who, in 2008, said that there was an incredibly cozy relationship in the denver office, where some of the officials from m.m.s. in the denver office were having a sexual relationship with industry employees, that they were engaged in consuming or having drugs with the folks that they regulate. so that was a pretty high-profile indictment of the m.m.s. and again, that was in a government report in 2008. host: what about the

relationship between the m.m.s. and b.p.? guest: well, there's some concern that, again, m.m.s. has been not as tough on the job and tough on b.p. as it should have been. in this particular instance, there's some concern raised about whether m.m.s. allowed b.p. to go forward with its drilling without going through some additional environmental assessments and studies that are generally required under federal law. m.m.s. has a process where it can use things called categorical explosion to essentially exempt operations from having to go through this very rigorous environmental analysis process. and they use that in the case of b.t. host: we're going to be talking about the government's role in regulating off-shore drilling with jennifer dlouhy for about the next 40 minutes. if you want to get involved in the conversation, by all means, give us a call. the numbers, 202-737-0002 for democrats. for republicans, 202-737-0001 t. for i understand --

independents, 202-628-0205. if you've called within the last 30 days, today would be the day to send us a twitter message or contact us by email. jennifer dlouhy, you wrote a couple of days ago, on may 11 and the headline was off-shore drilling agency to be split this two. explain to us why they feel the administration -- the administration feels the necessity to split this agency in two and how they feel this is going to remedy the situation. guest: well, the core idea is that you can't have the same agency collecting money from oil and gas industries and issuing drilling just to these agencies, or to these drilling operations, rather, and at the same time, policing them. there's the idea here that those two ideas and roles are inherently in conflict.

so it was proposed to separate out the investigation process, if you operate out the regulation process, that won't be tainted by the money collecting essentially. how long will it take to do this restructuring? guest: it's a little unclear. parts can be done administratively, but congress is clearly wanting to get involved. there are some on capitol hill who have tried for years to revamp the m.m.s. frankly, they've been trying since that 2008 report. so there are different ideas on capitol hill about exactly what should be done. some want to go even further than just dividing it in two. so there will be a debate on capitol hill about this. there's clearly an interest in doing it, and some folks may want to wait just to see exactly what went role and what m.m.s.'s flole that, but it's clear there's urgency on capitol hill about getting this done. host: there have been at least four hearings in the last week,

and probably before we were done with this, as many as weeks ago. do they plan on calling these folks up to find out exactly what was going on and what was their responsibility in this disaster in the gulf? guest: most definitely. this week there are six hearings, and basically congress is shifting their attention to the federal government, so the hearings this week focus on d.o.i. there may be some representatives up this week. but going forward, the committee in the house, the house committee on natural resources, henry waxman's committee in the house as well also intends to bring up the m.m.s. representatives to really investigate them. i should say that in addition to the activity on capitol hill, the u.s. coast guard are actually doing a joint investigation and they had two

hearings last week, and they had some very serious questions and information really from some of the m.m.s. investigators in this case. so -- or m.m.s. regulators in this case, so they are actually looking at it too. host: our first call for jennifer dlouhy comes from maryville, tennessee. cynthia on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. host: go ahead. caller: all right. it's simply a statement. i would like to call for the separation of business and state. it's an issue of separation of church and state which is a gross misquote. i'd like to call for the separation of business and state. that is my comment. thank you so much. host: well, cynthia, before you go, what makes you think that business and state are so closely tied that there needs to be some formal separation? caller: they're in bed with each other. well, we can take a look at the

wall street. we can take a look at this oil spill and just how it runs, permeates the corruption through our government and business. host: thanks for your call. ms. dlouhy? guest: well, i think this whole incident in the gulf has really raised people's awareness of the role in government regulation of business, and it's really shined a spotlight on the m.m.s. and the government's role in this whole area. host: crown point, indiana, on our line for -- i'm sorry. hold on a second. our line for democrats, crown point, indiana, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning, jeremy. caller: yeah, i wanted to make a brief comment and offer a solution. maybe someone can see this and maybe you have an architect who can build it. one, is you don't have to look any farther than washington, d.c., and look at wall street to know that there's where all the american people's problems emanate from.

you know, you don't go looking somewhere else. these are the two institutions that support each other, and it's like a tennis match. but washington, d.c., is balled up, and wall street is here. now, here's my solution. i think that what they should do is -- it's about a mile deep from my understanding. they should try to build a platform, lower it down with a pipe. i mean, when i say a pipe, i mean something huge that can protrude up out of the water, even if they have to connect it and weld it joint by joint and then connect a release valve, maybe if it's submersible. at the end, i think that that is it. they need to attach a u joint at the bottom and start building sections up until it spews out the water so they can have a relief valve so that they can stop the flow of oil. because you know what it is? not only does this make me sick that they're wasting our national resources, but it makes me sick from the standpoint, we only have one world, and if we abuse the

world, believe me, you use up all of the resources, it's not only a problem for us right now, but it's a problem for future generations, and the world don't belong to government, nor do it belong to wall street. it belong to the people and the people belong to god, and that is a fact in my mind. host: we're going to leave it there, jeremy. is there any responsibility within the m.m.s. to help with the clean-up now that they've issued the drilling rights and collected the money? guest: well, the act of 1990, which was enacted after the exxon valdez tanker ran aground, lays out the procedure for a response, and it's really ultimately -- it's really the responsible party, in this case, b.p. it falls to them to do the clean-up. that doesn't mean government doesn't have a role. there are quite a few agencies involved in the entire effort, and b.t. is essentially working with the coast guard and other agencies down in the gulf to try to contain this, so clean

up the spill. so government agencies are essentially partnering with b.p., but in the end, it's also to finance it and to conduct a lot of this work. host: next up is bakersfield, california, on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: thank you, robb. a few months back, we lost c-span2, and boy, i really missing able to watch the senate. so if anyone there can help near bakersfield, i'm convinced that bright house should return c-span220 basic cable, i would be very, very grateful. in regard to the oil spill, one thing that's not been reported is that we have penetrated a geological structure, which is operating on its own pressure, so there's really an unlimited flow to continuously come out of there, technically not unlimited. but in our span of life, unlimited supply of oil keeps

on coming out, unlike the exxon valdez. also, when i was watching the testimony of the three executives from b.p., halliburton, and transocean, seems to me there's criminal malfeasance here, and it seems like there should be manslaughter charges coming up because we lost 11 people here. would you care to comment about any of that? host: jennifer dlouhy of the hearst news service, go ahead. guest: well, criminal charges are a possibility in this. right after the explosion, the obama administration sent down -- eric holder dispatched quite a number of attorneys down to the area, so that's certainly a possibility. as for the pressure question, this was a new discovery for b.t. they were actually prepared to announce that they had, you know, done this exploratory scombl had this amazing discovery. so we actually don't know what the estimated reserves are here at play. we just know there's a lot of

oil, maybe 5,000 barrels a day, maybe it's more coming out daily from this gusher. . i used to work for a company that would use absorbant plank ets or pillows tho to absorb

oil. it can be deployed out of a plane and when it washes up on shore or recovered by a boat, you ring it out and throw it back many. it's a wonderful product available all over the place. and there are ware houses full of this stuff but i don't see it being used. it just absorbs the oil. you ring it out and throw it back in. yoss any of this in any pictures. i'm wondering what's going on. you can't contain it in high seas but these sponges just absorb oil. and wherever they wash up, they wash up. the oil stays in the blanket. i just don't know why containment booms seem to be the only choice. host: thanks for your call. to borrow a phrase from espn, they can't stop it. they can only hope to contain

it. guest: that's right. and there's been talk on capitol hill that this is an industry that has spent billions in creating new technology for getting into the earth's surface. but in the end they're relying on some low-tech sounding processes for trying to do whatever they can to end this. host: wick sends this e-mail. what makes one risk different from another rig? isn't the current problem simply a difference in magnitude? guest: that's an interesting question. there are envirmte lists and there are experts with the fisheries agencies and the marine agencies in the federal government that say that the mms should be considering under law the effects on marine

ma'amles, the effects on whales of size mick testing. they say that the drilling activity itself can cause damage to marine life even when there isn't a spill. so these are factors that are supposed to be considered as part of under two federal statutes. the endangered species act and the marines ma'amles law that are on the books. and there's some indication that they have not done a lot of that analysis. they've essentially waived that analysis and skipped it in many cases. so it's not necessarily a question of one rig versus another. this has been done widely. there was a lawsuit filed on this very issue with an arizona based environmental group basically saying that the mms and the doi had improved a lot of drilling and size mick activity without doing these analyses.

host: mary sends us this tweet. guest: that is a question that i don't know the answer to. frankly, it's a good one because the royalties aspect is not without its own questions. there have been quite a number of reports from the g.a.o. and other government auditors saying that the m.m.s. has failed in its royalty collection duties at times. so there's clearly an interest i would assume on capitol hill to keep looking at that part of the process even if you want to make sure that the inspections are top notch, too. host: jennifer is here to talk to us about the government's role in regulating offshore drilling, particularly looking at the department of the interior's mineral's management service. before going to the hearts news sterviss she was a staff writer with congressional quarterly and was also a correspondent before that with the seattle

post intelligence here in the washington bureau. she has also written for the san antonio express news, the bow mant, and the arkansas gazzet. back to the phones lake view, michigan. go ahead. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: thank you. host: turn your tv down. you're getting an echo. caller: thank you. ok. hello. good morning. thank you for c-span. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: ok. we were living in florida for ten years, and we are -- it's good to see -- dr we're retired

. it's good to see our president getting angry. and we know from the state of michigan that when mrs. grand hole m gets angry, we are very proud of her. and we get angry, too. coming from florida, we were there during katrina, and we are proud of the anger of the people there also. we hope and pray that it doesn't happen with the oil spill regarding the people from louisiana. the independents and the owners are doing the best they can, and we need more help, more input along with the vearns,

our medical expenses are not getting paid. the government is getting years behind regarding our medical expenses. host: we're getting away from the subject. let's go to stephanie in pennsylvania on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm a retired federal employee, and i have a suggestion for c-span. i think you ought to do some more civics type programs or whatever, because this is a tiny civics lesson. the all the federal agencies are really owned by the executive branch. and when a president comes into office, he brings 3,000 political appointees with him. every president is allowed to appoint 3,000 political

appointees. and this goes into 12 departments and a couple of agencies. so you can see that there's a political appointee with their thumb on federal employees to follow the line of the political party in power. host: thanks for your call. who is in charge over at minerals management service? and is that person in danger of losing their job over this? guest: i think it's a little early to say how many people may be affected and how many people's livelihood at the federal government may be affected by this. but elizabeth burn baum is the head of the mms. she came in with the obama administration, as the caller notes the administration did bring in a lot of new people. but there are also people who have been there for decades. this is a very specialized field and there are specialists and investigators who work in the field and who work in the various regions who have been doing this for many administrations. host: next up is north carolina

on our line for republicans. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: i called the bp horizon hot line for an idea to cap that well in the gulf of mexico. i called them twice over the past two weeks, and i've got no response. i don't know whether they lost my suggestion or what. but i suggested that they either use the military sub or one of their mini subzero and fabricate a high drallic device to go over there and crush the pipe closed. and it's very feasible and it wouldn't cost a lot of money. it's something they could build in eight to ten days if that. i don't know why they haven't done it. it's something they could do. host: thanks for the call. it seems like everybody has a suggestion on how to fix this. do those ideas go through mms

or are they out of the loop on that? guest: bp since they are in charge of the response, they set up this hot line for alternative technology suggestions. they have gotten hundreds and hundreds of ideas. everything from hey to nuclear devices. they run the gamut. the ideas that meet the test, and m.m.s. is less involved than the b.p. folks and the engineers and the joint unified command. but the ideas that make the cut, there are about 700 forwarded for further review. one thing i found interesting is while there seems to be a broad range, there are many good ideas coming from average folks and specialists roonched the country that are shockingly similar to things already considered at the command system in houston. you have engineers working together on scores of different ideas that we may not have heard about yet. and they're very similar to the ideas they're getting.

host: our next call from louisiana on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking up this issue. it is obvious that the proof is in the pudding, and you were just discussing about people calling in after the fact with hundreds and hundreds of ideas on how to solve this catastrophic event. and the problem is, it's criminal that all of this was not done before the first inch of that deep water well was drilled. the solution to possible catastrophes and failures of equipment should have been taken into account before anyone was allowed to drill the first inch in deep water where they knew they could not get to it in person. that is criminal and needs to be immediately stopped and investigated. host: are you watching us on television? caller: yes, i am.

host: we've got a map supplied by the newspapers that we got from the baltimore sun that shows the gulf coast area. where is tib do? guest: we are 60 miles southwest of new orleans where you see that part of the danger zone. host: so you are in this area here? caller: correct. that is the most prolivic seafood area in the country. host: vu seen evidence of the oil spill coming up on shore? and how has it affected the business there? caller: everything is already a catastrophic mess for the society here, for our people here. we've been holding community forums. most of the seafood workers and the industries that go up the food chains, the restaurants, the providers, the processors are already out of business. we have people who can't pay their bills. i have a gentleman the other day whose tower was turned off.

sea food pickers, wait resses, people who put tens of thousands of dollars into their boat ready to start their harvest. and the week before harvest season, they can no longer go out to harvest. these are people who live very close to the lands, have nothing to begin with, and yet their lives have been totally destroyed by someone else making a profit to provide for the energy needs of america at louisiana's expense. host: thank you very much for your call. jennifer, go ahead. guest: well, she brought up the interesting question of regulation at the beginning and preparation. and one of the thing that is we're hearing about on capitol hill is that -- and the message may have in essentially in the words of one critic rubber stamping the bp plan may not have considered or required the full range of recovery and

spill containment stuff to be on hand and products to be on hand. senator sessions and senator specter this week said that they wondered why a containment dome like the one that was tried last weekend wasn't already fabricated and waiting for delivery at any time it might be needed. so there's some serious questions being raised about whether the industry was fully prepared to react to a spill of this nature. and what mms and doi's role was in forcing that kind of preparation. host: is there any sort of time frame between when a company applies to mms for the rights to drill and what knot so that the government and other agencies can look and see what kind of preparations they are making not only for the drilling but in case of an accident like this? is there any kind of a time frame or do they just say, here, this is our application? come back in a day or so and you can start drilling? guest: it's not that quick. it's a fairly long process.

but there have been questions raised about the current statutory limit on the m.m.s.'s processing on certain explore tri drilling plans, and right now that's set at 30 days. the white house last week sent up legislation to capitol hill or made a proposal to capitol hill saying we need you to expand that limit from 30 days to 90 days and then also allow it to be expanded in some special cases. host: and is there any evidence that shows that different companies got different sorts of favoritism or anything like that, any kind of deals? not deals but that some people were moved through the process faster? guest: i think that's a subject area that's being looked at. i don't think there's anything definitive on that or not that i've seen but that is a subject area being examined. host: you're on the washington journal. go ahead. caller: yes. i'd like to put everybody's attention to a story that

appeared in the st. petersburg times this morning. and we're on the florida gulf coast. i almost cry to think of what might happen to the beaches. but it turns out that the driller, one of the drilling companies in involved in the oil drilling just cleared a $1 billion dividend and that particular company is a swiss company. they moved to switzerland two years ago in order to apoid paying american taxes. and yet, this is the same company that just the other day said they wanted the limits capped at something like, i don't know, $15 million or something that they would be opened to. so i think this is another case of socialism for huge corporations and the rest of us have to get along like we were living in a socialist 19th century. guest: he's referring to

transsession which did move from houston to switzerland. there are implications for a lot of this. the with drilling rig was flagged in another country with a different inspection procedures. there's a lot of interest in looking at kind of the foreign issues that he raises. host: next up is wisconsin. justin on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. hopefully they'll get this spill and this mess cleaned up in a timely manner. as they always do get it cleaned up, hopefully not too much damage done. and i pray the eco system doesn't take too much of a hit and they'll learn from their mistakes not to let something like this happen as easily. my question is, do you think this drilling, this offshore drilling is more for domestic consumption or more for international sales?

with this oil coming out here. guest: well, it is true that 30% of the oil produced domestically comes from the gulf of mexico. so obviously this is a region that provides a great deal of or significant chunk of what the u.s. is producing and using from within its own shores. and borders. there are reports that some oil produced in offshore regions is put on tankers and supplies other areas. but the government and other officials keep reminding us that this is an area that is a significant portion that is america's home-grown energy. host: back to the phones. florida on our line for independents. justin. sorry. go ahead. caller: i would like to first make a request, and then i've got a question for the guests.

but the request is i listen mainly on saturdays on the weekends. it's about the only time i get to list ton this great program. and it seems lately, especially last weekend and so far this morning i hear quite a bit of anti semetic comments. and people trying to draw parallels to the so-called zionists or the jews. and it really bothers me that not once have i ever heard you condemn that kind of speak on this radio program. i mean, you yourself, sir, as a minority should be calling that out and condemning that immediately but iver never heard you saying that. if someone called up and started throwing the n. word around i'm sure you would take offense. we need in the future to kind of tone some of that down. but my question also, while i'm on the phone is how come nobody's mentioned the three

and a half million dollars that this president took from bp, for one? and i believe, and i don't know if the guest here would know much about this. but i heard there were some capempleshns actually signed by our great president a few weeks before this whole thing happened and bp was part of that. how come we never hear about any of that? what went on with that situation? host: jennifer, go ahead. guest: on april 6, the m.m.s. approved the drilling plan for this particular well and they essentially waived the requirement that is b.p. outline a scenario for spill prevention or potential blowout for this magnitude. so that was a recent apprufle. we actually at the houston chronical and newspapers have done some reporting on the campaign donation that is have flowed from bp. interestingly in the last cycle they split their donations.

so obama was a recipient but so were the republicans. host: does anyone at m.m.s. explain why they granted that waiver? guest: it is interesting that these waivers are getting a lot of attention right now because they are somewhat common place. the mms has a lilt of instances where they can use these categorical exclusions to waive environmental reviews. it's a very long list. it's in m.m.s. manuals. other agencies use them, too. the forest service uses them to waive environmental reviews in the case of small timber sales. at m.m.s. it's used for a range of things, everything from certain standard size mick testing to drilling plans to areas of deep water that are not particularly new or areas that are not subject to a lot of size mick activity. host: back to the phones. san francisco, jane on our line for republicans.

good morning. caller: hi, listening to c-span since almost the beginning, i have to say that almost any time that anything like that is brought up, the person is immediately cut off. i've seen that. host: let me address that real quick. and justin, if you're stist listening. we're trying to operate an open forum. and sometimes people get through and they say things and we try and cut them off. we're doing the best we can. and we just try and ask people who are concerned about this or sensitive to this to be indulgent and we ask the people who feel that way try not to make those statements on our air. use some other form of communication to vent your opinions. go ahead. caller: that's what i've seen. host: do you want to talk about the oil spill and the minerals management service?

caller: i do. but if i have just a second to mention that, i'm concerned about the fact that the muslims in their religion do not permit any people to be gay or active in their countries. host: i need for you to get back to offshore drilling or we're going to move on to another call. caller: well, this is the thing. there is so much corruption here from the fact that president obama received $70,000 from b.p., from the fact that m and m has received sexual and drug gifts from the fact that the congress according to mr. stupak, they have been investigating and knew all about this from the fact that the coast guard said these booms -- and nightline had a show on it. these booms would not work. everybody knew about this but nothing has been done. and the environmental lists have such power that we could

be -- the companies oil companies have to dig that deep offshore because they're not permtted because the democrats are not permitting them to dig in alaska and do anything that because they claim the environment. but yet you see under the democrats when they did all this investigation they did nothing about the environmental studies. host: we'll leave it there. thanks for your call. guest: she said that everyone knew about this in reference to the booms. one of the questions that has come up on capitol hill is whether m.m.s. and other folks knew that other components of drilling rig, not looking at the containment effort but actually the rig and the well were secure. there's a lot of questions raised about whether the blowout preventor can work adequately under many situations, especially at high depths where pipes are thicker. so there are going to continue

to be quite a bit of questions and an analysis about the role of government and the role of industry fr preparing and investing in the kind of technology that would work and contain or prevent this kind of thing from happening. host: we've got an article here from the bloomberg business week under the title of paradox of deep water. lots of oil, lots of danger. going forward, how much more focus is going to be put through m.m.s. on making sure that the people who are drilling in deep water know what it is that they're doing, know the dangers, and can -- and have prepared for something if it goes wrong? guest: i think without a doubt, everyone is saying from industry to capitol hill to the white house, everyone is saying this is going to cause some major changes in the way the industry does business, in the way the m.m.s. polices them. so it could be a seed change

frankly. it's especially acuke in the deep water area because this incident has shown us, those of us who may flever have paid attention to offshore drilling on any level even have seen that at these extreme depths, these are areas that humans can't operate, that they rely on remote vehicles. and it's clearly not as easy to work with spills and catastrophes as it is in shallow water. so i think especially in the deep water area we're going to see more regulation. but industry folks are saying we have to identify what went wrong here, we have to change it. they recognize as does the industry or as does government that this will change the way they work and in a number of ways. and, frankly, they're all going to be affected. all the businesses that operate in this area are going to be affected. host: our last call comes from our line for democrats in california.

welcome. caller: good morning, i just woke up so i haven't really heard everything you're talking about but i've heard the last few callers. and i just wanted to say that obviously anything that happened, obama's going to be blamed. he's not going to pay for this but let me just say this that m.m.s., most of the country has never heard of them. this company was deep down into the interior, i believe, agency. all of the staff was probably a product of cheney and bush. obama has been so busy dealing with the economy, dealing with the banks, dealing with jobs, and then terrorism. and to find out all of these different agencies, even with counter terrorism where we had that terrorist that was on the plane in december. then you find out how much problems there was with terrorism. now we're in drilling baby

drill and he's finding out all of the people that dick cheney and his crew had in the drilling industry. and the corruption. and they want to blame all this corruption on him? this happened ten years ago when nothing was done. now they want to blame all of this crap on the this new president. host: sorry about that. jennifer, thank you very much for being on the program. guest: thank you. host: in just a few minutes we're going to be talking about u.s. british relations in regard to the new government formed this week. but first we want to show you some of the week's knew news through the eyes of political cartoonists.

host: mel gardener of the heritage foundation is here to talk about u.s.-british relations in light of the new government formed. welcome. guest: thank you very much. host: david cameron became the new prime minister. tell us how that happened because there was a lot of scrambling going on. and what does it mean for the relationship between the united states and great britain? guest: firstly, with the regard to the election of david cameron, we had quite a roller coaster ride for several days in the united kingdom. we had elections held about ten days ago. those elections resulted in a hung parliament with the conservatives as the single biggest party but not enough to form an overall majority. the conservatives won 306 seats out of 350 seats in the house

of commons. you need to have 326 for a majority. so therefore the conservatives tried desperately to form a coalition government with the liberal democrats, at the same time of course the liberal is the smallest party they won just 57 seats tried to form a coalition with both the labor party and the conservatives doing separate deals. now, the deal between the labor party and the liberal democrats of course collapsed. the liberals then formed a government with the conservatives which came into place on tuesday. gordon brown resigned and david cameron became the prime minister. what does this mean of course for the future of u.s.-u.k. relations? we've already seen a distifpkt improvement in the relationship between london and washington. just yesterday, the british foreign secretary was in town, william hague, who met with secretary of state hillary

clinton. they had very fruitful discussions. i think already a very strong personal relationship is being built up between hague and clinton which bodes well for the special relationship. within two hours of becoming prime minister, barack obama telephoned david cameron to congratulate him. and president obama made it clear that great britain is america's closest friend and ally. and barack obama emphasized very strongly that the special relationship is vital to u.s. interests. so these were emfatic acknowledgments from the u.s. president of the importance of the anglo-american special relationship after a period of about 16 months or so when the relationship actually began to decline somewhat because of the lack of guest: chemistry between gordon brown and president obama. host: beyond that chemistry that you're talking about, how will prime minister cameron and president obama relate to each other as far as being allies,

working together on interests or issues that are of interest to both of them as opposed to the way president obama and prime minister brown worked together? guest: david cameron is already coming to washington in july to meet with president obama at the white house. and so i think already the special relationship is off to a very good start with regard to the cameron administration. now, the key priority of course in terms of u.k.-u.s. relations are the war in afghanistan. there are 10,000 british soldiers fighting on the battle feeleds against the taliban alongside the united states and other key nato allies. great britain has the largest contribution in afghanistan after the united states. second key priority issue of course will be the iranian nuclear crisis. and the white house will be looking towards london for very

strong support with regard to a wave of new security council sanctions that are needed to bring the iranian regime as it were to its knees over its nuclear program. and i would expect to see very close cooperation between the u.s. and the u.k. can regard to the crisis. thirdly, of course there is extensive cooperation between the united states and the united kingdom in the wider war on terrorism. also of course we have a very close knit intelligence and defense level of cooperation between the u.s. and the u.k. in addition to a very close economic and trade relationship. so on several fronts the special relationship is absolutely vital to u.s. and british interests. and of course to the advance of freedom and liberty across the world stage and for the defense of the free world. host: we're talking about u.s.-british relations with nile gardener. he is the at the center for

freedom. if you would like to get involved give us a call. the number are on the bottom of your screen. you can also send us e-mails and twitter messages. before we get on going further with the conversation, we want to show you what president obama had to say on wednesday when talking about his relationship with the new prime minister david cameron. >> i find him to be a smart, dedicated, effective leader and somebody who we are going to be able to work with very effectively. he reaffirmed without me bringing it up his commitment to our strategy in afghanistan. and i am confident that the new government is going to recognize that it is in the

interests of all the coalition partners to help president karzi succeed and to build a more prosperous and secure and stable afghanistan, which in turn will help assure our long-term security. and, by the way, when i had the conversation with prime minister cameron, we also both reaffirmed the extraordinary special relationship between the united states and great britain. one that outlasts any individual party, any individual leader. it is built up over centuries. and it's not going to go away. host: your thoughts about what the president had to say. guest: this is by far the strongest statement of support for the special relationship by president obama. now, the relationship between president obama and the previous prime minister, gordon brown, was a rather tense and difficult one. and there was widespread

speculation especially in the united kingdom that the special relationship was beginning to break down and a parliamentry committee just last month stated that the special relationship should no longer be used as a term or an expression. now, what we see now, of course, is the u.s. president emphatically endorsing the idea of a special relationship between the united states and the united kingdom. so i think special relationship is back in style now after a very difficult period with gordon brown. and i do think it's very encouraging to see the obama administration adopting a very pro-british start at the very early stage. there has been widespread speculation the british media that the obama administration is anti british in outlook. there was a feeling that gordon brown was very badly treated by the white house. and so i do think that the white house is trying to turn a new leaf here and demonstrate clearly its solidarity with the united kingdom.

of course at a vitally important time with regard to the war in afghanistan as the president mentioned. this is a u.s. administration that has a rather poor track record in terms of building up alliances with key allies and maintaining key alliances. and i think that this is a clear sign the obama administration is trying to shift gears perhaps after intense criticism over its handling not only of the u.s.-u.k., but also with israel, poland and japan. host: you can find several of nile gardener's blogs. he has got one that came out on the 12th of may will david cameron strike up a partnership with barack obama? while you're waiting you might want to fire that up on your home computer and take a look at that while we're waiting to take your call. our first call, virginia, karen

on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. what i wanted to ask you and i watched the press conference with william hague and secretary clinton yesterday, it is a coalition that's the first time since the second world war. and you had thetories and lib dems. and right up until thursday when they met in down street gardens, the parties base are very different. you've got the conservatives who are very anti euro running rife throughout the conservative party and then you've got the lib dems and nick clage later himself calls himself a human rights pean not british. so i'm wondering in cabinet discussions how they're going to get over that. and i noted when obama went to cameron he asked for a full briefing on what this skepticism is. and i'm just wondering how that's going to pan out. caller: that's a very

interesting question and a very, very good question as well. you're absolutely right. there is a tremendous divide in this new coalition on european issues. the conservative party is skeptic. they are against any further european integration within the european union. they also believe in repatetration from bruzzles back to london. although in agreement with the democrats the conservatives have agreed not to aggressively push for repat ration of powers. but the agreement makes it clear there will be no transfer of powers from brussels to london. and you're right the liberal democrats are a pro-european party. nick clage, the leader of the liberal democratses is no a supporter of the relationship. he hardly believes at all of the transatlantic alliance. he believes it lies in a

european super state which is fundamentally against british national interests. and i think we are going to have a ferocious dispute between the conservatives and the liberals in the coming months and years over the issue of europe. these are fundamentally different competing visions between the two parties. and i think also in terms of dealing with the obama administration, the conservative administration is going to make it very clear that britain will not support, for example, european union defense identity which frankly would significantly undermine the nato alliance. so i do think you are going to see very close cooperation between london and washington on european issues but i think you're going to see a very firm stance taken by britain with regard to the issue of european defense identity and also european union foreign security policy as well which is being rejected by the conservatives. host: there's an op ed this morning in the financial times which addresses a little bit of

the question they ask where to now, the u.k. government despite the shared pragmatism between the outbreak of harmony, brokered by former rives david cameron and nick clage. whether their coalition can go the distance. first what would define the distance? and do you believe these two, just from your description it sounds like they might not want to be in the same room and an hour they're going to govern great britain. guest: it's an extremely unusual coalition. so there is a history of tremendous bad blood between these two political parties. and david cameron often jokes in the past about nick clage as the party leader. so he constantly made fun of him in the past. and vice versa. so now these two leaders are

put together in this sort of sudden coalition. and basically, the vision of them is to keep this coalition together is for five years. they're calling for a five-year fixed term parliament which is a new development for the united kingdom. my sense is that it's going to be difficult to keep this coalition together for five years. after all, there is not a great deal of common ground between the liberals and the conservatives. in fact, almost every single key issue there are fundamental disagreements. there are five liberal democrat cabinet out of 22. and i think that that is certainly a recipe for significant disagreement within the cabinet. so i hope certainly i hope this will succeed. but the practical reality is we're going to see a fractured relationship between these two parties. it remain to see how long this coalition will last.

host: steven on our line for democrats from new york. go ahead. caller: host: i'm sorry. louisville, kentucky. caller: yes, sir. good morning to everyone. in the interest of freedom, i have noticed that we have fought in iraq and i noticed that we have also fought in afghanistan together. and other avenues that we have approached for freedom. so using that word freedom is there any plans do you think or should there be plans that would be better a way to ask it. should there be plans to end the occupation of ireland by britain? host: nile. guest: well, i must say that firstly it's not an occupation of ireland.

the majority of the people of northern ireland wish to remain british. that's very clear. so it's not an occupation at all. this is a consense yull agreement here. and until such a time as the majority of people in northern ireland wish to be separated from the united kingdom, northern ireland will remain part of the united kingdom. and i do think that there is a very, very strong commitment to the advancement of prosperity and freedom in northern ireland. after all, a large number of m.p.s from northern ireland sit in the house of commons. their interests are very firmly defended. the northern ireland secretary is a man named owen patterson who is a superbly competent politician. and i think that the fact that northern ireland is part of the united kingdom is a very

positive thing and it's a great thing for the union. and all opinion polls indicate clearly that a clear majority of people in northern ireland wish to remain british. so they are free. they are treated extremely well by parliament in london which of course includes a number of representatives from parties in northern ireland. so in no way is this any kind of occupation. this is a deal that is in place because the people of northern ireland wish to remain part of the united kingdom. host: next up is steven from staten island. good morning. and thanks for waiting. caller: hi. i would like to thank niles for the heritage foundation. you're a ray of sunlight in this otherwise cloudy dismal bickering back and forth we have in the united states. i always follow you guys and another comment. it's nice to see that some of

the liberals -- i mean, the democrats in the senate are now starting to see the light and partnering up with the republicans on the amendments. and i've seen some nice amendments come out. and have been passed. those are my two comments. my question was, i think the european union is destined for doom and i would like your comments on that. about the future of the european union and as far as with the beginning of greece, i think it's on its way downfall. and also, the conservative party and the liberal democrats, i want to see this experiment in action. and i really do hope that it becomes successful. that people finally get along. both parties. host: thanks for your call. guest: thank you very much for the very kind comments. i agree that the issue of the european union is going to be extremely difficult for this

coalition in the coming years. not least because of the huge financial crisis in grease, which is having an impact across the european union and even here in the united states. and the financial crisis in greece illustrates exactly why it was right for britain to say out of the european single currency. greece is part of the euro zone britain refused to join that in order to maintain its financial independence and britain is being proved absolutely right on that front. also of course the british public is not libel for the massive european union bailout of greece which will cost vast amounts of taxpayers money. and the new conservative administration in london is firmly opposed to any british money being used to bail out the greeks and i absolutely support that position. britain is not part of the euro zone. greece has to solve its own financial problems through the euro zone countries.

and britain is absolutely right to maintain its freedom and independence within the european union. if it was part of the euro zone it would not be i believe to address the huge financial difficulties britain is facing with regard to a very large budget deficit. but because we are out of the euro we can set our own interest rates, tax rates, our currency fluctuate up and down. we have far more freedom to address a major financial crisis. and so i do think that britain's future is best defended through the maintenance of sovereignty, freedom and inttedance within europe. host: the "washington post" on wednesday put a chart that shows the breakdown of the number of seats in the conservative party has 306 and the liberal democrats 57 as you mentioned. so while nick clage only brings 57 seats to the party, does that give him that percentage

of grip on the wheel, so to speak? does he operate as what we in the united states might think of as the vice president? or is he sort of the associate prime minister? what is exactly his role? guest: that's a very important question actually. now, nick clage is the new deputy prime minister so he is the equivalent of joe biden in the u.s. government. now, the deputy prime minister position can be a very powerful position if the holder chooses to wield power. and i think that nick clage has given every indication that he will wield that power within the cabinet. of course the liberals received only 57 parliamentry seats out of 650. and that's about 8% of the total. they've received about 25% of the total of cabinet positions. so they have been given power and influence out of all proportion for the number of seats in the house of commons. and i do think that the conservatives have taken a

significant risk in terms of entering a coalition with the liberal democrats giving them so much power and influence. many analysts in the u.k. argued against the coalition saying that the conservatives should try to form a minority government where by the party in tower cuts deals with other political parties on individual issues on an issue by issue basis. i supported that view. i think that the conservatives should have formed a minority government rather than a coalition government, which i think would have given far more freedom to david cameron to push forward conservative principles. but we do have a coalition government and i'm in no doubt that nick clage is going to be a very powerful figure within that government pushing certainly a quite a radical left wing agenda, which is fundamentally at odds with the conservative party vision of limited government low taxation

and strong national defense and foreign policy. host: well, it seems like prime minister cameron is kind of between a rock and a hard place. he's made this coalition government and i don't know how often the deputy prime minister is going to stick his head in the prime minister's office and say, hey, if it wasn't for me you wouldn't be there. as opposed to the minority government that you talk about where it seems like every other day prime minister cameron would be having to make deals with different people in the parliament. guest: certainly the coalition government gives more stability. but it certainly does result i think in a significant watering down of conservative party positions. and i think that many back bench mps within the conservative party and grazzroots conservative party members have expressed concern about the watering down of conservative positions as a result of the liberals. now, as deputy prime minister, clage has an opportunity to interfere in practically every single area of british policy.

both economic and foreign policy, for example, in addition to national security, defense matters, immigration, you name it nick clage will be interfering. there's no doubt about it. he's in a very powerful position. host: back to if phones. texas on our line for independents. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. now, i just wanted to ask you a question. you implied that obama had created rift between us and a number of allies. and i think it's common knowledge that he has improved our standing with almost every country in the world. but also, i would like to know what's the economy like in israel? host: how about if we address the first half? i don't think the second half has anything really to do with the conversation. guest: thank you for your

question about the handling of public diplomacy issues by the obama administration and its relationship with key allies. i would say that certainly president obama remains a very popular figure among general publics across europe, for example, and in many parts of the world. my view though is that the obama administration has not done enough in terms of building up relationships with key leaders of allied countries. and we saw that very clearly with regard to the previous prime minister gordon brown. now, i would admit that gordon brown is not exactly the friendliest of politicians. that's one of the reasons he was thrown out of power in great britain. but gordon brown was treated rather badly by the white house on its two visits to the united states over the course of the last year or so. and, for example, when brown went to the u.n. general assembly meeting in new york in

september, president obama wouldn't even see him. and i think there was a breakdown in relations between downing street and washington at a time when there are over 10,000 british soldiers fighting on the battle field in afghanistan. so it's important for the white house to always put national interest and the common good as it were in terms of the anglo -american special relationship above personal differences. and there was significantly i think bad blood between gordon brown and barack obama which fundamentally affected the relationship. and i think on a number of occasions the white house has done a very bad job in terms of building up relationships with leaders of foreign countries. i would also point for example to its treatment of poland and the czech republic over the installation of third-site missile defenses where the united states pulled out of an agreement with two very close allies in eastern and central

europe. also, of course, i think the treatment of israel by this administration has been short of appalling. and israel of course is america's closest ally in the middle east. and you could go through frankly a whole array of instances where this administration has insulted key allies. and i do think this past week the obama administration has tried to turn over a new leaf in terms of relations with great britain. i think that's a very positive development which we should fully support. host: nile gardener, our guest, at the heritage foundation and is with ut for about another 15 minutes. don from flint michigan. caller: thank you, i love c-span and try to get on as much as i can within the 30-day limit. but do you think great britain with their new leaders now will it be a better, effective government? or do you think there will be

problems back in the days for tony blair? and i think that president obama has done the best he can as far as dealing with world leaders. and i think great britain might have more of a colonial problem with obama. i think they're not really accepting of a black president right now. guest: i don't think thank you for your point. i fundamentally disagree with the points you've made. in fact, if you look at opinion polls in the united kingdom of the general public, itself, i think you will find very favorable views of barack obama as a u.s. president in the united kingdom and across europe. i don't think in any way there's some kind of colonial mentality there.

however, certainly i think in the british press you will find very strong criticism, and rightly so, of barack obama's stance towards great britain in the past. and i think that there is a feeling among many in the british media and also in the british political class that barack obama's treated britain very badly over the past 16 months. that of course is now changing. i think, in a very positive fashion. but i think that across britain, across europe, across most of the world, there has been broad acceptance of barack obama as the u.s. president and a very positive and favorable response. for example, when obama was campaigning ahead of the presidential election, he went to germany. he gave a big speech in berlin, over 200,000 people turned out to cheer him.

so i think that europe has welcomed obama with a great degree of openness. there is of course significant criticism over some of his policies and his perceived indifference towards key allies in europe. host: next up, jeff, on our line for independence out of oregon. good morning. caller: yes. i have a statement and then a question. you know, they call it a recession but it's act lay world depression. i'm glad you're absorbing your sovereignty and not going along with the european union. but with greece, portugal, spain, and italy having financial problems in this world depression in the window of 2008-15e, do you feel if you get sovereign

constitutionalists in power in england, that you'll be able to weather this storm? i think it's being forestalled what you're seeing in greece and those other countries that mention i think is being forestalled for two years. i think we're going to see another degradation of our economy into this depression. . .

guest: and dramatically reduced public spending. if we got the country back on its feet. i think that britain would be in a stronger position to do so if it had complete control over its own economy. if it was part of the eurozone, it would relinquish that power to the european central bank. britain is in a far better place than a country like greece, for example, in addressing its financial crisis, but it has to undertake difficult measures that will be deeply unpopular. we need strong leadership that is willing to cut the deficit and to restore the british

economy back to full strength. there is an important lesson for the united states with regard to greece and the united kingdom. if the u.k. embarks on successful cost-cutting measures, that is likely to be copied in the united states. host: can you give me a specific example of a measure that the u.s. might copy from great britain based on the fact that our economies are of little bit different in size and scope? guest: i think the key lesson is that there is too much government expenditure, basically. you want to shift away from the heavy emphasis on state spending, toward a more free enterprise economy -- create jobs, create wealth.

lower taxes, not raise them. in the obama administration, we have seen a significant increase in government expenditure. it is the wrong course to go if you have a mounting deficit. the problems faced by the u.s. and the u.k. are similar. the first thing the united kingdom needs to do his reduce the size of the public sector, and that will result in significant cuts in terms of spending and jobs in the public is the public sector. that will need to be done in the united states as well. host: george. caller: i notice now partner has an english accent. is the english or american?

i notice he is bashing israel. host: thank you for your call. caller: i am english. burton always has supported -- britain has always supported israel in the middle east in the arena of a dangerous terrorist regimes. it is in both the british and national interest to make sure that israel is defended against its enemies. the only successful democracy in the region is able to be defended and in the face of a mounted a threat from iran, which has threatened to wipe israel off of the map.

we can have a joint, shared interest in the defense of israel against an array of brutal enemies. host: tell us about the voting system. guest: i am not an expert on el toro reform. i will say that the coalition government is looking at a lot of options. the liberals have insisted upon us some kind of proportional representation system, and the conservatives oppose. i think what you may see is a middle ground -- an alternative voting system put in place. i think you need and a sort of british constitutional expert. host: north carolina.

caller: i would like your thoughts on the recent appointment to the title of the bearer of the holy roman empire. the recent signing of the treaty that affects most of the you gold. churchill warned that germany should never be allowed to rearm. where you see the future of germany as a possible head of a european superpower? caller: interesting question. i have met him on a number of occasions. i think he is highly competent. i do not think we have anything to fear from the rise of some kind of german superpower. german -- germany barely spends

to% of its gdp on defense. i think they punch under their weight in terms of military power. i have more concerns about germany's role within the european union. the eu is traditionally dominated by germany and france. britain tries to balance that power. i think it is important that britain does not surrender any further powers to the european union. it is not right that politicians in berlin, paris, or brussels, beside british policy. that is completely unacceptable. polling shows the vast majority of a british people are fundamentally against having british laws decided by brussels, and opposed to any

efforts by the governments in germany and france to try to flex muscle over british policy. on the point of a military superpower in germany, i do not think that will ever happen again. i think germany has learned its lesson. host: next up is david in mclean, virginia. our line for democrats. caller: i have two brief comments and a question. i think his type of organizations are poisoning the political climate. there was a study done in belgium, showing us the political ideologies in the world. you have outlined, -- you have and the republican

party and the credit party were found to be towards the right. your understanding of political spectrum is false. the conservative position has always been lower taxes, and you sit there, and casually, and pompously assault our president. i think he is one of the most disciplined and moderate presidents ever. as far as your foreign policy, perfectly your comments on israel, just recently, there were -- there was to order $50 million given to israel for a offense, and it is the only country where a foreign person can serve in that army. no other country permits this. my question is what are you jewish and what is your view on this? host: what difference does it make, david?

let's move to bat and ruche. caller: -- let's go to baton rouge, louisiana. caller:, i wanted to turn the question around. the question about england staying out of the euro, in essence, the fact that the euro is a coalition, they have been able to pool resources to help countries that are not as strong. even though there is a risk, may be that risk is less in terms of economic risk and a chance of them coming out to help everyone might be better. now that england has gone alone, and there gdp is not very high, what is the chance that maybe they will fail, and if so, who

will bail them out? host: nile gardiner? guest: that is an important question. i wanted to address a couple of things said by the previous questioner. he said the heritage foundation was poisoning the debate. i would say that the heritage foundation and other think tanks on both the right and the left play a very important role in shaping the public debate in a free society like the united states. the heritage foundation has six under 50,000 members who support its vision. we put forward a policy positions to all sides of the political aisle. some are adopted, some are not. i would make clear that i think public thinktank organizations play an extremely important role

in advancing ideas for shaping the future of this nation and u.s. leadership in the world. turning to the issue of the economy, i think the caller is right. what happened in greece has important implications for the rest of europe, and even in the united states. the united states has a vested interest in insuring that the greek contagion does not spread over here. the best way to prevent that is to adopt measures which would prevent the kind of financial crisis we are seen at the moment. the only way to do that is to cut down on government expenditure. i think the u.s. administration has to commit to that in order to avoid a greek-style scenario. there are important lessons on that front.

host: and op ed with the title coup may prove to be his undoing. it suggests he might have enough power to remove the deputy prime minister and mo vaughn by himself without the alliance -- and move on by himself without the alliance that he has formed. guest: there is a provision that says that if 55% vote against the government, that the government can be dissolved, and elections can be held. i think there is a strong chance that this coalition could, at some stage, be dissolved early due to a fundamental

disagreement. it is too early to say how it is all going to work out. there is a possibility that david cameron -- david cameron could decided to ditch his liberal partners and former minority government. that is a possibility. it would be accelerated if the liberal democrats decided to significantly push key issues which the conservatives opposed. host: when david cameron and his group get assistance and support from labor, or is that even farther on the other side of the political spectrum? guest: on some issues, the labor party is closer to the conservatives than the liberal democrats. on the national security questions, especially, i think there is more common ground. it is conceivable that the labor could vote with

conservatives on some measures, and you would find the liberals voted against government policy. you could have all kinds of scenarios. i would not rule out the labor department supported the government, but likely opposing them on the vast majority of matters. host: pennsylvania. to go ahead. caller: if britain is cut and services to the people, where does the money, that the queen and her family are paid in salary and a maintenance of her castled? as that paid from the government, and where does this money come from? does it come from taxes? thank you. guest: an interesting point.

the royal family is maintained out of taxpayer money. a significant amount of money is spent on maintaining the royal family. this is supported by the vast majority of the british people. i would argue that the royal family produces far more in terms of revenue for the british government. for example, the large number of tourists that come to britain to see the royal family. i do think royal family is in good for britain. i think it should maintain its monarchy, but secondly, it is also cost-effective in that a large amount of taxpayer revenue is derived by the millions of people that travel to britain, spending money in the u.k., because they are remembered with the royal family.

-- make it rain. host: our last call comes on our line for independence from washington, d.c.. caller: considering that the recession has accelerated the effect, why is it better to make up the lost money by cutting services by those that were hit worse, and not raising taxes by those that were hit less? the wealthier people, the larger businesses? thank you. guest: the cost-cutting measures are focused on cutting government waste and reducing the size of the public sector. there is no discussion about cutting spending on health and education. i do not think we're likely to

see that at all. we are going to see an ax taken to the hugely bloated public sector. if you have lower taxes, you create more wealth for the country, you create more jobs, and you encourage people to invest in britain. if you raise taxes, you basically frightened people, in and out of the country, and you lose jobs and economic wealth. i think a low tax system is preferable to a system where you have high s taxes, which will only kill off, for example, the city of london, the financial sector, which drives britain's economy. the liberal party attacks the

banking industry and that could send them off to hong kong and singapore, where taxes are lower. host: nile gardiner, thank you for being with us. guest: my pleasure. host: will take a short break, and then, a discussion on arizona's new immigration law right after this. >> this week's hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill -- we

will look back to the hearings from 1989. at the new c-span library, it is washington in your way. the search it, watch it, click it, and share it. >> sunday, noon british prime minister david cameron and deputy prime minister nick clegg at their first news conference. also, remarks by outgoing prime minister gordon brown. sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on c- span. >> this is a government, the present setup for greatly, and the house and senate follow this policy, that the lead in a crate prosperity by growing the government. >> judd gregg, on federal spending and the financial regulation bill. sunday on c-span.

>> in their relentless revolution, it is described like capitalism is a cultural system, and not just economic. sunday night on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. is here.rsten sinema n tell us, from your perspective, will this law be able to work or will it have to be repealed by the voters or by the u.s. supreme court. guest: the bill is unconstitutional in a variety of ways. first, it violates the u.s. the supremacy clause, which reserves emigration law to the federal congress, and not to the state. even beyond that, there are so many problems with the legislation.

it violates the fourth amendment right. any one of us could be stopped on the street in phoenix if an officer decides he has reasonable suspicion to believe that we are in the country without paperwork. the law does not define what reasonable suspicion of looks like, or what qualifies someone. there are also a lot of problems with the equal protection and due process clause. host: there was an op ed in friday's washington times." he says that it --

host: what is wrong with that? guest: there are a lot of instances where people are not given documents. but we give you an example. under a work visa, someone can bring a wife with them, but she, herself does not get her own these up. she is legally here, but she does not have any piece of paper or documentation that proves she has the status to be here. she cannot read -- meet the requirements of this law. host: going forward with this, you say that you expect a court challenge, but in the meantime, how will this be adjudicated in the state of arizona?

guest: my hope is that we receive an injunction prior to the implementation. in arizona, when the government assigns a piece of legislation, it does not go into effect until 90 days after our last day of a blood split of session. the lot is not in effect right now, but we have already seen in numerous problems and complaints since the. of the governor's signature. we hope to get an in junction -- an injunction. if we are talking with the arizona state -- host: we are talking with the arizona state representative, kyrsten sinema. host: will also take your

comments via facebook and twitter. more from the op-ed in the "washington times." [laughter] guest: wow. i do not think that is consistent with the u.s. constitution. i would say that regardless of whether or not he believes it is legal or constitutional to

racially profile, i would argue that it is wrong, and immoral to do so. the fact is that we can achieve all we need to achieve without to resorting to racial profiling. many states, and many folks around our country have done it successfully. arizona has been struggling for years with this specific issue. i think it is an issue we have to overcome. racial profiling is not a part of the american fabric and it should not be. we should be focusing on how to enforce laws equitably and fairly so that everyone has the same opportunities for liberty and freedom. host: our first call comes from greenville, mississippi, kimberly, on our line for democrats. caller: i was wondering -- i do agree that there should be some type of legislation in place to help with illegal immigration.

however, i do wonder if officials will be looking for people who are other than hispanic. i am sure there are illegals in the country and arizona that are from other parts of the world. are they going to be constantly looking for people that are hispanic, or, i'm sure, on its face, the law applies to people from all over the world. guest: you bring up two important points. i think we can all agree that something has to be done about immigration. in arizona, we are facing a crisis. we need immigration reform. the problem with this legislation is is that it does nothing to actually crack down on the problems that we see which are the gun trafficking, the drug trafficking, and the violent human trafficking. if this does nothing to address

that real crisis. the second issue is that this bill should apply to all individuals said art in the country without proper documentation. but, we have already heard from members of our own law enforcement, that they can get -- that they intend to continue to profile individuals that are latino. the earlier this week, a sheriff that coffers about 65% of the state of arizona, said he can tell when someone is in legal -- is any legal, based on their accent, and if they speak spanish. many people in arizona speak spanish, and there are many people who are latino, speak spanish, and our lawful residents of this state. we have seen some troubling

language about how some law enforcement plan to implement this law. host: next up is just an honor line for republicans in milwaukee, wisconsin. -- on our line for republicans in milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: what would you suggest doing as far as the flood of illegal aliens into america? there are many hispanics here already, and god bless some, and i would not wish pain or heard on anyone, but where you draw the line? is there not -- if they're not under the constitution, is there not an american, how can they fall under that jurisdiction or that bill of rights? it does not make sense, what you are saying.

sure, i want everyone to have the right to liberty and peace, and the pursuit of happiness, but where you draw the line as to the flooding? guest: i think it is important to note that all people who are in america, whether they are u.s. citizens are not, are afforded the same rights of protection of our u.s. constitution. that is one of the great things about our country. i think you're absolutely right to -- we have to do something to stop the flow that has been increasing for years of undocumented persons into our country. i think it has to be a national solution. the federal government is the only entity that has the authority to address immigration procedures and law. the congress has been sitting around and doing nothing since 1986. i say that congress needs to

step up and do its job. we have been waiting. in arizona, it has become a crisis. there are three things we need congress to do -- they have to insure the security of our border regions. we have to know if 0 is coming across the border so that we can differentiate which we have to know who is coming across the border so that we can get -- we have to differentiate between the bad guys and the good guys. that is number one. number two, we have to do something about the 10 million people who are in this country living and working in the shadows. they need to acknowledge they have done something wrong, get in line, pay a fine, and wait their turn. after that, they should have the opportunity to become lawfully part of our country. finally, no. 3, congress needs to set realistic standards about

the labor needs in our country so that we allow people to join the workforce, and give them the ability to decide if they want to be her long term. host: our and penn line, bill -- our independent line, bill. caller: our guest believes that the supremacy clause would trump the state, particularly arizona's immigration law, but by the same token it seems that all states have civil rights laws that no one has challenged under the supremacy clause of the constitution. i want to know what our guest thinks about that. gee, that is a great question. the states are allowed to have of what everyone in the constitution -- what ever they

want in the constitution. basically, you have the u.s. federal constitution, then you have u.s. law, then you have the state constitution, and you have state law, and on the that, you have local and county ordinances. the state constitution can provide any protection it wants. many provide more than the federal constitution. the difference is the state cannot provide less than the federal government. that is where the interplay comes in. host: our next call comes from austin, texas on our line for .ndependencts caller: good morning. host: hold on. on our line for republicans.

see, my name is elizabeth. -- caller: my name is elizabeth. i want to know why the u.s. constitution, which has been inactive for generations and generations to come up with green cards and coming into the u.s. legally on a visa, why is that not been implemented now? we already have a system in place that is supposed to be making sure that these kinds of things do not happen. why are they not sticking to what has already been enacted generation after generation after generation, that we are supposed to live by that is in our constitution now. if that is the way it is supposed to be. that is the way that it needs to be done.

guest: i think you bring up good points. one is the issue of green cards, which is permission to be a legal permanent resident, meaning that you can live here as long as you did not do anything wrong. the u.s. can take that green card away and send you back if you do something wrong folks that are here on green cards make up a small portion of folks that come from other countries. there are a myriad of ways that people can come to this country from other countries. they can come as refugees, they can seek asylum -- there are a lot of ways. the problem that we face is this, we do not have adequate evidence for people to come to this country to do unskilled labor. in arizona, that is a real problem. we have a lot of folks that come to farming and construction.

this is true for other states and what -- as well -- states that have big agricultural communities. folks are coming to this country, mostly from latin and south america, to help to do these agricultural works, and we do not have enough visas for these people. congress needs to make an adjustment to the quota. that will help solve the problem of folks come in without a visa. host: kyrsten sinema represents central phoenix. she is also the assistant leader to the democratic caucus in the arizona state legislature. when the legislature is not in session, she is an adjunct professor and practices law in phoenix. back to the phones, now comes a

on our line forha democrats in austin, texas. caller: can you explain to us how the republican party is playing politics with this law and how much it has damaged the image in arizona? i was planning a vacation, and i am afraid to go. we canceled our hotel. host: are you here legally? caller: i came here, and stayed almost 10 years and i became a citizen. i vote, i do all of the work. i also understand how complex this situation is.

you are misleading people. yes, i agree with the rep. there must be some federal law involved. guest: first, i want to say congratulations. i am always pleased to meet people that have chosen to make america their home. thank you for your contribution to our country. we have a lot of fallout already because of the slot. while it is true that republicans in a result of voted for this law, i do not think it would be fair to characterize all republicans as supporting it. there have been a number of republicans that oppose this law, including people like dick cheney. i think it is important to differentiate between folks. i would never want to categorize all people in a political party as being the same.

we are a very diverse nation. it is important to remember that. however, what we have seen in arizona is an immediate drop off of folks coming to vacation. we have seen 23 cancellations of conventions. we have already lost about $16 million. it is estimated that phoenix will lose $90 million in revenue, and just this year, from lost tourism and lost conventions. we are very concerned up the economic impact on our state, especially in states like arizona that relies so heavily on tourism. host: next up is utica, ohio, robert. caller: for starters, i support the arizona law. if they include in this reform of clause that states that if

you are found in the country illegally, you will be fingerprinted and deported and never allowed citizenship. all the viewers pedigree, call your congressman, i have. -- that agree, call your congressman. i have. guest: thank you. folks around the country, who hear about the arizona law, feel-good that something is being done about immigration. i can understand that. the problem actually is that it violates civil -- civil liberties. one of the things that people do not know about this lot is that i can be charged with a felony if i happen to stop on the side of the road and help a woman that has run out of gas. if i give her a ride, and i have failed to ask if she is the

legally in this country, i could be considered as violated a law for a legally transporting somebody. part of this bid to is to be a good neighbor -- of the spirit of arizona is to be a good neighbor. host: another thing that arizona is dealing with has to do with ethnic study in school. less than a month after studying -- after signing the toughest law on immigration, the governor has once again upset the large hispanic population. host: why would something like this be subject of a state law?

guest: this is pouring fuel on the fire. it has been a rough couple of weeks. this legislation that adds to it. the superintendent of schools in arizona has been pushing this issue, and now, he is running for attorney general. it is widely believed it is used as a platform for his campaign. that is politics. the problem is, this will limit important programs. we have in our middle school -- in our middle schools and high schools, auctions to take specialized history courses. you can take african studies, for example. that allows it to guide deeply into the history of the civil rights movement. we're -- with that law, that class would be illegal. it clear this week, i debated this issue with the superintendent.

i said that the problem was that these courses are completely open to all students. anyone can pick any one of these classes. even if he believes that they are primarily intended for a specific ethnic group, they are opened to all students, and that is important. we should all have the opportunity to learn about everything in our history. the limitation of these courses would deprive students to learn about things like japanese internment camps, the history of slavery, and even the history of native americans in this country when we founded the united states of america. host: we have another 50 minutes with kyrsten sinema, the arizona state representative. if you want to give us a call, the numbers are on the screen. we would like to hear from some folks in arizona. new jersey, we, on our line for democrats.

caller: we did this in the 1980's with ronald reagan. we're not want to secure the borders, do anything about the laws on the books. there has to be a stopping point. i am getting ready to retire. i have heard the same people not speaking english, and i speak spanish. i got annoyed hearing somebody speak english. he said that you what people think you are so smart. when there is enough of us here, we will take over this country. that is a racist statement. that is how they feel. she is sane and that -- she is and people will be out of a job.

that is the truth. guest: i think it is unfortunate. my experience has been different. i grew up in a diverse, loving and tolerant community. later, as a social worker, i worked in elementary school. we serviced children the spoke over 34 languages. i'm very lucky to live in a very diverse large, metro area. the truth is that the majority of people that come from other countries, typically a somewhat, learned english, -- typically, learned english and become a cultured. we see a really high rate of acculturation and assimilation. i believe that most people who come to this country are attracted to what makes america so special, to be a diverse and

unique country that welcomes folks from all communities. host: next up is jim on our line for republicans. caller: i am also a viewer of c- span for quite a long time, probably 15 years or more. my daughter lives in phoenix. her husband is in the air force. she has lived there for the last three years. i believe that if the truth is known, phoenix is probably 50% or greater ethnic than a white, if you want to put it that way. i do not like to talk in terms of race, personally, but i do believe that we have reached a saturation point.

living in north carolina, i live in the western part of the state, where we use a lot of migrant workers that come in and out of the state, but we also have developed quite a diverse community as well of about i would say 30 or 40 different ethnic groups because we have festivals and that sort of thing that bring people from all over the world into western north carolina. i would like to make a comment. i believe the young lady that is on your show has been a little bit skewed. being a conservative, not a republican so much, -- arizona

has been totally saturated. 60% of the people voting in favor of the law, i think that -- it follows almost a letter of a lot of the federal version. host: we will leave it there. jim felt i want to make it clear that the people of arizona did not vote on the slot. only the legislature's vote on the slot. there were a '90s -- there were 90 of us. only one republican in the senate voted no. the governor approves the legislation with his signature. this is not gone to a vote of the people. i think that is an important distinction. i believe you are right in articulating that a majority of people want something done about emigration. i want something done about

immigration. the problem i have is that this does not solve our real problem. our real problems and all gone up running, drug trafficking, and violet hue and trafficking. we have enacted some bipartisan legislation to address those issues. this year, i passed a bill with unanimous support to crack down on a violent human smuggling, and give law enforcement greater tools to crack down on those who smuggle other people for profit or abuse. those are the kinds of measures that we can do at the state level. the last distinction i would like to make is that while we hear a lot of folks say this mirrors the federal law, that is actually not correct. there are three sections where it is patterned after the federal language, but the rest of the bill, which is very substantial, creates an entirely new law. that includes things like mandating that police officers

inquiry into a person's legal status if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that they might be on documented when they interact with them for things that are as simple as having a dog that is barking to loudly. these are not the kind of things that should give rise to intervention. host: there is a story in this morning's "new york times" that talks about a mexican immigrant in atlanta that could face deportation. in the story, that goes into some detail, it says that as

host: if this happens in arizona, under the new law, which he faced deportation? guest: she would not only face deportation, she would have been charged with a felony, if not for not having a valid driver's license, but for being on documented. your status as an undocumented person is all that is required to be a felony offense. that is a concern. usually, you do not have a crime for your status. the new law will change that. i think this is an important issue. she is one of the women that we call, under the dream act, which is bipartisan legislation that has been sponsored in the past by folks like dick durbin and orrin hatch, and this is

legislation that would allow these kinds of young people, will graduate from an american high school, who make their grades, who are in college, where not committed any kind of dangerous crime and are waiting for immigration reform to become citizens. many were, -- were brought this country when they're infants. some of the do not speak any other language besides english. host: virginia, an airline for democrats. caller: i agree with the arizona law. if the federal government would pass laws, like if you are born here, you're automatically a citizen. i think it should be changed to say that if you were born here, and both of your parents are legal citizens, that then you

are legal. i think there should be a law change that you have to be an american citizen 10 years before you can get any food stamps or welfare assistance. this is our tax money. i want these people out of here. gee, i do think there is a barrier to your plan. -- guest: i do think there is a barrier to your plan. the 14th amendment is that all people born on u.s. land are american citizens. that is the amendment that abolished slavery. i have to respectfully disagree and say that the 14th amendment is one of the most important amendments. in respect to the issue of public benefits like food stamps and abc belfort furniture weather center -- and welfare, it is important to know that people who are undocumented to not have access to those services.

many legal residents did not excess to the vote we do not have access to that. we do have some strict regulation. congress has passed those laws, and upped its them every several years. host: salt lake, our line for independence. caller: my comment is that i was watching c-span last night, and i cannot remember the representative, but he said that if these people are here, and they are law abiding citizens, they should be afforded some type of amnesty, or something to get them into the system. by the very premise of being an illegal immigrant, they are not law abiding citizens. your guest stated something concerning people coming

forward, it met in they committed a criminal act, paying a fine, or something, and then being given an avenue to get into the system and become legal. is that legislature that she is working on currently? that is the first i've heard of anything of such a nature. i will hang up and listen to the response. guest: thank you for your question. i am not personally working on the legislation. i'm not a member of congress, unfortunately for me. i do not have the authority to do that. only congress has the authority. there is something along that nature in works. senator chuck schumer from new york has begun working with quincy gramm, who is a center for -- lindsay gramm, who is a senator from south carolina, and they have become -- they have

begun legislation that is not amnesty. i do not support amnesty, and i do not believe the american people support amnesty. they need to ignore as they have done wrong, which is a little bit -- they need to acknowledge a they have done wrong. we need to have them acknowledge what they have done, get in line, pay a fine, and with their turn. that is in the works, and that is the language that is included in the chuck schumer-lindsay gramm legislation. it's good you have any plans to run for congress? -- host: you have any plans to run for congress? guest: i'm not sure that is where i want to be. to thank the want

representatives for her views, and giving us more in-depth information. i want everyone to think of the historical implications of the people that are coming to this country from mexico. historically, everyone is talking about who is here illegally. when you short -- when you show up on the shores of a country, and claim it to be your country, one people were already here, and you forsees people beyond the borders claiming he your land for yours, who is really here illegally? historically, history is coming back to repeat itself. that is what everyone is terrified about, the previous caller who called in and said she was fearful because she was told these people are going to take over. guess what, it has already happened once before. people took over a country that

belongs to people who were already here. host: we will leave it there. guest: i think you bring up an important point. the united states of america has a very rich and complex history. many of us who are here today came through a lineage of folks who chose to come here, and some of us came without historical choice. i think it is important for us to remember not only our history, but also recognize and honor the diversity, complexity, and the deep richness that comes from having a country that is as incredibly diverse as the united states of america. host: kyrsten sinema, thank you for being on "washington journal" this morning. become it has been my pleasure. thank you. host: we want to tell you is coming up tomorr m