budgets. and then senator been courting on the government's response to the gulf oil spill. this is "washington journal." host: good morning. today we are going to spend time opening this morning talking about the oil spill and response by the federal government and also by a bbp, in the wake of many congressional inquiries and a news conference in louisiana and another in washington yesterday. is enough being done over the gulf oil spill? here are the phone numbers.

good morning. let's begin by showing you some of the various headlines that all suggest both the administration and emerging politics of the gulf oil spill. i want to begin with the top and look at some of the morning newspapers, such as this one -- this is the baltimore paper -- "bp gets its marching orders." in florida, the tallahassee democrat -- and from the washington post -- that is from the briefing yesterday that the gentleman in charge of this from the coast guard, from the briefing that he gave it -- let's listen. >> they are responsible for the cleanup. ultimately, from the federal government we are responsible to

oversee that they do. the law requires them to pay for it, provide equipment. particularly dealing with the league on the bottom, 5,000 feet down. bp and the private sector are the only ones with the means to deal with the problem down there. there must be aware that private industry can address the problem with proper oversight by the federal government. host: thad allen was a clear explaining that because of the size, technology, knowledge that is a needed -- and i'm sure that you have been listening and reading in the papers. do you think enough is being done? let's begin with a phone call from chester, n.y., jonathan. caller: yes, i think all that can be done is being done. unfortunately, our government

does not have the technology to go down to that. nor do i believe the oil company was aware that this particular thing could happen in this particular way. so, unfortunately, they were caught with their pants down and are doing the best they can. unfortunately, 5,000 feet is quite deep. we do not even have nuclear submarines that can go down that far. that is what people really have to understand. host: you're talking about the capping of the well, but what about the response along the shoreline? caller: that is a totally different story. you would think after all the oil spills that have happened over time, in the last 40 years, that they would have responses that would kind of -- i don't

know, but they would have responses that were more up-to- date. it seems like it is no different from hurricane katrina. like they watched it come in, and then decided, ok, we have a plan. as soon as they stopped the rescue effort -- they should have had everything. also, the federal government should have had a back a plan to even bp's plan. to have everything to prepare the balloons and everything misery to stop the oil from coming into the shoreline. host: columbia, missouri, on the independent line. this is brent. caller: my thoughts are that this whole situation down there is an absolutely, unmitigated disaster of proportions that by the time it is over with will go down in the annals of history as

one of the biggest ecological disasters in history. what has been done so far as we sat by for a four-week period and have done virtually nothing -- no independent confirmation of how much oil was coming out of the t4, and bp is not taking care of this as they need it to. we need to bring in every resource available from the federal government to every other oil company to get this thing under control. as if we were cleaning up radiological material. i cannot believe the ineptness of the response to date. i voted for president obama, and he needs to step up and show leadership, what is necessary in

a crisis of basically our lifetimes. host: you saw the press conferences yesterday both in washington and louisiana. another person touring the site was the ceo of bp. this is a photograph of him in the papers. his name is tony hayward. every newspaper in open has this full-page advertisement from bp. here is the message they have to send to the public. they have a phone numbers to report impacted wildlife, to make claims. here is an interesting paragraph on the responsibility. they write that bp has taken full responsibility for dealing with this bill. we are determined to do everything we can to minimize any impact. we will honor all legitimate

claims. a lot of discussion already about the interpretation of the word "legitimate" for the years ahead. the next phone call is from hamilton, n.y., car on the republican line. caller: good morning. it is time the government stepped in and looked over the operation sealing the pipeline. i think that president obama should put serious financial restraints on the oil companies responsible for the leak. i hope our government does something about because it is just a tragedy. host: before you go. the argument made and alluded to by thad allen is all the knowledge and technology of the

area rests with the oil industry. so how would it work for the government to take over concerning the knowledge base? caller: well, they can steal a pipeline leaking oil. i believe we have the technology. politically, they're not taking over responsibility for the fact they don't want backlash. but i think it is time the government stepped in. host: thanks, carl. a couple of stores about the next step and what bps tried to do to do to seal the well -- a couple of stories about the next up of bp. they have broad leaders into

especialla plan -- if it fills the damage could be worse. the previous attempts make this a concern that it is an improvised effort. "the new york times" has a profile piece about one of the team of people profiled in the media over years who is a well capper, "expert working on the gulf league is confident that they'll kill the well." he is described as always having been on site and with the hands- on approach. his latest challenge as well that can only be touched by rabat. he is one of the scores of

experts working in command center in houston to help bp to figure out a way to seal its blow not well. this is steve, democrats line. good morning. all right, next is austin texas. this is alex on the independent line. caller: hi. i'm watching the cbs evening news with katie couric over one week ago where they had the reporters near the shoreline in were told by bp and the coast guard, and others, that they are not allowed to fill the beaches. pretty much if you do little investigation, you will find out that this is the worst natural disaster in america's history and could end up being a worldwide -- the worst natural

disaster ever. it is being covered up by corporations who actually run the country. i just wish people would look into a and stop watching the mainstream news. they do not report on anything. if you look at 9/11 it was a lie. it was an inside job because of the iraq war -- another lie. they did not do the bidding of their masters. i wish people wouldn't wake up and turn off their television, and go to infowars.com and another website to get the real information. host: this is ken salazar in louisiana. >> i want to make it very clear. under the law, bp is the responsible party and charged

with capping their likin well and pain for the recovery without limitation. there will be held accountable and we will keep our boot on their neck until the job gets done. we will make sure that all of their responsibilities are fulfilled to the people of the gulf coast and to the u.s. government. host: here is one of the headlines that came from that press briefing. "administration torn on getting tough onbp." -- on bp >" host: baton rouge, diana on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. am i on? ok, down here in baton rouge

we're really depressed. we know we are seeing the end of fresh seafood. i would not touch a crawfish or shrimp, crab. we've lost so much after hurricane katrina. everyone is making me crazy. we had it texas oilman and the white house for eight years, and there were the ones who got rid of all regulations and made sure that mineral mining services -- don't have the dual role of not only regulating, but also accepting money from them? so, what did we expect? a huge catastrophe to happen. i don't see how we did not expect anything but. i do not see how we can blame the government. what of this supposed to do? bring in a nuclear sub? i don't even understand the common sense. anyway, it is very sad to see

our seafood go. i guess everyone icajun cooking now. host: a number of newspaper stories are beginning to ask for questions about regulators'. you will remember that the minerals management service was embroiled in controversy over the past years. it is written about this morning in "the washington post get dat." other stories remind us of a few years back when the officials in denver with that agency had been caught up in several

controversies over their actions and interactions with people there were responsible for regulating. so, more questions being asked about the role of regulators. we have also been showing you some of the live cam on british petroleum's website. they are showing what the oil spill situation looks like on alive, real-time basis. you can find it on the internet, if you are interested. the next phone call comes from mead, oklahoma. is it enough being done? caller: yes, i think most people do not remember their history. the last big oil blowout was in the late 1940's in texas, not in the ocean. it was a company called texas seaboard. they also drilled in south

america. that well broke four months, and it was on shore. it completed the gas drive to where the rest of the oil companies sued them. they no longer exist. we have a problem in the ocean. it is no only those slick, but all that junk that fell down there on top of it that makes it very difficult. they're talking about having the government is something -- they don't ever hire anybody who had an oil connection for a regulator. it is always an environmentalist something who doesn't know anything. they have got to let the oil companies clean it up. there will be lucky if they can stop that thing. host: from oklahoma, a source of

much oil exploration. next is mike, on the independent line. caller: yes, the executives of bp have just display the utmost display of greed. i think they are trying to salvage the well and try to do the minimal efforts to cap it. what they did to be done just days after the rig blew -- the military should have sent there by obama and it could have been blown up shut by non-nucllar ordinants. it should have been done within the week. they have let this will blow for a month now, utterly destroying and wiping out the gulf of mexico because of bp 's executives agreed ' greed to

salvage the will. they knew if it had been differently that they could never have used the well again. the military could easily have blown it shut. host: let's look at some photographs. the largest newspaper in new orleans has been posting photographs on its site, nola.com. the next phone call is from silver spring, maryland. caller: good morning. if i were obama, i would not do anything. i would do nothing. because texas, louisiana, mississippi, alabama, and florida red states. smaller government! smaller government! no. you get what you pay for. if the government is small, you handle it, louisiana. you suck it up.

stop calling for all this and smaller government stuff, and then all of a sudden a tornado or hurricane comes in these red states and all of these red state people --! smaller -- now it's all help me, help me -- that is ridiculous, you suck it up. host: let's listen to what gov. bobby dingell of louisiana said yesterday. >> today a total of just under 700 miles has been hit by the oil spill. let's be clear. we have only got two options. we can either fight this oil off our coast on sand dunes where it will do much less damage, but every day we do not fight this on a barrier island, that we are not dredging sand,

means one more day this will come into our ecosystem, home to some of the nation's most important fisheries -- the% comes off discussed. these are america's wetlands. let's make no mistake -- what is at stake is our way of life. this is not about keeping oil off our rocky land -- this is about keeping oil off our way of life and for the stick. every day this is not approved is another day that the choices made for us. we would rather fight this -- we do not want a drop of oil to hit our coast. i would rather fight this on a barrier island, on a hard, rocky coast and inside of our wetlands. host: back to telephone calls. good morning, russell, on the republican line. caller: first, i join with those who say they love it c-span.

-- todawho love cspan. first off, people need to understand this administration has nothing to do with the oil spill. it would not have mattered who in the administration was republican, democrat, but it is the rules set in place that this would have been no matter who was in the white house. the problem is the regulations are pushing them so far off shore. when you were working that deep in the water there's nothing you can do. as the gentleman said earlier, if it will land, this would not have been as devastating as it is -- the things they could do. if they worked in more shallow water, the same thing goes. i put this -- when you push that

foreshore and try to do something it is like making buildings arearthquake-proof. no matter where you do, nature will throw something at you that you just cannot handle. host: thank you. his comments were echoed by these on twitter. our next comment comes from ohio, jason on our independent line. caller: good morning. yeah, i agree with that caller earlier with the warhead. they should have been down there earlier. we're all acting on the premise that they are trying to do everything which i just do not think they are. i saw disturbing thing on youtube yesterday. from the movie "the knowing" from nicolas cage.

you cannot tell the difference from the clip on cnn. it is just amazing. host: sasha writes on twitter -- this is mike on our democrats line. caller: russell from virginia had an astonishing point. he is right that no matter what president would be in office, whether obama or bush -- the simple fact is that this is truly bp's was. as the admiral who spoke on behalf of the administration --i forget his name. host: thad allen. caller: yes, he pretty much said we are here to enforce.

it is under water. what are they supposed to do? a bomb gets enough flak just trying to fix health care, let alone natural disasters. there are two entirely different entities, but at the same time, you cannot blame him. if government infringement care about a fellow human being -- how can they even take care of a natural disaster? i think his response is similar to the former president bush's response to hurricane katrina. what else can government do? this is a free-market economy. those are simply the rules that have been given to follow. i think the u.s. government is doing its job, but i do feel that bp needs to step up a little bit. like another caller said earlier, the government does not

have that kind of technology. it is the simple matter of bp finding some way or another to fix it. for the help of the environment, i really hope to get something worked out. have a good evening. host: mike, from dover, pennsylvania. this message from twitter -- it is hemorrhaging. we're asking, is enough being done? the next phone call comes from alexandria, va., on the republican line. caller: yes, first of all, thank you c-span for continuing to voice people's opinions the matter of party affiliation. i have a couple of remarks about this bp oil spill. i follow the news and i see that they have this problem. i am sorry, but even though i am

a republican, i think to myself, okay, they pulled in millions of dollars per year as far as oil money. i'm pretty sure they have expenditures and whatnot, but at the same time, you mean to tell me you can drill 5,000 feet below sea level to get the oil, but you do not have a solution just in case anything hemorrhages or goes wrong? that is not tolerable. they're supposed to have the safety precautions for any kind of contraption. you should not just try to make up something at the last minute -- with as many brilliant-minded engineers as you have. this is not mount st. helens. this is a natural/man-made disaster -- so they are supposed to have something at least that can help avert disaster from spreading the way it is. it should not be like this. the big leagues in the

washington should not have to step in the. i figure if they can pull in this amount of money for, to have this progress, they should have something so the worst were to happen, they would have something in place. it should not be two, three months down the line with oil all over the shore of louisiana. it is inexcusable. you have the money, resources. it should already be in place. that is my opinion. host: syracuse, new york is next as we talk about the gulf oil spill. this is built on the independent line. caller: i just wanted to put in my two cents. i think it is kind of ridiculous that they're still trying to figure out how to clean this up or stop it. they should already have had it stopped. i mean, it is killing animals and fish and wildlife, and

spreading like disease, and there is no stopping it. they have been they're doing this for a month and half with this bill going on. there is no stopping it. it is just making me think -- why is it still happening? i do not understand. host: looking at photographs from nola.com from "the times picayune." over 300 birds are found dead, about as many found alive, but oil. the next phone call from tuscaloosa, georgia. caller: thank you. i do not believe -- well, the government has a role to play for enforcing rules, but i think that bp also has the greatest

responsibility of cleaning it up. as the gentleman before me said, there should have been something already in place. anything that man makes the minister can take apart or it becomes weekend in the system. i just do not understand for the length of time it has been. -- anything that man makes the nature can take apart or it becomes weakened. it seems to me that they're only stumbling in theho dark inw can you have so much going on, trying everything, and then putting in something that truly may harm the people? -- their only stumbling in the dark, how can you have so much going on?

i'm really worried. host: next, a call from maryland, robert on the republican line. caller: yes, a couple of things. is bp just letting this go because they could go in there and get the oil off of the water? it will drop crude prices? are they doing it to shut down so they don't have to go ahead and drop prices? and a second of all, we need oil to keep on going. i have a trucking company. i get fined if i have a breakout down the road. why doesn't bp get find? if something is wrong with the coal for the coal mines around here, they get fined for their coal not been up to code. what is wrong with the peanut getting fined? host: "the new york times" talks

about transitiocean. behind the scenes firm gets caught in the spotlight. congressional investigators have questions about their maintenance and modification of the rig's blow up a venture. one of those many congressional

hearings, seven at last count, is happening today. chairman jeff bingaman -- is beginning at 10:00 p.m. eastern. we will have cameras there. among those will be the associated attorney general for the justice debarment, the national pollution fund center, the coast guard, the deputy secretary of the department of interior, also a panel with economics and risk assessment, a congressional research attorney, and a policy specialist. they are looking at it from several different angles. south carolina, steve on the independent line. caller: good morning. yes, about this oil spill in the gulf of mexico? i do not understand while the news coverage and all -- we have not seen anything about bp will pay a bounty on gallons of oil recovered.

we see where they are skipping and up, putting it in bags, but where is the recovery center at to where you can turn the oil in and collect a bounty on it? if they would do that, there would not be a drop of oil on the water down their, if they would pay for what people get up. there will not volunteer to come in and scoop up, but they're not showing what they are doing with that goo that they're dragging off the beach. shovels full. who is a reprocessing that oil, and whose land filler the throwing it in? anyway, back to the bottom of the ocean -- i was a plumber years ago, and when you had pipes leaking and you were not going to use them again, you could literally take and twist them and pinch them.

it would stop the water until you got what you were doing finished. but they're never going to use it again -- pension the lines off. -- pinch the lineup. they're nothing but 22 inches. my goodness, a fourth grader could figure out how to stop that oil. pinch the lines. host: a related story -- from "the wall street journal" insurance premiums are soaring. the rates may remain permanently hire. rates have risen up to 25% four shallower waters.

when next call is from north carolina, robert on the democrats' line. caller: hi. yes, as far as that oil spill is concerned, it seems as if you could take and bareback like from an automobile, force it into the pipe, and fellow with air and keep it, put something on it to keep it from being able to slide. put pressure and the place of believe it would stop the oil from coming out as well. host: for our last seven minutes of want to get into headlines about other news. the tax credit resht boost home sales. new figures from sales of existing homes reflect a significant improvements.

next is california, on the republican line. caller: first thing, many people call and say government this and the government that. we as a people are supposed to be the government. when we left big corporations take over the housing market, an oil market, and all of this, and leave it up to the people who take care of all the mistakes that happen. people losing their houses, the oil spill -- they don't want to put out the money to do all this stuff. the government does not want to be responsible for to because

they don't want to cut education and whatnot. they did the mess, they don't want to clean it up. the oil companies are the biggest profiting companies in the u.s. and could probably clean it up in a day if they wanted to. but don't want to put out the money. it is the oil company, not the government, who are responsible of this. host: thank you. the government can take control of the government now and should -- this from twitter. the next phone call is from indiana, on the independent line. caller: some of congressman suggested, he suggested that we let mobil take over the drilling of the extra well to cap it off. that would relieve bp's that

responsibility and let them concentrate on fixing this week. also if we have five countries around the world who have these submergible, why can we go to those countries and borrow those? the military can bring the equipment in here within 48 hours, from anywhere around the world. we could have got that operates those from china, let's say -- the team could come over here and use the submergible to help fix the leak. host: we will be back to this topic in the final segment. senator ben cardin it is responsible as a member of the energy committee -- thinking about the coastal drilling in virginia. he will talk about congressional enresponsibilities.

here is a message from twitter. the next call is on the democrats' long. caller: i agree with the message by twitter that bp would obviously want this to stop, along with the government. it is not only doing huge environmental damage, but damage to their reputation. i think the big, clear message in this the as citizens of the u.s., we all need to take part in demanding that there are more serious regulations, as they have around the world in regard to this drilling. mike p., a big-time attorney with kennedy -- another have

talked about some acoustic shutoff valves that are required in other countries, but not here, that would back up that blowout preventer that obviously did not work. i want to mention website called firedoglake and their they have also shown on what is going on. you can see photographs from down there, and read articles by many scientists. many people who were on the of rig when it blew up are on there. "60 minutes" did an extraordinary special to help us all understand. i encourage people to go look at that. one think this president and from the former administration did not talk about is that we as consumers on the to cut back the direct consumption level of oil. we don't hear them talking --

obviously, a bp needs to be held accountable. we need to enforce more serious regulations. but we don't talk about our own personal use. i don't know what is with the obama administration not even talking about that. it is infuriating. host: thank you. we'll take one more call, our last. here with the senate race in connecticut -- the former congressman will announce at a press conference that e is leading the u.s. senate race. he lost the republican convention's endorsement on friday. also, this story in "the wall street journal" -- is becoming a

headache for the former privacy chief. his name is chris kelly. his opponents in the june 8 democratic primary have avoided the facebook privacy issue. but last week in upon it made clear she is intending to make use of the fracas reporting his former employer. the last question on our topic -- todd, from ohio. caller: yes, i would like to make a few comments. i'm in the oil business here in ohio. they talk about pinching this well. the hour are thousands of pounds of gas pressure. you cannot just pinch off.

-- there are thousands of pounds of gas pressure. on land we can take a tool to run down and when you pull on it, the tighter gets inside the pipe, that packer should shut that well off, i would think. one more comment i want to make, i have seen on the news this morning that the congress will vote to quadruple the oil tax on all oil companies to help pay for this oil spill, which i don't think it's fair. i think that bp should pay for what they have done. there will get 32 cents per barrel -- bp will pass it onto the consumer. it is not just the oil company

who will suffer. it is the whole united states. host: we will pick up that discussion again at 9:15 a.m. this morning. here it says a deal is reached for repealing laws on gays in the military did not ask, do not tell. speaking of measures in the congress, lori montgomery is on the line with us. she is writing this morning about a request from the white house that would give the president rescission power. explain what that is? guest: the administration already has rescission power but congress can completely

ignore it. now they're asking for new law to grant them the power to scourer any spending bill for stuff they do not like, particularly pork-barrel barges, it earmarks. they could send a list to congress that would require congress within 25 days to vote up or down on the entire list, and the changes. they're hoping with the harsh glare that such a process would engender that congress would agree to approve the cuts. host: a headline this morning on this -- obama asks for a line- item veto he once opposed. guest: apparently he did vote against an amendment offered by judd gregg that would have given bush a more limited version of these powers.

i think it was targeted only at earmarks. what obama is asking for would apply to any spending commit any bill. one congressman was asked about this yesterday. he said by the time that of the campaign, obama had changed his view. host: at the same time he is asking for this power, there are also increasing talks about a new stimulus package. what is the message being sent? guest: i would say it is both sides of the mouth. yeah, they are trying to walk a very fine line here. they are trying to show voters that they are concerned about the deficit which is at record levels. they do not have a plan to reduce its, but have this special commission meeting to come up with the plan.

but in the meantime they have all this spending the need to do. they have a war supplemental on the floor of the senate that is now $60 billion. they have at $200 billion will turn to move in the house to extend the variety of very popular tax breaks, fix the doctors' payments who serve of medicare patients. they do not have a way to pay for them. host: the reaction from capitol hill so far? guest: are you talking about the supplemental? host: no, the enhanced rescission process. guest: it is going nowhere. the house speaker nancy pelosi and harry reid are both -- they both made very tepid statements yesterday. a senior aide at the senate said the outlook is weak. russ feingold will hold a hearing wednesday. it is unlikely this congress

will give away their powers of the purse. host: bottom line, the tension between the executive and congressional authority over spending continues. the debate in washington over the role of government in spending in this economy continues. guest: yes, and will continue through the week as the truck to get these final spending bills done before the break. host: thank you, lori montgomery. let me introduce you to our first guest at the table. he is the senior republican on good judiciary committee, a senior republican from texas. a new poll released yesterday -- [unintelligible] following the unsuccessful bombing in times square, more voters than ever now believe the nation is not safer today than

it was before the 9/11 attacks. if that -- is that perception correct? guest: it would appear to be. you had two attempts to kill people on our soil. the only reason they don't go off is not because of any great intelligence or long for a work, but because they failed to go off. there seems to be some legitimate concern by the people. host: what would you do to remedy that? guest: a number of things. first of all, you give the director of national intelligence a little more authority than apparently blair had. mckim something besides a fall guy. -- make him something besides a fall guy. you do not give people miranda rights -- you're telling them

they have rights, actually. but they're not american citizens. you interrogate. you do not torture them, but you interrogate all you can. my goodness, after the airline attempted bombing in detroit, there's no reason to be that guy ran the warnings. there is no reason, none. brenda says if someone is an american citizen and they are entitled to those rights under the constitution -- which these guys are not, then, if they say anything after that you can use it in court. well, you have guys caught red handed. you could care less to what they confess -- you don't need their confession when you have them red handed. you need their intelligence. we feel miserably. with the times for bomber -- for another thing, once somebody

starts talking, you do not start leaking what they are sen. when there is talk of a career out there you are pursuing, somebody in intelligence has had a terrible breakdown. you just told the career that you are after them. so close the leaks, quit trying to treat terrorists at war with our country as if they are some civil criminal. i know that people are concerned about making sure we live by a constitution, and i absolutely believe in that, but the constitution gives different rights to different people. for example, my four years in the army was not entitled to the rights that you are if you are suspected of committing a crime. i would have to go under the ucmj. i do not have the right to a jury of indiscriminate

selection. which you get are the people that the commander who convinced, the court-martial selected for your input on the panel. you do not have a right to print three challenges. these people are defending our rights and they don't have the same constitutional rights that american civilians. there was a case in 1942 amid clear that when even an american citizen is at war with america, they don't have the same rights. host: looking at that last clarification, the person implicated in times square was in fact a u.s. citizen. guest: yes, just like back in the 1942 case when some german saboteurs were released from the u-baots and came ashore. one of them was an american

citizen. the supreme court said when you go at war against your own country, then you are held as a prisoner of war, unless you are suspected of committing some more crime, in which tissue can be tried after the cessation of hostilities. host: here is a story i would like to read froto you from the lead story in "the new york times." he has gotten information about a special directive. officials said the order also permits reconnaissance to pave the way for profitable military strikes militaryiran. -- in iran. while the bush administration had approved some clandestine

activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term. its goals are to build networks that could of. penetrate, disrupt, defeat, or destroy al qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to the "prepare" the environment for future attacks." guest: i was not familiar with that story. but i am delighted. i think that is a weakness we saw under the bush administration. we needed a more systematic approach to intelligence. general david petraeus has shown what a great job he could do in iraq with a the surge. it is great as long as it is not

in the u.s.. we're fighting a war unlike any we have ever faced before. i am delighted that it is the case. i'm deeply saddened that our secret intelligence is being made public. in this case, though, it may well be that the message is going out to those people in other countries -- welcome of the u.s. may finally be getting serious about us and we better watch out. -- wow. host: there were very few specifics. people were hesitant to talk about any aspect. "the new york times" responded to concerns about troop safety. i want to get to calls because we have laid out the issue which is concern about how much more

secure the nation is. all of the money we have spent, the reorganization since the 9/11 attacks -- we also want to play a clip from president obama as he spoke at west point about national security at the graduation. >> so a fundamental part of our strategy for our security has to be american support for those universal rights that form the creed of our founding. we will promote these values above all by letting them through our fidelity to the rule of law and our constitution, even when it is hard, even when we are being attacked, even when we are in the midst of war. host: congressman? reaction to what he had to say there predictability to the constitution? guest: well, i think he is absolutely right. i wish there had been that

concern with the task force is that completely disregarded the constitution, bankruptcy laws -- with the tax force. but congress and the judiciary including the supreme court, although ruth bitter ginsberg did put a 24 hour hold -- the laws were disregarded, so i am delighted to hear the president back fidelity to the rule of law. host: but the president says we will follow the rule of law and fidelity to the constitution even when it is our. that does not conflict with what you said. guest: and that is my point. the constitution has different rights for different people. when i was in the military, when people were out in iraq and afghanistan fighting for us, they have different rights under the constitution. that is what some in the people who thought were intelligent have apparently not been educated sufficiently about. as a member of the military i

did not have the same rights as a regular american citizen. as a person at war and not in uniform under the geneva convention, then you do not have the same rights. that is consistent with our american constitution. it is consistent with the 1942 case, even with the other case that the supreme court, as a justice roberts said in his dissent, could not take yes for an answer. it is all of those. it is absolutely true, he just needs a better education on the different types of rights afforded under the constitution. host: let's get both callers and viewer's reaction to that. this is thomas, on the democrats won. your comment or question, please? caller: i have a comment, and then a question. don't we have to be careful that

we have attacked as a nation, and it will attack us. you cannot expect other nations not to attack. the question i have this, as far as the marin writes, i think attorney holder is asking, since you are having such a problem with these terrorists coming in to the country, what do want to do? give them are right, or not? you make of all. congress will have to make a lot to handle it. i think that is what he is saying. host: thanks for your question. guest: actually, congress does not have to do it under the 1942 case. it is very clear that the

president as commander-in-chief has a great deal of authority and the fighting a war on terror for us. when you say "terrorists" as i call them -- you are right. we will call them what the democratic amendment to the act of 2006 -- the bill was amended to say they are no longer and make combatants, the term going back to the 1942 case. as of last year they are not privileged, alien, emery belligerence. . .

there has never been a time in human history where a civilized nation captured people on the battlefield and brought them and gave them a trial in civil court. that has traditionally been done by a civilized societies.

you hold them until their friends say, we are no longer at war. and then, you let them go. the next time you can try them before a military commission. host: he is a graduate of baylor university school of law. he served three terms as a district judge. our next telephone call is from dayton, ohio. this is maryann on the independent line. >> i come from a strong military family here at the air force base. i have not served, but my uncles and many of my catholic family

relatives. guest: the whole family serves when one does. caller: when the u.s. refuses to adhere to international standards with regard to the geneva convention and the torturing in rewriting those aws, is flat out wrong. most people in the military that have been there in a long time do not want to go to war for use in military power when it is unnecessary as we did in iraq. i want to ask you about adhering to international -- the geneva convention and rewriting torture laws. there was a rant and rave about iran. the international the topic -- guest: you keep making

statements without a question. we did not violate the geneva convention. if you read it, and you will find out that you have to wear a uniform. these people that are attacking us are entitled to no rights under the geneva convention. we have no violation there. as far as my ranting and raving, that is your description, i am extremely concerned. we are not writing anything, except what the supreme court has done recently. we are following the loss as traditionally had been followed. if you have a question, fine. but do not misconstrue the law and the facts. host: republican line, a democrat. caller: i turn of my favorite

programs when you are on midnight. guest: many people find that i put them to sleep. i understand. caller: to make, you are a politician who would be funded the tutelage of chris smith and others. i greatly admire you. and i thank you for your service to our country. what do you think about the possibility of the congress and the senate staying in their homes and having other affairs of state to handle their meetings skype, and when they need to come into washington, they go there to have their business dealings there to keep

them away from the lobbyists and the other distractions? i very much respect you and admire you. i want you to know that we love you out here. watch out for those in texas. guest: it is a great point an interesting observation. it does address in washington which is when people move in washington and get out of touch with the way that people really feel back home. that is the effort made by this proposal.

i go home every weekend. people let you know what they think. rather than eliminating the interplay between people and washington, we would be better off where we have a session -- we have a month of where we are begum hot -- back at home so people can fuss at us. i like the motive of people staying in their districts more. we are not better served if we spend more time in one area and then, spent consecutive days here. it is much safer when we are not in session.

host: this is from a tour. i am not stuck on a veranda. that is an interesting observation. i do not want to be people and miranda warning when they are caught in violation of the geneva convention. they are not entitled to the same rights that even the military is. i think we would be better served this regarding this especially if these guys are caught. do not re about the miranda warnings. you find out all the intelligence you can. a lot of people do not understand is that miranda tells people that anything that is said can be used against them.

it comes when it is custodial in nature. it is an exclusionary rule. if you say something before you are giving your miranda rights and you are in custody, it is in response to interrogation. it may not be used in trial. that is my point. why even worry about it? i appreciate the twitter. host: independent line. caller: good morning. i have to apologize. i am a little nervous. when were you in the service? guest: 1978 to 1982. caller: i was in the service. i do not understand the miranda

rights. tell me about the oil spill. [unintelligible] the day tried to cover up the oil leak they have down there. how can you have the miranda rights with somebody shooting at you? host: we had an earlier question about if enough has been done about the oil spill. guest: i am not sure i understood what he was saying about it. host: he had a version of sinking a barge which was a suggestion. there is concern of the security

of the gulf coast. >> i am concerned as well. i have been a fan of offshore drilling. i do not know if sinking a barge will do it. it does not seem like it would. i am for taking away control from british patrolling. i am concerned that they have been trying to cover up some of the exposure. i very much sympathize by the agenda of their friends. they were told you have to get permission from british patrol to have these efforts over the last month because this administration let them stay in charge. that is ridiculous. i got concerned when the

president mentioned the relationship between the regulators and the big oil. it hurt a nerve -- it hit a nerve. i asked my staff to check and see what happened to the people that are responsible taking else those in 1988 and 1989 which caused our government a lot of dollars. it turns out one of them -- why have you not talked with these people that you say were so involved? they said they left in the service and they cannot talk to them. i said, of course you can. it turns out he could not talk to them because one would sue work for a company.

as of last year, it ended up with the assistance of secretary of minerals management. there is a relationship. the president brought back that relationship. it in the newspapers. it was regarding the petroleum. ip should anyone with ideas that can give assistance that would deal with this the the -- with

this disaster. host: cambridge, new york, democrats line. caller: i have a question for you. does it seem to you that the administration and eric holder are treating this -- i do not know what to call it. the people are not in uniform. they are not cleared. they are treating it as a law enforcement problem giving them a grant of rights which is ridiculous. they are not american citizens. they do not deserve to be treated as american citizens. i think this administration is making a mistake in treating this as a law-enforcement

problem. guest: it is a war. people have been to war with us. it turns out there was a group at war with us in that attack our embassy. they took hostages. people were prepared to go and die to protect our country. there was a group at war with us in 1979. one caller said iran has never attacked us. she did not know that it was behind the 1983 bombing. ronald reagan was a great president. in response to an attack on our marine barracks in beirut in 1983, we withdrew.

we did nothing. the message has gone for over 20 years that normally the united states does not do anything that is a poor response when you are dealing with people that perceive that as weakness. host: texas is next. caller: good morning. concerning illegal immigration. a plan was put out by the senate. it sounds nice on paper. i get worried when i see they will bring him out of the showers. i want to know about the

national debt. if we would do away with the current income credit and the child tax credit and do away with federal withholding taxes for every one that makes under $30,000, that would help create jobs even though they are not for jobs, but that are rich. that would help tremendously. make those on medicaid paid $10 a month. that way no one gets a free ride in this country. /the the stamp program by 15%. if we could do something like that, it could help on our national debt. i know we are a compassionate nation, but we will be a compassionately broke nation if we do not do something soon.

a look forward to meeting you in a couple of weeks. guest: thanks. i look forward to meeting you as well. illegal immigration is a problem. people say we want to support millions of people. i do not think that is necessary. we can enforce the law as it is. we have to dry up the benefits to people who are illegally here. they will go where the jobs are. they have already shown that. as far as the payroll tax, i am a guy that came up with the idea -- i appreciate it very much. just to let people have their own tax dollars and own paycheck.

you would have seen the economy explode. it would have sent trillions of dollars on what the federal reserve has committed. some would not support it. they said it would increase the gdp more than any other proposal. when i brought it up to president obama,, larry summers was interested. he never called me. i was delighted when the everything that i said. i was shocked when he said it was over $60. i was thinking in terms of an average of $5,000. i very much appreciate his

comments. there is a move by some senators to add more for teachers. we will talk about that later on in our program. some senate republicans are concerned about the fact hat it is off budget. will you comment on this? guest: i wish we had dealt with that under the bush years. we did not. the democrats were right to bring this up. i appreciate president obama trying to address the needs in harm's way.

aziz said, talking about a bill for teachers. my mother, sister, my wife were all teachers. i am a huge fan. let us deal with that in some other bill, not this supplemental. i regret that the bush policy is being followed by this administration. it is a part of protecting the country. it needs to be part of our budgeting system. we will still be fighting this war for the foreseeable future. >> do we need to find a way to pay for it? guest: finding a way to pay for it, if you take out some of the things we voted for such as millions of dollars to buy wild horses or $25 million for

habitat for wild dogs and cats -- all of these kinds of things that we have been voting for we need to cut this stuff out and get to what is serious. there are ways to pay for it. host: maryland, independent line. caller: you are not in my district, but i will see you. thank you for your service. i have a quick question and comment. we should not have gone to iraq.

iraq and iran were at war with each other for years. when we went into iraq, we created a problem. i think we need -- i did not think iraq was a real threat. north korea blew up a submarine -- a south korean ship in march. the investigation is over. anything.going to do there is no reason other countries that want to cause us

harm -- we can do whatever we want, because america is not going to do anything. host: thanks for that comment. what about north korea and south korea? guest: i agree with him. it does not been strong enough. north korea under the clinton administration were told if you want to develop nuclear weapons, we will basically give you help. they had the means to develop these weapons. for some reason we are shocked when they do it. they are developing long-range rockets. i deeply regret the distraction that iraq was at the time.

we thought they had weapons of mass destruction. there were questions as to whether they did. we should have been focusing on the countries that were the biggest threat to us. that appears to be north korea and iran. we are dino they used hezbollah and they were responsible behind the bombing of our barracks in beirut. we need to address these issues. i think talking about sanctions has not worked. it is not an effective tool. in our missile defense we are

unilaterally disarming and asking others to do likewise. these people do not see that as a wonderful gesture. they see it as a sign of weakness. the only way as thomas jefferson sought it to deal with these people that wanted to destroy the american way of life and put them in their place. every so often, somebody opens a pandora's box. and islamic terrorists come popping out. we can live peacefully with moderate muslims as we have for centuries. we have to deal with that effectively and also north korea.

host: brownsville, new jersey. caller: i do not know if i am getting this right. the high court where they try war crime criminals. guest: the military commissions? caller: know, they tried a gentleman over in africa. they are getting those children to join the wars and everything. i want to know why has not the united states and joined that court as far s where other countries can point a finger as high political people in our country and we take them to

court for war crimes? guest: i really appreciate that question. it is because of the united states constitution. it goes back to the declaration of independence. the very things you have taught and -- talked about, giving the country the authority to try people. that is one of the grievances that was expressed between the declaration of independence in 1776 followed up by the constitution in 1997. they have the right to judge our u.s. citizens. they fall under our u.s. constitution. if enough people feel the way you do, the constitution on

which our government is based will go away, and we would go to an international tribunal. we would not have the rights to the u.s. constitution. we would not have the protections. people will be taken to international courts and we would have no right to do it. there are people that have died for the u.s. constitution and to those that have worn a uniform anticipating that we would lay down our lives for the u.s. constitution. as long as that is still in existence, and we still have a cover government based on the constitution, we do not give foreign countries coming together the right to try our citizens under foreign courts. host: our last caller is from fort myers, fla. on the republican line. caller: thanks for c-span.

i watch you on c-span. thanks for explaining the difference in the constitutional laws. talk about the arizona law and obama making fun of its. it mirrors a federal law. guest: it does not mirror the u.s. law. it is a bit weaker. i am shocked that even ivy league people -- if they will look, they will know that in 1966, the u.s. supreme court in a case gave police officers a much stronger right then is

talked about in the arizona law. i have read this and highlighted is. here it is here. my copy is 22 pages. it is 19 pages officially. it really does not go as far as the federal law. you cannot stop somebody based on racial profiling. president calderon was wrong being an invited guest in coming in and mischaracterizing a u.s. state law. it is just not true. the president was wrong about it. if you read the law and do a study, it is basically a stop and it must be based on

reasonable suspicion. one of the words i had to practice, and you are so good speaking clearly, i had to practice the word articular oparable. you have to have those facts to base the temporary detention. under the arizona law, you cannot just stop somebody based on their race, creed, national origin. it has to be based on some reasonable suspicion that you have violated the law. once you stop because of some other violation, then you can ask for identification. the of always been able to do that. i appreciate the question. i would encourage anyone to look

at this as amended. the 19 pages is after it was amended. it is a state trying to follow federal law, and the federal government supports states' trying to support the federal government doing its job when they do not. host: the national security strategy report will be released this week. we are hearing the concerns about the strategy. guest: thanks so much for you and the c-span. you're performing a great service. host: thanks for coming here. we will discuss the state's fiscal woes and the effects they are having on school spending across the country. it is time for our 2010 campaign update. we will look at the california

senate race as the president makes his second trip to the state to support the incumbent senator. >> president obama is expected to raise $1.5 million at the fundraiser tonight. we will have coverage here on c- span. good to ever website for details. joining us on the phone is the senior political writer with the "san francisco chronicle." this is the second time the president will go to fund raise fort senator barbara boxer. why is this race a priority for the white house? >> it is a safe race. california is important to democrats in 2010. they cannot lose. barbara boxer is extremely vulnerable to go for a fourth term. she is one of the most liberal senators in the senate. she is a target that many love to hate.

democrats are behind her, but one-fifth are independent in california. this is where she is having trouble. she she has three republican challengers, each who pose a problem for her. one is wealthy would be the first woman that faces barbara boxer. a moderate pradesh choice republican is a challenge for her. -- a moderate pro-choice republican will be a challenge for barbara boxer. there could be a perfect storm here and democrats are worried. >> any of the endorsements for

these three republicans that are vying to challenge her in the general election? >> no question about it. there have been all kinds of big endorsements. sarah palin is one of them. a number of big conservatives are behind her. the democrats are worried by this. tom campbell has many behind him. and lots of conservatives such as mike huckabee is behind choc. -- chuck devore. if the way you cut it, there are many people fired up on the other side of barbara boxer. that is why, obama is going to

town tonight. the democrats really think this is a key race. >> of those three republicans running, who is leading in the polls? >> they have been all over the board. the most recent came out yesterday. it shows fiorinia in the lead. many are discounting this as auto calls. many people think the swing is too much. the public policy institute of california had a poll last week. that has more credibility. but it also shows fiorina also in the lead. a daily post that came out showed campbell in the lead. in most of these, barbara boxer has been under 50%.

she recently pulled ahead of these republicans just slightly. she is showing more strength. that is what the democrats will be concentrating on. >> there have been polls showing the general election match up between her and each of these republicans that want to run against her. what are those showing? >> right now she is a head against all three challengers. just slightly by a couple of points however. this looks like tom campbell is her strongest challenger. he is pulling ahead, and she has the number to bring her through. tony -- tom campbell does not have the money that she does.

she has almost $4 million of her own money in this race. barbara boxer has about $10 million in the bank, not counting what the president is going to come through tonight. >> we will be covering that fundraiser tonight here on c- span. but to our web site c-span.org for coverage. we will cover the june 8 primary in california. that will be here on the c-span network. thank you for joining us. host: as we continue this tuesday morning, let me introduce you to the executive director of the american association of school of ministers. we will speak about school cutbacks across the country. a proposal by one member of the senate to create a $23 billion jobs fund to prevent teachers in the u.s. from being fired because of the budget shortfalls.

thanks for being with us this morning. let me get a handle on the numbers. as every various articles, the estimates vary from 100,000 to 300,000. what is your estimate in the number of jobs that are in peril? guest: we did a survey. the results are that 82% of our school districts in united states eliminating jobs next year. that will be 275,000 education positions. 66% of them are teaching jobs. the rest are support personnel and administrative personnel. that is where we get the 275,000 figure. host: plus the elimination of teaching jobs mean there will be less teaching done?

guest: it means higher class sizes. that is what districts have to do when they eliminate teaching positions. they have to put the children in other classes. what we are predicting is there will be an increase in class sizes across the country. what does that mean? for the gifted or advanced child that is doing well, probably not much. the impact will be felt by the children debt need -- that the benefit from being in a small class size and that we work to close the achievement gap. in larger classes, the teacher does not have time to spend with children on an individual basis. host: there is pressure for the federal deficit not to increase.

guest: that amount would maintain the teachers. that is what it would take to maintain them on the job. $23 billion to save approximately 300,000 jobs. because the economic policy indicates that for every job loss in education, there is a resulting impact in other areas of the economy such as the -- as teachers get laid off in their communities, that a group of people is not spending as they would in the past. holmes may be foreclosed. for the impact that we have seen over the last couple of years would have a ripple effect. >> "the new york times" had a front-page story about the

state's fiscal woes. hard times spur ideas for change. we have had a tradition of locar education. is it time for states to rethink that concept in an effort to address some of the fiscal concerns that we have? guest: and that is possible. those are ideas that are not necessarily new. we have senate contacting of a number of school districts to consolidate in order to reach economy of scale. today, that is a local process. it requires communities to agree to emerge. it has not been done in terms of a state ruling.

in most cases it is left up to localities. they love to control schools locally. from a constitutional perspective, the federal government is not over this education -- the responsibility has been given to the states. it has given over to local boards of education to determine what needs to be done. it is possible, but it is a process that will require a lot of input and convincing of people at the local level that they should turn over their rights to control the destiny of their educational systems to a larger portion of the country. host: spending for education and the states. here are some headlines as we take your calls. districts warned of deburred teacher cuts. a slew of layoffs linked to over

hiring during the boom years. teacher jobs and the politics of them in the local and state news. we would like to invite your questions and comments for the gentleman that represents schools administrators and their issues here in washington. let's begin with a phone call from pennsylvania on our independent line. caller: i think our school systems are broken, and we need to get rid of the property tax that are in competition with privatizing or home schooling? what do you think? guest: he said something that is an issue affecting school districts right now.

property-tax is the primary source of offending school districts around the country. is what has created the economic issue for school districts as we know. property guy is have declined significantly over the last couple of years. that is the primary source of funding schools. values have declined. so has the revenue that has been generated by the property taxes. school districts around the country are facing the economic problems and why they of looking at laying off these teachers. the problem is that historically the property taxes is one of the most stable sources of funding for education. it does not deviate as sharply as with the income tax and the sales tax. there are states in the union did have litt said those as alternatives to a primary source of funding education.

it is still the property tax that is the primary base for funding. there are movements right now and the obama administration is supportive of charter schools. generally those are options that are a very small percentage of the number of public schools in the country. basically what we have to do when talking about making significant changes in education is address the public schools in the country, and began to look at the number of laws, rules, and regulations that are in the books right now that prevent school districts from doing the kinds of things they would like to do. there is a whole litany that i could get into at the time. clearly -- one example is the school calendar. you will not believe the amount of space it requires for schools to begin in september and ended in june and july and august are vacation months.

the research shows that these months do not help, because there is so much for getting that takes place that by the time they start school, this in the first few months relearning what they learned in the last year. it makes more sense for schools to be taught the year round. there is a bill that prevents school districts before starting before labor day. there are lost in the books right now that prevent school systems from doing what is a 21st century type of education. host: democrats line in pennsylvania is next. caller: i think the president should bail out the teachers. the people in the inner city, they are always the one that suffer. the kids will suffer as a

result. something needs to be done. i agree with what the guest is saying 100%. host: let me go back to this article from los angeles. it will late to his point of view. the school district cannot lay off teachers at three of the city's worst performing metal schools, rolled a los angeles counties superior court judge. a class action lawsuit was filed against l.a. unified on behalf of students at a few schools. they said students were denied their legal right to an education because of a high number of budget related layoffs at the schools. how do you feel about the court's getting involved with this? guest: it is an example of what i was just talking to the less gentleman about. there are contractual obligations that exists that

prevent administrators from doing the job that they would like to do. clearly, it is very interesting to watch today have the obama administration is pushing the envelope on teacher unions on issues like tenure and seniority and the retaining of employees on the basis of merit as opposed to security issues. we see examples of that in los angeles and new york city and in other areas of the country. if these two under 75,000 layoffs take place, what is going to happen is -- 275,000 let us take place, what is going to happen is the ones let go will not necessarily be the best teachers or the worst teachers, but sometimes the last hired. these are the issues we have to liggett. host: next caller. caller: it seems that we always

jumped to teachers laos when there are not enough revenues to support the current numbers. why are we stuck in that paradigm that we cannot reduce their salaries to the level of tax revenues and keep the same number of teachers in the work force and not have to increase classroom size? guest: that is an excellent question. a first of all, 85% of the school district's budget is personnel costs. when school systems have to cut at the level they are cutting today, they have already gone back on the amount of paper clips and paper and product that

approach is a very small amount. the larger amount is in salaries. they have to turn to the layoff of teachers as a way to reduce the cost. your question in terms of salary, well again, school districts have contractual obligations. they have to honor that contract, otherwise they are breaking that contract and they are subject to lawsuits. the districts are basically obliged to do that. attempts are made on a regular basis by school districts to try to renegotiate particularly in these difficult times and obtain concessions from the unions that would allow them to affect the salaries of personnel. in some cases it is done, and in other cases it is not. it is a contract that has to be honored.

there must be a consensus to break it. host: he began by teaching sixth grade in queens n.y.. he spent his entire career in education policy or administration. he served as superintendent of a number of school districts. in what ways is american education better and worse than when you first got into the field? guest: it has been 40 years for me. i have seen from the 1960's until today. but is better today is that for years -- and it is important to give notice of a left behind credit for this. for years we have educated all children. the average has hidden the fact that within the group of children, there were performers

and black, latino, special education whose performance was well below the average for the school system. nobody really focused on that. no child left behind changes things. they required districts to report their data not on average but on the performance of each of these groups, so it became very clear and evident that the african-american kids, special ed, poor students, were not performing as well as the middle-class white students. that put the spotlight on those students and has required us to provide programs for those students that are not generally provided for before. i think we have made a substantial improvement on how we educate our lower performing students. it is worse because we keep adding more laws and more rules and regulations.

the reality is that today, if the school district court to teach the required curriculum, they would need a 15 hour school day. it is impossible to teach everything put into the curriculum by legislators that feel this is important and it should be taught. the same thing with rules and regulations. we very much appreciate the respect the current administration has taken through their blueprint, but the reality is no child left behind is still the law of the land. we have added to all of the requirements that of this new administration in the funding of race to the top end in a fit of grants that will be coming out soon. school improvement grants. the stimulus dollars. all of these new sources of funding requires additional

things to be done in the school district. we keep adding to the responsibility of administrators and teachers and personnel without taking anything away. host: americans keep hearing that their students globally do not perform better than those in western hemisphere's. what is the reason? guest: finland is number one in the world. they have an excellent educational system. it is the size of montana. it is a predominantly white middle-class population. you cannot compare finland and their results with the performance of america. it has a very diverse population and the students are thrown into the mix. we have to be very careful when we make these comparisons to understand it the united states,

we require children to go to school from kindergarten to 12th grade. high school is optional -- for them to go to high school, they have to apply and get into the high school. in many cases, it is not universal educational system in finland as it is here in the united states. we have to be careful about comparing apples and oranges. host: the next call is from treasure island, florida. caller: i would like to talk about why that has a statewide school board. the guests said we should have less school boards in less control. host: are you suggesting that hawaii is a good model? caller: the administration is top heavy. all of the funding goes to pay for administrators. there is hardly any money left for classrooms, school teachers

, and he is talking about teachers are precluded from being fired on merit. they should be paid on merit. it is a disaster. the unions and the administrators -- i cannot believe what everybody is doing to our country. host: a couple of issues there. first hawaii is a statewide school system. guest: it is the only system that is a one state system. one superintendent, one board. it is very different. hawaii experience has a different one than others. i think it has been affected significantly by the economic situation has struggled for a long time. it is the same side as fairfax county, which is the system i was superintendent.

170,000 students. there was a time when the people in hawaii came to visit us because they saw as being in similar size and wanted to do some studies to see what we were doing that they may take. the problem goes back to the economy and the resources and the ability to pay for the services you want. it was probably the wealthiest county in the united states. we had the resources to provide for the under served students those left behind that we talk about. hawaii did not have the resources to provide for the kinds of salaries to hire the best and maintain quality teachers in the classroom and to provide the technology for many of the other services provided at the top school districts in america. host: fairfax county is one of

the places where the foreclosure rate is higher in the washington, d.c. area. guest: the budget was just approved by the board of education last thursday. they had to cut $35 million. they eliminated 200 positions. they have to make significant cutbacks. it was personally painful, because some of the programs that were cut back were programs that i put in place as superintendent. host: i remember an amazing statistic about the number of languages of students in fairfax county. guest: 148 at last count. host: wichita, kansas, bill. caller: good morning. i'm a first-time caller, and i'm just calling to say that the

economic impact that i am seeing here in our community is tremendous. it is not like industry, where we are not selling as many airplanes and we cut back on at the staff and the workers and the airplane factories. the opposite is happening here. what we're seeing here is thousands and thousands of new students coming into the school system because of private schools -- people cannot afford the private schools now -- and they are being put into public schools and they are cutting back on teaching staff. i think the economic impact is tremendous in that regard. we need to add teachers and add nd find some way tho fu schools and provide education for children coming in from private schools, and swelling the ranks of the public school system.

i will go off -- host: all right, bill, thank you. guest: that is an excellent point you just made. it is the perfect storm. in addition to not having sufficient funding, what we also see is that because the economy, more parents are pulling at children out of private schools they are in and putting them in public schools. school systems are seeing increasing enrollment at the same time they are going to be cutting back on staff, which will make the increase in class size is even greater. we were talking about fairfax county before but that is a perfect example. fairfax county just eliminated 200 positions, but they are increasing by 1700 students. the average school district in america is 1700 students. the average -- fairfax county

just increased by an entire school district. that is a huge problem. host: hostile, alabama. republican moderate -- huntsville, alabama. republican line. caller: i want to comment on what he said earlier about susan forget everything during the summer. i have a problem with that. -- students for getting everything during the summer. i have a problem with that. what will they do when they are 18 and up? at this point, the educational system has failed. even if you take the cream of the crop in american schools, they are subpar compared to those in other countries. in fact, our best students are the ones taught at home are the ones who are not professional teachers. that is not a good sign. teachershink that

being laid off is somehow far worse than having another group of individuals laid off. when you have lots of people losing their jobs, is that overall -- it is that overall. teachers -- it is not like there's something special about them that makes the economy hurt more than losing construction workers or engineers. host: thank you. guest: i would disagree. i think we have an excellent school system in america. it is interesting to note that i do travel quite a bit around the world, and one of the reasons i travel as much as i do is because everybody is interested in educational system, our educational system. they want to implement the kinds of things we are doing here. if you look at many of the well- to-do families abroad, they are choosing here to get an

education. host: 4 university or primary school? guest: 4 university, but in many cases come out for secondary level as well. our problem, because we are so diverse, we have a population of minorities, poor, ethnically diverse students that are not performing as well as they should. we can certainly address that issue. our best students in america are equal and better than any other country. you can put them side by side, and in our case, they are fantastic students. when we talk about allowing teachers to be laid off at the same time we're talking about improving the quality of education, well, those two things are opposite. one cannot happen if you do the other. that is why we are trying to make sure that this bill that tom harkin has proposed, and hopefully will be passed, will

provide for school systems around america to retained their teaching and instructional support staff. host: let me read you a llttle bit more about the specifics. this is from "bloomberg business week." "senator tom harkin wants to create a job as a fund for teachers fired because of the budget shortfall. he is the chairman of the health, education, and pensions committee. a job losses at public schools may top 100,000," but your number is quite clear, "tom harkin said today. this would supplement the $100 billion dedicated to education in the stimulus package, a total of $69 billion being awarded to states through december 31, receiving more than 300,000 teaching and school

administration jobs. the money is scheduled to expire on december 30." let's go back to telephone calls. asheville, north carolina is next. kerry, independent-minded -- jerry, independent line. caller: good morning. i enjoy your program. the last caller -- he pointed out some things your speaker is saying. my wife is an assistant teacher. a very multicultural, but there is probably more than 50% that are poor. whether they are white or mexican or black, the issues are at the same did some of the issues are growing with these students. they do have issues. you cannot discipline them properly, because of limitations, and setting aside -- when you are talking about laying off teachers, this is the question which you cannot answer but i cannot understand -- the

department of transportation -- i travel the country a lot, on the road, and i see dot crews of four or five with one of working. where is the priority for our country? the effect of our children not getting education is long term for our country. they must be taken care of now. what is your thoughts, your way of encouraging states to address dot who are making up 30% or 4% more than a teacher, and yet there is what -- 30% or 4% more than a teacher, and yet there is only one working? our students have to be put first. participation of parents is not where it should be. host: thank you for your call. guest: we have enough problems focusing on schools without necessarily getting into department of education. and i was a sixth grade teacher. very often i hear people who

tend to talk down on teachers and basically talk about the salaries that they make, which are pitifully poor, by the way. i challenge anyone to spend a day in class with a 25 to 30 at the lessons for six hours and then tell me at the end of the day is not -- if that is not the hardest work you have ever done. it is an incredibly tough, difficult job these folks do in, day out. they cannot even afford to live in communities they are teaching because the pay is so loaded -- so low. after they've been doing this for 30 years and getting retirement, people talking about the retirement system and the grudging them the fact that they have worked for 30 years to at least get that benefit, and now they are talking about reducing or taking that away from them. it is very hard job and we

appreciate the work they do. host: this muirkirk is back to the days of the state teachers' colleges -- this reviewer harkens back to the days of state teachers' colleges. guest: before you ask a question about what was different then and today. what is different today, again, is the complexity of teaching. technology has introduced a tremendous factor into the classroom. we know that when we see kids basically tied to their iphones and computers and everything else how significant technology is. teachers have to be trained in how to use the technology. teachers have to be trained in the latest developments in pedagogy, how to teach kids how to read, but to do math. that a curriculum increases every year.

the requirements for teaching have escalated significantly and require more time and education. the gentleman talks about two years. now it is not unusual for the program for teachers to be five years. four years of college, and then an additional year for a master's degree. my daughter was graduating from oakton high school this year as a senior and is going to go to mary washington wants to be an elementary teacher. well, she has a five-year program i had ever. four years for about throws today, a year for a master's in education, abortion and step into a classroom. all these countries -- before she can step into a classroom. all these countries we are compared with, that is what they do. four years of college, and then a master's degree in education. host: at tiffany's of that, how much does it cost someone? -- at the end of that, how much

does it cost someone? guest: depends on where you go. in virginia, $100,000 minimum of. if you are talking about a private school, a quarter of a million dollars. after the investment, how long is it going to take for them to pay off the tuition? host: burlington, vermont. democrats line. caller: i am a professor at the university of vermont, and i have had experience teaching fifth graders when i was a grad student. it seems that one of the problems -- i want to make three points and i will make them quickly. education has become so complex with all of these requirements and subject areas that need to be covered. in the university of california, they had two departments when the first started -- when they

first started -- classics and a science. with people trapped in classics at math and physics, those -- trained in classics and math and physics, those that handle 50 people, where the students and teachers are invested with each other out for a long period of time on a personal level and we're not throwing students into this disordered chaos up 600 students or whatever. my second point is that i am excited about the idea of what the man said about how in america we guarantee this 12- year education process, whereas these other places have this competition where you get eight years, but then you have to prove that you are deserving -- i hate that word -- of moving

forward, and you take a test tube forward. when i was in high school, it was like babysitting. we could have done all that material in two years, and we could cut that down quite a bit. host: ok, we are running out of time. one last point, real quickly? caller: i believe that there -- host thank you -- i will leave it there -- host: thank you. let's start with the guarantee of a 12-year education. guest: that is the right thing to do. i disagree with his point of a view. we have an issue with the fact that only 70% of our high school students went up graduating from high school and getting a degree. 30%, realistically, don't. even though we are guaranteeing this k-12 education for students, 30% to don't take

advantage of it, and a drop out of school long before their senior year. what happens to those students before it -- when they drop out? we need to provide students with education, but at the same time, we need to provide the kind of education that will motivate students to stay in school. unfortunately, one of the things that concerns me is that we have put so much and this is on college -- so much emphasis on college and the idea that every child has to go to college that realistically we are ignoring students who do not necessarily want to go to college, who want a skills so that they can get a good paying job, and vocational educator and has really been kind of town down at the last couple of years. we have seen the opposite happening in many countries and europe, where they have outstanding programs for students not necessarily interested or college-bound with

the kind of vocational skills that allow them to get good paying jobs out of high school. host: william, a republican line. caller: good morning. i keep hearing how great our education is. we are spending $16,000 on each student and we are not getting enough for it, because if you ask a basic question to all high-school student, they don't know what you are talking about. you watch "jaywalking," and they ask college kids basic questions and they don't know what you are talking about. i graduate and from college, so it is not money prepared -- so it is not money. no school has to be a showcase. the standard school structure and worked that way -- host: the comments are very similar to the ones before were they said we are getting too complex, and are cutting back to

the 1-schoolhouse concept -- and harkening back to the one- schoolhouse concept. guest: we are seeing a move more towards individualized instruction, and technology is enabling that. the role of teaching is changing and moving to the director of learning, as opposed to a sage on the stage. there are changes taking place in our public schools. i think it is important to focus on the fact that we have an outstanding school system. i don't know that the -- i don't know the youngsters that this gentleman is speaking to, but i speak to a lot of kids and they are incredibly bright. they are taking courses that i did not take in graduate school. host: the american association of school administrators supports senator tom harkin's

proposal to add an additional $23 billion to the federal budget for teacher jobs, which are being cut at a rate of two ordered 75,000 -- 275,000 because of the school goes around the country. we thank you very much for being here. guest: one last point -- tomorrow, for individuals who are interested in supporting -- the house is interested in taking this up as an emergency bill. there is a number that you can call and ask for your representative in congress and tell him that you support the passage of this $23 billion to keep our teachers working and educate our kids. host: that you for being here. a final test for the money takes us back to the discussion of the oil spill. we will be back with at maryland senator ben cardin, a member of the environment and public works committee.

there is offshore policy and debate in maryland. time to go to see stand ready for the latest on the the news. -- c-span radio for the latest on the news. >> secretary of state clinton is pressing china to back u.n. security council action on north korea for the sinking of the south korean warship. of twog at the end days of talks, she says that security on the korean peninsula is a shared responsibility of washington and beijing. the white house approved a proposal to repeal the don't ask don't taliban -- don't ask don't tell ban. the legislation would repeal the ban, but it would allow the pentagon to continue its review of how to implement the new policy. the astronauts aboard atlantis

are getting the shuttle ready to return to earth. it is scheduled to land in florida but this last flight schedule for atlantis, although it will be prepared in case of emergency flights are needed. finally, a memorial service takes place this afternoon in jackson, mississippi, for the 11 workers who were killed last month when the deep water present will exploded in the gulf of mexico -- when the deep water oil rig exploded in the gulf of mexico. again, we will be talking about this bill when -- the spill when "washington journal" returns in a moment. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> former secretary of state henry kissinger testified about the nuclear arms treaty.

live coverage begins at 9:30 eastern. later in the day, also on c- span3, a house subcommittee investigates fraud against senior citizens. the president of aarp testify spirit that is live at -- 2:30 easternat the president of aarp testifies. that is live at 2: 30 eastern. >> it is hard to be the only woman on the court, which i experienced for about 10 years or so. in a population which, these days, produces at least 50% of law school graduates being women, it is realistic to think in terms upper i number of -- in terms of a number of women on the court, not just one. >> lord more about the court from the justice o'connor and others who of serve on the bench -- learn more about the court from justice o'connor and others

who have served on the bench. the book is available now in hardcover and also as an ebook. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome senator ben cardin of maryland, a member of the environment and public works committee, representing a coastal state, following for that reason as well be oil spill on the policy debate that ensued. bp has placed full-page advertisements in every paper we could pick up this morning. "what you're doing, how to get more information bp has taken full responsibility for the spill and we have done everything we get to honor all legitimate claims stock as it goes on to talk about the effort of 2500 people. yesterday we saw news conferences. -- admiralt allen

thad allen, and secretary of homeland security a. guest: bp has done many things are wrong. they have downplayed the oil spill from the beginning. their credibility is questioned pit their exploration plan basically said that there is no risk of any significant environmental damage from the spill, and they had the proven technology in order to deal with it. in reality, they did not have that. they did not have the equipment needed for that debt. their representation to get environmental waiver lease a lot of questions about their credibility. the use of dispersants, which the epa has questioned, raises a real serious questions as to how upfront they have been with the american people. yes, they are responsible and will be held responsible for damages, but it will be generations before we will be able to deal with all the damage that has been done.

this is a horrific event and we need to learn from this, and the government needs to take responsibility to make sure that the regulatory system in place does not allow this to take place in the future. they need to present accurate information to the public. i don't know if the federal government has the capacity to stop this week. we have to rely on experts that are there. but we needed the independence of the -- but we need federal government in charge. host: "despite moratorium, drilling projects move ahead. since the about 20 explosion -- the april 28 explosion that there have been 19 waivers for drilling projects and 17 drilling permits, most of those like the work on of the rig before it exploded. the moratorium was not meant to

stop work on existing projects." guest: that is very disturbing. we are concerned as to whether we have the appropriate regulatory structure in place to protect the environment and public safety. until we know that the regulatory environment is independent and the department is relying on their own experts and the experts that are available from other departments and not only the oil industry, i hope we would not put the environment and public at greater risk by approving permits that could lead to similar types of problems. i thought there was one to be a moratorium on any new drilling and expansions. we want to see a regulatory structure changed and make the public protected. host: there are increasing questions being made about the minerals management service. i just got an ap story, in addition to other stories in the morning papers. "your report faulting a federal

regulators for lack of oversight of -- a new report faulting federal regulators for a lack of oversight on a drilling. a follow-up to an investigation showed that invested -- showed that regulators had accepted tickets to sports events. ken salazar has proposed to abolish the agency and replace it with the new entity's." guest: take a look at the bp oil exploration plan that was the basis of the environmental label. it said that basically there was no risk involved here on the deep water drilling. they said that these proven technologies, these blood providers, which had failed in previous occasions -- blowout preventers, which had failed in previous occasions. the department needed to make independent reviews. the tragedy is that it looks like they had good advice that they should not have done some other things, that they should

have been asking more difficult questions and that there was significant and from the wrist. but engineers at the departments overruled those concerns a. that raises questions about the regulators. host: we begin with a call from asheville, north carolina. i have it on the screen, but i do not have it up yet. let me ask you about the number of hearings going on -- at this point as many as seven. we will be televising one alive with senator bingaman's energy committee. guest: our first priority is to stop the leaking of oil, and then to mitigate the damage the best that we can. but bp is spending a lot of time on public relations, as you can see by the advertisements they are putting in the paper. we have responsibility to make sure there is a proper oversight. i was disturbed to find that the

estimates on at least rely solely on d p, which is totally inaccurate. -- the estimates on leakage rely solely on bp, which is totally inaccurate. the government should do everything they can to stop the leak and hold bp accountable and its affiliates. host: towel on the republican line. you are on with the senator. caller: we have heard so much about this spill. so the about transocean owns the rigs -- something about transocean owns the big spread they were not getting their rigs inspected. they were buying off the inspectors or whatever it a lot of these raids were not expected to make sure these things -- a lot of these rigs were not inspected to make sure these things but had to the taxpayer suit bp -- couldn't at taxpayer sue bp? guest: we will make sure that

they are held accountable. i wrote a letter with senator boxer to make sure that bp be held fully accountable for all the issues here. the question on inspections is one that is currently being reviewed. there is a question as to whether the department has enough inspectors to be able to do adequate inspection. we are investigating that currently. we are looking at the city of current operations. we are very concerned about that. host: we had a number of people calling in wondering about federal policy that pushed operations farther and farther offshore to mitigate and are run dental -- to mitigate environmental damages. it increases the complexity. there is a circular kind of logic, it sounds like, going on at there. guest: no question about it, and that is what offshore drilling is so controversial. when the president, shortly before this episode, announced

he would allow for offshore drilling in the mid-atlantic on the atlantic coast, many of us said now. we are very concerned about that. we know that there is not a lot of reserves out there, talking about the amount of days until energy use in our country, and the environmental risks at those depths are not clear. if we still anywhere near what happened at the gulf of mexico off the shores of virginia, with this site is currently being looked at, it would have cause catastrophic damage to the chesapeake bay and damage for generations to come. these risks are just too great to take. that is why we are urging the president to reimpose a moratorium on new drilling off the atlantic. host: massachusetts, on the line for senator cardin. caller: my question was about basically what you just pretty much answered.

in the water, why was it pushed off land into the water? i talked to my father -- he is 84 -- this morning, and he says that people complain so much about the side of the drills on the line in pennsylvania and texas that it ended up in the water. guest: there is some truth to that, but part of it is where the reserves happened to be. we are estimated to have less than 3% of the world's oil reserves in all of our areas, and we consume 25% of the world's oil. we don't have a lot of reserves. i think there is some truth to the fact that if you do drilling offshore, it is out of sight, and therefore people may be more receptive to doing it on land. but the truth is that we just don't have a lot of reserves. the oil industry is looking for every place they can to drill.

our answer to that is that that is not the right energy policy for america. if we want to become energy secure, let us look at renewable and alternative energy sources. so that america can become energy secured wind and looking at solar and areas where we can compete -- nuclear. these are areas where we can become energy secure. we cannot buy drilling. host: x is kentucky, cindy on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. good morning, senator cardin. i'm a big fan. i wonder if anybody remembers when vice-president cheney had a secret meeting behind closed doors and we were never allowed to know who was there, why they were there, and what was said. also, i have a comment. it is so interesting that everybody is blaming obama if for no government when he has been chastised for taking over.

i wanted to also comment, i would like you -- that tea party candidate, rand paul, who was allowed to campaign on c-span, just said last week that he was very upset that president obama had his bootstraps on and the connect.ck -- on bp's now which to they want, oil spills or regulation? why are you asking these tea party -- aren't you asking these tea partiers what they want to cut in government more? guest: there is no question that this lax regulatory and farm it was created under the past administration, the bush years -- this lax regulatory environment was created under the past administration, the

bush years. president obama inherited a system that was not effective at regulating the oil companies. president obama and his administration have our responsibility to make sure that we are protected and change this so that we do not have a disaster like this in the future. as far as a rand paul and his statements concerning the oil industry, i just disagree with him. one of the principle of some possibilities of what government is to protect the public from this type of abuse -- one of the principal responsibilities of the government is to protect the public from this type of abuse. that is what the regulatory system needs to be, whether it is for oil drilling or wall street. i am pleased that congress is moving forward to impose the right regulatory structure on wall street. we need to do the same for the oil industry. host: frank, republican line. caller: high, senator.

guest: high, frank. caller: i would like to better understand what i understand that the current regulations for the oil industry. last major activity was in the early 1990's, i believe it. is that correct? guest: i am not sure of that date. callerr and it was to clean up the valdez activity. i think that at that time there was a recognition that we need to clean up oil spills, not only from ships but from drilling and everything. but that time they put in of the of -- at that time they put in a fee of 8 cents a gallon to go into a clean up a fund, and that would allow the oil companies to

operate in a regulated environment wherein they would have limited liability of $75 million. guest: that is correct. caller: in this case, everyone is claiming that he is going to pay their bill, i'm -- sure they -- that bp is going to pay their bill, and i am sure they are. how much money is in the fund to clean up oil -- spills guest: you are absolutely right. the exxon valdez was a tanker problem, not a drilling problem. the law was changed to impose a set fee on the oil industry so that we had a liability fund, and then to cap the liability of the individual company in the event of up spill. that was set at $75 million. it is approximately 1.5 billion in that fund today, but it also

taps responsibility at $1 billion. that is totally inadequate. the damage is here will far exceed that. to bp's credit, they have assumed all responsibility. we will make sure that they lived upp -- that they live up to that. they have indicated that they will take full responsibility. senator menendez as a bill, which i'm a co-sponsor of, that would increase the $75 million to $10 billion. the president is supporting this change. we think it is important that we had a realistic amount. bp oil makes -- i think and the last quarter their profits were in excess of $5 billion -- profits, not revenues. this company can easily afford the type of liability here, and

it is wrong to have a small business owners or taxpayers to pay for the damages they cost. host: another merrill lande -- marylander. caller: thank you for taking my call. it's a pleasure to speak with you. i will take us off the oil thing completely. i had ideas in my head for a long time about why cannot we harvest tidal water waves? the other day i went on the internet. we need to put a whole lot of resources behind this. the research has been going on -- hundreds and hundreds of years ago by ancient civilizations. we can do it, and think little. that the energy from them, the title water waves. thank you. guest: hydropower is part of the

renewable energy portfolio. it is used extensively in parts of our country. i think the suggestion about being more creative in the use of hydro power is something that we needed to. geothermal is something we need to look at for creating the thermal energy. there is opportunities from some of our crops that could help us with energy. there is also listed issues. there is not want a solution to our -- not one solution to our energy problem. but the goal is to become energy independent in america, to keep the technology in the united states, and be friendlier to our environment. all three of these issues are the same. investing in alternative, renewable energy sources. host: earlier, the conversation you referenced -- i have a copy of the letter to the president which you cosigned with other mid-atlantic senators. what is the concern with this particular lease proposal?

guest: there is a lot of concern with this proposal. there is an interest in drilling about 50 miles off the coast of virginia, up 50 miles from the mouth of the chesapeake bay. this site is important from the point of view of our environment. if there was a spill, the prevailing winds are almost always towards the coast, which means that it is very likely that any spill would end up in the to speak -- in the chesapeake or on our beaches. the concern in the letter is that the military uses that area for its military exercises. drilling would be inconsistent with the department of defense needs. that is true also, by the way, of some of the drilling proposals and the gulf of mexico. on the point of view of national defence and the environment and what is sensible energy policy for america, there should be no drilling off the virginia coast that close to our naval

operations aren't that close to our beaches. -- that are that close to our beaches. host: democrats' line. caller: hello? i hope he takes this back to the congress. i would like us to get out of the water, period. the whales have been trying to tell us every time they come to the shore that they don't want us in the water. people keep saying that they are lost. they know where they are in the water. they are trying to tell us on land that we are polluting and messing up the water. we are 70% of water. the earth is 75% water. that water is necessary and vital to the life of the people of the planet and the earth itself. now, what i would like to see

-- i would like us to stay out of the wind machines, too, because they want to put them in the water. the sewage treatment plants that we've put all over the country -- to work on trying to get the methane, our ways, and johnson and johnson are using it now for their old factory. i don't see why we cannot work on at that. that is the fuel that will always be here, and we don't have to go overseas or anywhere. guest: well, one of my responsibilities on the environment and public works committee, where i chaired a subcommittee on water and wildlife. i am very interested in maintaining clean waters in our country and around the world, and also the quality of our oceans. i held a joint hearing with senator whitehouse on the state of our oceans today as far as water quality is concerned. the issues you raised are valid issues.

we need to invest in a lot of different ways in cleaning up our water. we need to invest in water infrastructure. suez and pipes are too old and are breaking and we don't have an efficient way to deal with the transportation of water. you are correct that we also need to protect our wetlands, because they filter the water from a storm runoff into our streams, which end up in our base and oceans. we have to do a much more effective job in preserving clean water for the future. host: respond to james on twitter. guest: well, i want to become energy independent we do it by investing in an energy policy that makes sense for america, investing in transit, investing in ways where we can consume energy more efficiently, and investing in the technologies that are developed right here in america for alternative or renewable energy sources.

china is investing in alternative and renewable energy sources. they are investing more in wind power and solar power than we are. they understand that the future is in that area. the nations that are going to lead on the economic growth and energy are those who are focused on alternative, renewable energy sources. there are many more jobs there than in the oil industry. host: 15 more minutes with senator cardin. texas, republican line. caller: good morning. i have requested for c-span and question for the senator byrd could you all get somebody on their -- question for the senator. could you all get somebody on there was actually from the oil fields, like the drilling superintendent or somebody, that can explain what process they are in an exactly what is going on there? i am in the oil field myself for quite a few years. some of us and the oil field

would like to have a little more explanation. the question for the senator is what happens when you all shut down the oil fields offshore and you kill the economics of southern louisiana, southern texas? they do a lot of fishing. they are also mainly oil fields. louisiana, along the mississippi coast, a lot of the people depend on the oil fields for their living also. thank you. i will take my answer off line. guest: well, i don't think anybody is talking about eliminating oil and gas exploration. we have natural gas and we are exploring natural gas but we also have other sources of energy . i don't think anybody is talking about closing down our industries. while we are saying is that they should be compatible with the other interests we have. asked the -- ask the watermen in louisiana what they will be doing in the future, asked the

tourist industry what they will be doing. i saw the governor on television talking about the incredible damage this is causing to their states. i think that what the people want is balanced it right now the oil industry should not be in charge as to what the state as far as to link -- is concerned that should be the government's responsibility. there has been too much reliance on the oil industry and not enough on independent regulators. yes, we want to have an energy sector in this country that is balanced, but we want to make sure that is done in a safe ways that we can continue to resume -- continue tourism beneficiaries. host: i got a note from our producer that admiral thad allen will be our guest tomorrow morning. he has assumed the new responsibility as the national incident commander repor.

branson, missouri, music talent. -- music town. caller: it sure is. senator card and got you got in office for a long time. -- senator cardin, you have been in office for a long time. we have heard how this is safe and is prepared, but now we know that it is not safe. they were not prepared. we do not have enough of the oil spill containment facilities to get out there and contained this bit of truth is that you, personally, have been there for a long time, and is not that you need to shift the responsibility, as you've indicated. you've always had the responsibility to protect the citizens and the citizens' oil. you do not have people counting the barrels on the 150 other

platforms, and that is my oil. does not belong to the oil cos. police is basically had all the value to the oil company -- spirit -- the leases basically had all the value to the oil companies. i am kind of confused as to how all the sudden members of the government have decided that they need to take action. like the stevie wonder song, if you really want to hear our views, you haven't done nothing. guest: let me point out that congress passed a moratorium on new explorations because the bush administration would not allow us to move forward with legislation to reimpose it. it ran into the toes and threats and expired.

-- ran into vetoes and eight expired. when president obama announced a couple weeks before this episode that he would allow drilling in certain parts of the country, i took to the floor of the senate to say that that was wrong, that we should not expand exploration, particularly in the mid-atlantic, and that i would do everything in my power to make sure that there was no oil exploration of the midlantic. i appreciate your frustration that congress should have done a better job, could not agree with you more, but just understand that the bush administration was in this mode of deregulation and we are paying a heavy cost, i have the cost for our economy with what happened on wall street, at heavy cost as far as what is happening in the gulf of mexico. now is the time to make sure we have the right regulatory structure in place and that we do not drill in environmentally sensitive areas like the mid- atlantic. host: california, david,

democrats' line. caller: hello. i have heard from several sources that oil that is drilled in the united states, w hether it is on or off shore, it does not directly benefit the united states, but goes into an international pool. with our 2% of international reserves, that is a drop in the bucket. but i heard this from senator menendez, who does not want drilling off the atlantic coast either. if it is the case, why isn't that being told to people who keep saying "drill, baby, drill"? guest: the numbers are clear. we have less than 3% of the world's known reserves of oil. we consume approximately 25% of the world's oil. any way you look at it, we are dependent on oil brought in from other sources. we paid about $1 billion a day

for imported oil, which benefits in large measure countries' that disagree with our way of life. we are helping to finance those who would like to see the united states' influence internationally diminish. we need to get off oil. we did not have enough of it, it is not good for the environment, and it will not have job growth for the future. the oil that we produce helps our energy needs today, that is true. but it is such a small percentage that we needed to find alternative ways to produce energy for our nation, and we have to be more efficient in the use of energy. that needs to be our priority. host: a columnist for "the financial times" writes about one of those, at shale gas.

"the u.s. is sitting on potentially huge supplies of at shell gas, until recently these were hard to exploit. there are economic and technical concerns about shale gas being dealt with. this year, the u.s. over to pressure to become the world's largest gas producer for the first time -- the u.s. overtook russia to become the world's largest gas producer to the first time in a decade. there is concern about the chemicals used to extract shale gas." guest: i am very concerned about the impact it may have on our water supply. shale gas is an area that needs to be explored. coal needs to be explored. the problem is that it emits pollutants that are dangerous to our environment. we need to find technology that excludes energy sources in a more environmentally friendly way. the bill that senator kerrey and

senator lieberman and senator boxer have brought forward invest in clean technologies and energy sources we have, including natural gas and coal. host: the next question is from alabama, will on the republicans' line. caller: yes. i see that you are still blaming bush for every failure that goes on. you have that year and half to change it, and i was wondering, what got his weasels like you and the president are going to start -- when gutless weasels like you and president are going to start taking responsibilities for your own failures. guest: as i said earlier, the regulatory structure was in place before president obama took the oath of office. i said clearly that i disagreed with president obama's decision to open up other areas for

exploration, particularly the mid-atlantic. i think i been pretty critical, by the way, of the way that the department has responded to this particular of the suit in the gulf of mexico. i'm calling it the weight that it is spread the truth is that the bush administration set up a system, but the obama administration has to be more effective in dealing with the problem. host: new york city, robert on the independent-mind -- on the independent line. caller: i had been listening to you here, and it sounds like you are sincere and committed to the idea of getting our country of fossil fuels, and i hope that is the case. i want to bring your attention -- i see you sit on the public works committee. it was wells, known, thanks to the discoveries of tesla and

others, that the eye on this year has huge amounts of -- ionosphere has huge amounts of energy in it. we can have antennas that pulled out electricity from the world's ionosphere. why isn't the government putting billions of dollars into this type of research that will literally -- it is not free energy, it is still based on a physics, but it would solve this scarcity of energy dynamic that is causing most of our civilization's problems. why are we not really going after something like that? my last thought is that there is a movement out of europe that is represented on the web site called energystate.org, i would ask you to look at and be aware of this, because it could fundamentally shifted the whole equation. we are trying so much on all of these alternative energy,

whether it be sold or when or etc., but none of them will solve this crisis. guest: thank you for your suggestion. i am not familiar with the specific proposal you made about electricity from our atmosphere. but we do need to think out of the box and invest and ways in which we can capture energy sources that have not been able in the past. this is all part of us more energy policy for america, to continue to lead the world i development of new technologies. we have. solar power and when power were developed in the united states. we need to implement them in the united states. it's not just about developing the technology, but then maximizing our use in america and keeping jobs here. host: baltimore, jerry on the democrats' line for your senator, ben cardin. caller: thank you for being on it c-span and an answering some of the public's questions.

a couple of points i would like to make is down in the gulf, we depend upon these devices, these and blowout preventers, to actually work. it is unconscionable that these people would be drilling or even, from what i understand, taking off extra protective layers, oil along with extra cement, that would allow this to happen. i don't know if you watch " 60 minutes" or not, but it is easily seen -- they had bad allow protector but when they went to fix it, they did not have the right plan 48. why is the minerals service not getting the resources he needs

to have a person on site on each one of these oil will exist to make sure that they are following say vote -- each one of these oil weeks to make sure that they are falling safe procedures? guest: that is the question of will be looked at in the investigation. bp represented that they had the technology to fix any type of leak with the blowout preventers. they also said that was proven technology. but we know that the providers have failed in previous occasions. the redundancy did not work. there are a lot of questions that have got to be answered here. that is whether the representations' were accurate or not, and weather -- whether bp has an additional responsibility and accountability because the representations they made were not accurate, and why did the regulators just accept what bp submitted, and is there

additional supervision over what is happening on our oil rigs? we intend to get the answers to these questions. i happen to agree that we have inadequate supervision to day. we did not have adequate regulatory independence. that needs to change. host: last call, grand junction, colorado, jason on the republicans' line. caller: thank you for having me. i worked in natural gas in colorado and we took a huge hit last year. i want to know if anybody is going to get 20,000 or 30,000 people that may be unemployed and put them to work down there and get this stuff off the shore? obviously, is going to take a long time to clean up. it would be a good opportunity to put people to work that have been out of work to clean this up. we are all in this together, whether it be the oil