>> i cannot begin to thank each and every one of view across this great state for such a tremendous job, in letting a message out that is mild and clear -- loud and clear. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: incumbent democratic senator blanche lincoln survived a runoff challenge. in california, two former ceo's when the primaries. meg whitman, former ceo of the day, will face former gov. jerry

brown. former hewlett-packard ceo carly fiorina defeated two republicans -- two other republicans with more political experience. in nevada, tea party candidate -- tea party-backed candidate sharon ankle will face off against senate majority leader harry reid on election day 2010. we will get to all the results during the first hour this morning. we also want to hear from you, how do you read the election results so far during this election cycle. you can start dialing in now. phone number is are on your screen. joining us from hot line is john mercurio, executive editor. he will be with us for the first half hour and then his colleague amy walter will join us for the last half hour of this morning's hour-long segment. john mercurio, let's dig in little deeper. starting with blanche lincoln's

win in arkansas. now, what does she face going forward this general election? guest: make no mistake, blanche lincoln is still the most vulnerable senate incumbent up for reelection in 2010. there has not been a poll out in months that shows her ahead, frankly, against any of the republicans. john boozman, he won the primary, and he is ahead by double digits in that race against her. but it is a good day for blanche lincoln and for establishment democrats in washington. they defeated bill coulter, who had been back to very heavily and very expensively frankly by organized labor -- bill halter. they spent $10 million trying to defeat blades lincoln, mostly because they were upset with her opposing the card check legislation, in legislative priorities of theirs. essentially she now can run

against him. frankly she used their opposition to her very effectively. despite the fact she is a two- term incumbent, she was able to tell voters in arkansas that she was running against washington because she was running against special interests like organized labor. host: for those who say there is an anti-incumbency mood in the country, does hurt when go against that? guest: it goes against it, sure, because she is end up, and who won, but she did win narrowly. make no mistake. only by 2% or 2.5%. it swung pretty closely, just by a few thousand votes. if it were a few thousand votes and the other direction, we would be talking about out the anti-incumbent wave was rolling on. she was able to point out the fact that she is the chairman of the senate agricultural committee, which is a powerful perch and would be able to make

her a more effective advocate on behalf of farmers in the rural communities in arkansas. that is one of the benefits incumbents have. they can talk about security, the powerful positions they hold of washington and how it can be effected for their constituents. to that extent, yes, i think it was a good day for the pro-and, movement, if there was such a thing. host: do you think her republican challenger in the general election -- you are the incumbent, if you had been doing what you were supposed to be doing, things would be better? guest: and he will make the argument that it is the democratic majority in washington, in the senate, specifically, that has been ineffective in trying to deliver for the state of arkansas. but i think republicans face at least a slight challenge in that race in arkansas because they nominated a washington insider, someone who has been serving congress for four or five terms -- john bozeman, who is himself

a member of congress. there were several other republicans who ran in the primary who could more effectively and think make the argument that they were the outsider in a race against blanche lincoln. host: let us go to california where jerry brown won the democratic primary to run again 35 years later after serving as governor. he will be challenging meg whitman, who beat off some republican challengers, -- she won 64% of the vote and he had about 27% of the vote. what happened in this race? guest: a lot of money. over $100 million were spent just in the republican primary alone. meg whitman dramatically outspent steve poizner. $7 million of her own money. steve poizner spent about 25 million -- or more than 25 billion in -- of his own money. this is going to be a very

interesting race. obviously the governor's race in california is always covered closely. but what always happens in republic -- with republicans in california is the conservative wing of the party dominates in the republican primaries. you saw meg whitman, who is pretty widely viewed as relatively moderate. she has in the past supported people like barbara boxer for reelection. she donated a lot of money to democrats in the past. she is pro-choice. but she was forced during this primary to prove her conservative bonafide on issues like immigration reform. that could come back to haunt her in a state with a huge growth in the latino population, among others. so it will be interesting to see how following this decisive primary win she was able to move in the middle of the campaign against jerry brown. jerry brown obviously is the consummate insider in california politics. governor in the 1970's and

early 1980's and california, served as the mayor of oakland. so if people talking about wanted a fresh face in california, he is not exactly what position to make an argument about that. host: senator barbara boxer not seriously challenged in her primary yesterday, but on the public -- on the republican side, carly fiorina won that battle against two strong republican challengers. going forward, what do you expect in this race? guest: a lot of money on both sides. barbara boxer did not have much of a primary and that allowed her to spend the past year in effect raising money. storing money in what she expects to be a top dollar campaign by carly fiorina. barbara boxer has had a i think two major fund-raisers in california with president obama

who remains very popular there. she has about $9 million start up in her campaign war chest for a race against another successful businesswoman, carly fiorina, who was able to spend a lot of on money. not as much as meg whitman but still at large amount was self funded. fiorina one, as you mentioned, a very competitive primary. but she went it decisively. i think it gives her a lot of momentum because there were poles that shows the race tightening, tom campbell, a former congressman, much more moderate, i think, republican in that race, closing in the polls. but fiorina won so decisively. but she goes into this general election with a little bit of momentum. but california, such a democratii state, that i think most people in washington, most democrats in washington are still confident boxer has the edge. host: let us go to our viewers.

bulletin, california. helen on the republican line. caller: i went to meg whitman's rally last week. i'm not surprised she won. she has a very charming personality, pleasant appearance and she knows how to charmed the audience. but one thing i noticed when i was there at the rally, noticing more of the people who attended, and most of them were older, even elderly white conservatives. it seemed like conservative americans, californians. when she was talking about certain issues, naturally it is cloud either cheered loudly or did not have much of a response -- naturally the crowd cheered loudly or no response but a lot of cheering plover immigration reform, no amnesty. this is coming from an older crowd of voters and adopt -- predominantly white. did not see many people of color. they really cheered her on for that. then when she talked about pension reform and so forth, she

did not did much of a response. it was not as though she was real excited about whether or not she was going to reform the unions and pension. what i surmise from all of this is california does not look like the people who attended meg whitman's rally. maybe the majority 20 or 25 years ago, but california's population has dramatically changed. i would say her victory is mostly due to low voter turnout than overwhelming support their -- support. my suggestion to her is to not play of the immigration so much. i think she is a valid candidate with a really good ideas. i think reform is in the air. fiscal reform definitely because our state is going broke. but she really needs to start focusing on the really important issues. immigration is not really an issue because when the economy starts to tank, which it has in

california, immigration really is not a pressing issue. it is just more scapegoat as far as i'm concerned. but the real issue is government boats and government worker pensions and so forth. host: helen, thank you for the early morning phone call from california. john mercurio. guest: i think the caller makes an excellent point, following up on what i was saying. the conservative wing of the party dominates in the republican primaries in california. it forced meg whitman to talk about her conservative bonafide score credentials like immigration reform. but i will make a bet, you will not be hearing a lot of the immigration reform now that we are talking about a general election against jerry brown. she needs to moderate, opening herself. meg whitman needs to open her campaign to entirely different constituency outside of that republican base. i think she faces a big challenge. look, one of the biggest seller

gets during the republican primary was gov. pete wilson, who remains popular among republican loyalists but not necessarily with the electorate in california as a whole, especially among hispanics. the member his strong support for proposition 187. i think the caller is right. i think this is going to be very different campaign in california from here on out. host: tonya from martinsburg, west virginia independent line. caller: there are a couple of things that seems suspicious to me in arkansas. the democrats, they told the voters to go out and vote early saturday, and when the people showed up, the polls were closed. one county where there were 40 locations open to in the first primary between blanche lincoln and the challenger, there were only two polling places opened yesterday. i find that very suspicious.

and before -- the $10 million that labor cent, the white house spent $10 million on parties in the white house and the last 10 years. if just because the black people came out in arkansas and voted against the their interest, i would not be giving no parade if i was washington. host: any word about whether or not president obama to do you will be campaigning for blanche lincoln in the general election? guest: he has endorsed her of the primary. i doubt given the levels of popularity which are very low in arkansas, that you will see him campaign for blanche lincoln, not even appearing in television ads. but interestingly at the end of the primary when she was trying to appeal to her democratic base in arkansas, she did run a presidential -- television ad

that features president obama, highlighting her support for the health care bill and other parts of the legislative agenda. he was important to her i think at the end of the democratic primary when she was worried about the feet and she needed to rally the democratic base. but, no, the general election with president obama with very low approval ratings in arkansas, i doubt you will see him play prominent role. he has other campaigns where he remains popular in states. host: what about money on the republican side from the outside heading into arkansas? guest: on the republican side? host: would have the hearing if anything about republicans eyeing blanche lincoln and dumping resources there? guest: she is a huge target for republicans. john boozman's fund-raising has been skyrocketing. i think they view this as the biggest pickup opportunity heading into the general

election. obviously blanche lincoln has become one of the biggest critics of wall street over the past several months because of her derivatives reform legislation in the senate agriculture committee. that, too, may benefit john boozman in terms of fundraising. host: joni on the democratic line. florida. caller: i am calling about florida. it shows in florida there are less repossessions of homes. all of the republicans in florida refused to do anything because they did not want to spend money. this is charlie crist, and especially it is -- connie mack the third. a lot of people get connie mack the third confused with his father. and that is why a lot of people -- older people were voting for

him. the bank looks like there were less repossessions but what is happening is what they are doing now is they are going back and asking people if they would pay back taxes, the fees, and also insurance. get the house and selling water -- host: we will leave it there. john, could you give us an update on the florida senate race? guest: the florida senate race is interesting. charlie crist running as an independent. kendrick meek, who had been opposed to the democratic primary, now faces a potentially strong challenge from a billionaire candidate who decided to run at the very last minute and has drawn considerable amounts of his own money into the race. he will be forcing kendrick me

to be a little more competitive heading into the august primary. host: tennessee, keith on the democratic line. caller: i just wanted to say hooray for the tea party is because they are going to make sure we keep democratic control of the congress and said that over the next four, five, six years. and also i would like to congratulate the governor soon- to-be elective in south carolina to to the fat -- due to the fact that the senator called her a ragged and we will have the first rag head governor of the state. and it proves one main thing that the minority does not always speak the loudest. i am calling to say hurray for the tea party because i am so glad they are self-destructive. host: we will talk about self-

reliance and just a minute but before we move on, though, john mercurio, there was one house race that got the attention of california and that was jane harman, a democratic primary challenge. she came out ahead, jane harman, 59% to 41%. does she faced a tough general election? guest: this is a relatively safe democratic district. this was drawn in the post 2000 redistricting to be a democratic stronghold. this was probably the biggest challenge she had. this is a two-time challenger. her opponent ran against her in 2008 and did just about as well. 30% in that campaign. she is someone who has been criticizing harmon as too much in the park at -- pocket of the defense industry. she is a member of the intelligence committee and she has been outspoken on national security and defense. but an argument like that doesn't really resonate as well

in a district like california's 36 district, where thousands and thousands of jobs actually depend on that defense industry. host: and moving on to south carolina. the caller talked about the governor's race. we saw that the republican primary, nikki haley, was able to get about 49% of the vote but not enough. she faces a runoff on june 22, i believe it is. how will this shape up in the coming days? guest: all indicators is this is going to be pretty nasty run off. this is becoming a really negative and divisive and brutal, frankly, primary campaign on the republican side. as we all know, nikki haley had been denying that facing accusations that she had extramarital affairs, not once, but two of them.

all of this just coming out over the past month. obviously in a runoff campaign, that type of a charge can resonate and really become quite explosive. i think the only thing working in her favor at this point is that she almost won the primary. she got 49%, barrett, the congressman who will face in a runoff, got i think about 22 or 23%. it is a multi-candidate field. but the fact she is so close to the 50% threshold i think makes the argument to barrett that maybe it is time to unify the party. he faces her but also long odds in the runoff. so at this point trying to minimize the potential or the likely nominee at this point just hurts the party. host: using mr. barrett will face pressure to drop out? guest: absolutely. at this point, it does not look like he is likely to do that.

but he also i think in addition to the pressure to drop out, he faces pressure to make this a more positive, more unifying runoff campaign. which is a real challenge because all he wants to do at this point is highlight the differences he has with nikki haley and also what he views as nikki haley's weakness is heading into the general election. host: the analysis for the general election. guest: this is a republican state, a republican year. at this point i would have to say that this is a likely republican hold. host: there was also an interesting house race in south carolina. the fourth kundra -- congressional district, a challenge from the right, tea party organization, that he was not conservative enough. guest: he made it into a runoff but trailed behind his republican challenger, the prosecutor from spartanburg. trailed him by i think 25

points. he still trailed by double- digit. so he heads into the runoff i think as the decided underdog. inglis had frankly, over the past six terms, a relatively conservative record but not conservative enough for tea party activists, gowdy, and clearly a lot of the voters in the district. a lot focused on a couple of key issues. he voted for the tarp bill. he had said over the past several years that global warming was a real and that it was caused by humans. he voted against president bush's surge in iraq. and he recently told people, came out and was critical of fox news channel. he said glenn beck was a divisive force in american politics. all of those types of things i think resonated with the conservative wing of the party that came out strongly last night. host: one of the viewers of our twitter page was asking how joe wilson did.

he had a challenger but he came out ahead with 80 percent -- 83%. guest: joe wilson was looking pretty strong going into this primary. host: chicago, doris on the democratic line. you are on with john mercurio. caller: one of the problems i have with the media only one, with your guest, the same thing. he zeroed in on the amount of money that the unions put into the campaign. it didn't even mention the amount of corporate money that blanche lincoln got. and from the lead coming from of the clinton people the white house, i'm a liberal democrat and i feel just like a moderate democrats did before, the democratic party has no room for an african-american liberal democrat.

have to look at other options like the green party. i voted for two green party candidates in the primary and one of them won. host: corporate money and blanche lincoln donations. guest: i think your caller makes an interesting point. she was backed strongly by a lot of corporate interest in washington, but if you look at bill halter's campaign reports, he also received corporate might as well. despite the fact that he was running with the strong backing of organized labor, the issue of corporate interests and where they were focused on that race is a little bit muddy. host: tim on the republican line. your read of the election results. caller: i am from tennessee. i am a real big republican conservative and we have a big governor's in action coming up in august, the primary. they will be replacing the

governor. i like -- in the primary. i'm a real conservative and are really appreciate the southern conservative christian voters. thank you. host: anything to add to that? guest: it does look like bill -- is a republican front-runner. the also have a republican conservative challenge him for the republican nomination. this is a likely republican pickup in november. the tennessee governor's office. so this is a race we are following closely. host: will on the democratic line from oregon. caller: i have a question about what the turnout was like in these various primaries. i noticed a couple weeks ago the turnout was actually less than 25% for some states. i was just wondering if perhaps we are reading into this based on small numbers. thank you. guest: well, that is a very good

point. i have not seen specific turnout numbers in any of these races. but that is always the case. these primary campaigns frankly are always alert to the low turnout. by that i mean below 50%, below 40% turnout. especially a runoff campaign like we saw it in arkansas and like we will see on june 22 in south carolina. that is what we did. unfortunately we are reading the tea leaves, we are making pretty bold judgments, sometimes too bold and broad based on a small number of people turning out for these elections. unfortunately what we have to do because those of the people who vote, who are sending a message by their votes to washington. host: talking to john mercurio from hot line this morning about the primary election results from yesterday. we want to hear from all of you, your read of yesterday's election results and the primaries so far leading up to

november, 2010, in the general election. let us go to nevada where senate majority leader harry reid is going to face a challenge this november from sharron angle, tea party-backed candidate. guest: this is good news for democrats, i think. harry reid, if you look at polls, just as vulnerable as blanche went and has been and is considered one of the most vulnerable and still considered vulnerable heading into november. but republicans nominated probably the weakest of the three major candidates who were running in that race against harry reid. sharron angle, former state assemblywoman, backed strongly by the tea party movement in that race. she defeated, very deciphers -- decisively feed it former state party chair as well as a local business and real estate developer. going into this race in november, i think you are going to see republicans really need

to step into that race and decide exactly, first of all, whether or not it is worth running against harry reid who is extremely powerful and has a lot of money to spend, and whether or not sharron angle can appeal to the moderate middle. guest: we talked to a reporter earlier this week from the "reno gazette journal" saying harry reid is prepared to spend $25 million. guest: i have been covering his racism's. he has -- he is a very aggressive campaigner and he knows how to win. he had won against john ensign and he beat him by about 400 votes. he is a mild-mannered guy and you see him on the senate floor and he talks quietly, but he is a very aggressive, in some ways very brutal campaigner and i think in a race against somebody like sharron angle who steps into the general election with some of this bull more abilities, i think you will see

democrats tried -- obvious vulnerabilities, i think you'll see democrats try quickly. host: on the republican side, jim gibbons, incumbent governor of that state lost. guest: jim gibbons has been unpopular as governor of nevada pretty much of the -- since the first day. only exaggerated slightly. polls show him with very low approval rating. you saw republican circulating around him started in 2008, right after the election, planning to challenge him. brian -- pretty early on established themselves as the front runner against gibbons. there were several personal scandals that gibbons was involved in. he faced a very high-profile divorce from his wife over the past year, which has been in the papers and helped drive his approval rating is down.

but overall he has been a relatively inarticulate and ineffective governor, at least according to the people of nevada. and the republican primary yesterday i think reflected that. i think sandoval heads into the general election with an advantage over rory reed -- republican year. it will probably likely be a republican pickup -- republican hold. g-8 do you host: jim gibbons got 27% of the vote. you were saying harry reid is this mild-mannered person yet very aggressive. does his son reflect those same characteristics? guest: from what we can tell, i have not covered rory reid ne near -- nowhere near as closely as father. but the same political machine. harry reid has certainly helped his son along the way to become the clarke county commission

chair just a couple of years ago, and it now becomes -- i think you see them certainly operating hand in hand. but what rory reid needs to do is to establish and sell as his own political force. you will not see the two campaign to the other, especially given the fact that every need remains relatively unpopular in the state. host: i heard one commentator yesterday, by the bennison was on yesterday, noting nevada's population has increased by one- third since harry reid last ran for reelection and many of these voters, would throw the bum, have not voted for harry reid before. guest: that is of relatively common problem for senators who are only on the ballot every six years, especially with states with rapid population growth like nevada. that is a challenge.

the flip side of that frankly, though, for democrats in nevada, have a contested in the primary in 2008, the presidential race and the general election, is that you saw a massive and comprehensive voter registration drive in that state that help reach out to new voters, new residence, helped register them on the democratic side and help make them part of the democratic network and i think at the end of the day that is something that could help somebody like harry reid and democrats another competitive states like pennsylvania, like ohio, like florida, where there are also competitive statewide races. host: before we let you go and amy walker joins us, let me ask you your read of the election results so far. guest: overall i think we are seeing a strong anti-incumbency wave, blanche lincoln not withstand it. you are seeing the fact that somebody comes from washington

can be a beat -- real detriment in terms of their ability to make the case that they can be most effective. i think it is scary not just for democrats, but for republicans as well heading into november. as we saw last night with bob inglin, he has been relatively conservative, but it has had very little impact on voters. they were upset with the fact that he was from washington and the few positions that he had taken that were more moderate than they were expecting one wanted. it becomes an issue i think of credibility, and it becomes a problem for people who have washington next to their name. john mercurio, executive editor of the hotline. we will continue this conversation. coming up next, editor in chief of hot line -- hot line will join us in the next half hour. we will continue with your read

of the election results. pennsylvania, james of the democratic line, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span -- host: we are having a hard time hearing you. we are breaking up. we will put you on hold and maybe we can clear it up and come back to you in a little bit. let me give you some different headlines this morning. "the daily caller" reports former lobbyist and convicted felon abram loft is being transferred from the federal institution in maryland to a -- cumberland, maryland, to a halfway house in baltimore before his release december 4. he is getting out of prison a little bit earlier and will be at a halfway house until he is released on december 4. sioux city, iowa. elizabeth on the independent line. your read of the election

results. caller: my read on the e election result is that even the state of iowa, we are seeing people look not at the fringes or the extreme, but looking at individuals who have a proven record in of the state of iowa and elsewhere accomplishing the mission back hand. the race i am commenting on at this moment is terry brandstad winning of the primary, and this he won over two very strongly conservative individuals. i feel that it's a good indication that the state of iowa is not so much responding to the motion of the time the -- responding to the motions of the time and looking at the results of what individuals have done. i feel that we will be looking very hard at the records of the individuals coming up in

congress. senator charles grassley, forward, who will be coming up for reelection, rep stephen king will be coming up for reelection. and it behooves all of them to look closely at their record and for us to look closely at the record and make the decisions based not so much incumbent versus new as what the individuals have done. host: houston, texas. add all the democratic life of caller: wanted to comment on the election so far -- and on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to comment on the election. he said it is a republican year. i'm not so sure. it is an anti-incumbency year. the thing about the democrats in the house, a lot are pretty safe seats. only 40 or 70 actually

competitive. i'm wondering it is perhaps he bought the the republican lineup too hard. i do want to comment on texas for governor. i think bill white is the best candidate the democrats have had since he and richards. he is well funded and have crossed over appeal to republicans and business people. whereas the governor in there now, only 149% in the primary -- only won 400 -- 49% in the primary. the possibility if latinos come out, that bill white will be very competitive and close. host: thank you for the call. "times-pick a new" from page. -- "the times-picayune"

frontpage. but they now say interior secretary falsely implied they supported the six-month we'll moratorium when in fact they opposed. pennsylvania, margaret on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i have a question for john about the fact of the oil spill on the primaries. have we seen any yet? i suspect probably not. but i'm thinking that the conservative republicans, i love them as tea party, feel that they want government out of their life and they want deregulation and private enterprise to take over and we see the results of that and i'm

wondering if we were going to have a backlash, if this might put a katrina like or rot around their -- aura around there. host: amy walker joins us now. i don't know if you heard the last caller. but she was questioned whether this bill in the gulf coast was having an impact yet on the elections. guest: that was a very good question. i think the potential for impact is there. see thereally don't big issue in the campaign right now. you have individual issues in a lot of the states. primary elections are usually much more narrowly tailored. we did see, though, for example, in a place like arkansas where those who were running a campaign against blanche lincoln

did try to tie her to the oil interests, the big business that had been able to get in and pushed over regulation but at the same time i think fundamentally voters in these states were really looking at the individual candidates and individual issues much more so than the events in the gulf. it also matters that none of the states that had primary elections were in the areas directly affected by the oil spill. i think certainly a place like florida, which has an election coming up soon, primary election later this summer, that will be a big issue. host: the front page of "the miami herald" as a story that the u.s. in new about this bill risk -- that the u.s. and new about the spill risk over a decade ago.

if democrats are able to frame this spell that happened in the gulf coast politically, that is, as something that could have been prevented under george w. bush's watch, could that then help democrats running in november? guest: it is an interesting theory. i don't doubt that democrats may try to take that tack, but let's face it, for most voters, they are not really interested in renegotiating the past. they are really more interested, as president obama said, just plugging the dam hole. it really that is what they care about. they don't care how that happens, who does it, but somebody needs to step up and get this thing fixed. bottom line at think we are seeing across the board -- which talk about this being an anti- incumbent year, but it is really anti-establishment across the board. americans have been, quite frankly, let down by the

establishment at every level -- whether business, or in this case, whether it is by the oil companies, wall street, and feel fundamentally that anybody who is out there right now trying to sort of defend themselves based on pointing fingers or blaming the past, they are not going to get cut any slack in this election. host: let us go to iowa. we have a caller who said if you look at the results of the republican primary where br andstad, the establishment candidate was able to win with 50% of the vote, that i what is not buying into the conservative movement, the tea party movement. guest: an interesting point. he was the governor from 1983 until 1989. so he is not exactly an outsider. he was running to his right in some ways on social issues. at the same time brabdstad was

still able to get support from the establishment conservatives. he got the support of sarah palin as well. so this sort of tea party conservative movement split and a place like iowa. but it is important to note that while the polls show brandstad did just win with 50% of the votes. at the same time going forward, the democratic governor of iowa, one of the most laudable incumbents -- his poll numbers have been terrible for a long time. the latest polling has him moving -- losing to terry branstad. clearly a case where he will make the case that branstad is part of the past and colbert is part of the future. but at the same time i think in a state like iowa where voters are feeling very frustrated with the current situation in the state, they may not be opposed

to going back to the future with somebody like terry branstad. host: in georgia, a runoff yesterday. what happened? guest: this was a special runoff election. nathan deal, congressman from the ninth congressional district resigned his seat to run for governor and his seat now will be filled by former state representative tom graves, who did get support from the tea party movement. he said in his victory party last night, as many would say, this might be a test for the tea party, and if it was, i would say the tea party passed the test. combined with support from republican base and grass roots. this is a heavily republican district. republicans are favored to hold onto this in november. but again, in the case of georgia, you have two very

conservative candidates. one of whom had some of the establishment, tea party, also club for growth supporting him. so i did not know if we could read all of that much into it. but certainly for republicans they have a seat that is filled. they need 39 seats if they want to take control of the house in 2011. host: talking to amy walker about last night's election results. hot line has live blogging and analysis called "on call." were you up late last night? guest: does it look like it? guest: looking good. guest: good, ok. i put a lot of concealer on this morning so hopefully it is showing. of late last night, though thankfully places like nevada and california, results came in pretty quickly so it was not an all night here -- not an all-

nighter. convincing victories from meg whitman and carly fiorina and sharron angle of nevada -- one step past of the time but it was not too bad. guest: do you host: thanks for coming up early. where can we find it going forward today? guest: great question. we will have a lot of analysis, specifically what happened in a lot of the races and who the winners and losers were from last night. looking in particular at a place like arkansas, what happens, how did the conventional wisdom for the last week or so -- how big it turned on its head. we also have a look at all of the house races, all of the gubernatorial contests and every one of the primary states. anything you want to know, click on it and you will find it.

host: let us go to nevada. bob on the independent line. did you vote? caller: i am an independent so the only thing i could vote for judges. i just want to say that this angle election is pretty much of a joke. reid with all of his millions will probably beat her easily in the fall. this is the one he wanted to run against and this of the one he will run against and the beat. host: we will move on to wisconsin. doris. caller: i think this election is crooked. i think in arkansas, this blanche lincoln closed different things down so people could not vote and that is against our constitution. i think this country is getting more and more crooked every year. host: i am not sure if you called in earlier but that is the second phone call on funny business going on in arkansas.

have you heard anything about it? guest: i have not heard anything about that. i do want to point out, the caller from the bottom has an interesting take. a sort of the conventional wisdom right now that sharron angle is the easier candidate for harry reid to beat. at some levels you could say this is true. she does not have as much money as the original front runner who had personal money to put in the race, she has a voting record that is very conservative, and democrats will mind it for anything controversial. she made some controversial statements in the recent past on issues like medicare and unemployment insurance and epa. but at the same time it is also important remember that harry reid still has a very tough fight on his hands. all the polling going back to the fall, he has basically been stuck at about 41%, 42% of the vote. no matter what was happening on the republican side or how ugly

or bitter the report -- the primary has gotten, harry reid has benefited 0 from that. he remains unpopular among the majority of voters in that state. as the caller pointed out, harry reid's job is not to make people like him but make them dislike sharron angle. at the same time we will see a lot of money coming in from outside groups reminding people what they dislike harry reid. so the real question is, will these third parties who are in the race -- there are at least two independent candidates and also none of the above option on the ballot in nevada, will that be able to siphon away enough of the voters to say, well, i don't really like harry reid but the sharron angle person does not seem right either -- to give it a narrow victory? or will they say i was given two options and i will hold my nose and pick the one who at least has not been part of washington. i think this race is going to be

very close. i think harry reid certainly has a $9 million in the bank, in a very strong position this morning. but at the same time i don't think this is a done deal. host: we will go to another closely watched primary state. myrtle beach, south carolina. donna on the independent line. caller: disappointed at our governorship, actually the republican nominee will be nikki haley. we went through two years of nightmare with mark sanford and here we have nikki haley who is now accused of having several affairs during her marriage. i'm just afraid that if she is elected our governor, we will have at least four more years of mark sanford-like administration. the fact that she was supported by sara palin who i am very afraid of this woman because she is the neocon darling.

anyway, south carolina is blood sport what comes to politics but i'm really disappointed that nikki haley is going to be probably our next governor. host: amy walter, she faces a runoff june 22. she got 49% of the vote. not enough to beat out her republican challengers. as this view were noted and john mercurio noted earlier, this is a republican state in a republican year and it is likely she will win. or whoever wins that republican primary will then when the general election. host: -- guest: there is a lot of talk in south carolina and washington about whether congressman barrett, he did come in second behind the caylee, will basically dropped -- behind nikki haley, will basically dropped his bid. he is very far behind her. she came very close winning out right in a crowded primary. even if he does stay in, i

suspect he is not going to run a particularly negative campaign. the caller makes an interesting point about south carolina. i think there are a lot of folks nationally, republicans nationally, who want to see nikki haley as a person who could come in and reshape the image not only of south carolina but of the republican party. there is a question mark out there about whether any other shoes will drop in accusations that have been leveled against her about the affairs. none of them have proven to be true. but if they are, i do think that would obviously be a problem for her. but the bigger issue for a republican party that is trying to show itself to be more diverse, open to women and to other voters, to have someone running a state as nikki haley would -- she would be favored to win in the beverage -- not only woman, but of indian-american

heritage, would be a big step that way. and i really expect that republicans are going to put her in the spotlight after november as one of their rising stars. host: new york, jimmy on the democratic line. guest: i was curious about that arkansas vote with blanche lincoln. i don't understand how she was behind yesterday for what i could hear, and then today i would go this morning and she has won the runoff. guest: that is the funny thing about politics. it is very volatile. the historical trends told us that blanche lincoln would be the underdog in a runoff. usually if you are and incumbent, under 50% the first time around, the people who will come out and vote in the runoff election are going to be those people who wanted to see a new person in place. what happened this time around was, i think, one, who is the

outsider and establishment candidate that flipped on its head. labor groups spent over $9 million trying to-blanche lincoln. would it help to do, however, was make her look more like the underdog and make bill halter look like the establishment candidate. it helped blanche lincoln having bill clinton, former governor and former president, come back to his home state and make the pitch basically on that message. outside groups tried to tell us an arkansas what to do. he helped her very much there. i think he also helped turn out african american voters for blanche lincoln in little rock. turnout was much more significant there for her. she won that county by a much bigger margin than she did in the may election. quite frankly, we did not have that much david to go on. there was only one polling outfit that did any polling and the runoff, at least publicly.

it showed bill halter ahead. but that is only one poll. so, we really just or basing this -- when we said bill halter have the advantage -- on the fact of the money and the historical trend that ultimately was going to put him over the top. in the end, blanche lincoln showed why we like to watch politics because these things can turn very quickly, especially when you have a low- turnout affairs like to do in a runoff. host: mary on the democratic line from louisville, ky. caller: i think this is the year of the nuts. in kentucky we have ran paul wedding to do away with civil rights and the nut in nevada -- brand paul wanting to do away with civil rights and then the not in nevada who wants to do away with education.

all we -- we don't need more business people. host: let us focus on the table women in california. as you noted, if it nikki haley can pull it out in south carolina, the republicans are like lead to put attention and focus on her. is this the year of the republican woman? guest: this is certainly one of the messages coming out of last night between the caylee and as you pointed out, carly fiorina -- messages coming out last night between nikki haley and carly fiorina. and in maine, the speaker of the house who won her primary. she, by the way, was also endorsed by president clinton. he went two for two on endorsements tuesday night. but i think a couple of important things to point out.

2006, we made the same case that it was potentially the year of the democratic woman. a year where voters were frustrated with the status quo in washington, frustrated with the president, and that women candidates would be this breath of fresh air. in many cases, however, a lot of the candidates, especially in the house, fell short. the term outsider, i think, takes on a very different meaning in a year where, as this caller pointed out, voters are frustrated with just about everybody. not just washington. so being a business person isn't necessarily as a clean a message as it was perhaps four years ago. host: let us go to other races people were focusing on. the other being in montana where republican rep is the front runner. what happens in montana? guest: i did not think this is a

place democrats will put a lot of attention. this is still a very conservative state. when you look at the playing field in front of them, democrats will be spending much more time playing defense than offense. what they are really looking forward to our some of the opportunities they have with a couple of open seats. but really they will look at a place like virginia where they have a number of all organ -- and vulnerable freshmen on the line. glenn knight from virginia beach, tom -- from charlottesville, and gerry connoley from northern virginia, have tough races. democrats are most excited about results from the connolly district, the more conservative candidate, sort of outsider beat the favored candidate, fairfax supervisor pat herrity in that primary, which may give gerry

connolly an opportunity. he beat fimian, the republican businessman, in 2006. but in virginia is second and fifth district, where you have freshman democrats who won thanks in part due to a really strong turnout in 2008, this is going to be much tougher for them in the fall. host: let us talk about north dakota, the senate race. senator byron dorgan is retiring. what is the analysis for this race? guest: not a lot of attention paid to the north dakota raised because once senator byron dorgan announced he was stepping down and democrats did not put a strong candidate forward, it went almost into de facto republican column. the governor john hogan -- he is heavily favored to win the seat. democrats playing a lot of defense but this is not the place where they want to spend a

whole lot of energy. instead, they are going -- wanting to be putting it into places that we talked about already. nevada, california, two of those states, as well as the many others that they have to defend. they've made the playing offense in place like kentucky or to ohio are missouri. but north dakota, not happening. host: anything surprise you? guest: arkansas was certainly everybody's biggest surprise. as i said, the iowa race, the fact that branstad cannot win in as large a margin was somewhat of a surprise -- did not win in as large a margin was so much a surprise. we got candidates out of the primary is pretty much what we thought it was going to look like going forward. .

host: all right, amy walter, go to on-call, "hotline"'s website for more analysis. but we come back ben bernanke will be testifying before the house subcommittee. we will be right back. ♪

>> no candidate in this race, democrat or republican, has given more opportunities to rest questions and see what he is made of. >> faces that you see every day, see some of their early television appearances at the c- span video library. one quarter century of political history. you can search by name, title, at issue, interest group, and more. all for free online. >> we have three new c-span books for you. abraham lincoln, the supreme

court, and who is buried in grant's tomb. to order, go to [unintelligible] c-span.org -- 02 c-span.org /books. each was a great gift idea for father's day. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the congressman is the vice ranking member of the president's bipartisan deck mission. federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke, will testify today. what do you want to hear from him? >> i think that what we want -- guest: i think that what we want to hear is that america wants to get serious about the spending crisis. we have seen what has happened in europe. we know about the civil unrest.

we know they are on the press office of a civil catastrophe. in the u.s. we are already at 90%. i hope that the chairman will focus upon the longer term challenges that we face as a nation. i hope that the president is sincere about his fiscal responsibility commission. we can certainly debate some of the short-term spending, but putting that aside there is no doubt that america is on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. putting us on the press of this of -- putting us on the press of this -- crescent this -- presipice of being the first generation to leave debt to the

next generation. we have to act and we have to act quickly. host: the federal reserve chairman has made these comments recently. in the short term or the long term, where do you see effective spending? guest: where do i see effective spending? there is not much in washington, d.c. unfortunately the focus seems to be on the input. how much more money can we spend this year as opposed to last year? there is very little focus on output. measuring taxpayers getting good value. we must realize that regardless of how effective spending might be today, we are borrowing roughly 42 cents on the dollar, mainly from the chinese, sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. i am not sure that much spending

meets the test. we must set a new set of standards. if one of the reasons that myself and a couple of colleagues have put forth a spending limit amendment proposal to the constitution that would cap the growth of government to the growth of the economy. chances are not good in the short term but ultimately we need to have a debate in this society about whether or not we should have a limit to the size and scope of the federal economy. i believe that ultimately that will be the only thing that will keep congress from continuing to borrow 42 cents on the dollar mainly from the chinese, sending the bill to our children. host: do you get your marks for your district? guest: i do not. host: when it comes to the stimulus bill that was passed, is there anything in that legislation on the spending side

that you thought had a benefit to our economy and helped to prevent a further economic downturn? guest: no, i think it was one of the most highly ineffective economic stimulus plans i have ever seen. the only thing that it managed to stimulate was growth in government hiring and stimulating the deficit, which has now increased tenfold since january of 2007. we know that the unemployment rate still hovers around double digits. highest unemployment in a generation. the president told us that unemployment would not exceed 8% of the plan was passed and that millions of jobs would be created or saved and that has not been proven true. we saw it last month in the employment figures. all of the increases in employment have been in

temporary census jobs. it has been highly ineffective and has helped to cause this deficit to be stimulated. it has caused the national debt to be stimulated. private employers are concerned. they are uncertain. they have anxiety and fears, which is keeping them from hiring more people. i think that the stimulus has contributed to economic sluggishness. >> what about spending money to make investments in different types of industry to create jobs and combat unemployment? >> first of all, why has it -- guest: first of all, why has not worked? very little of this particular stimulus plan actually had to do with bricks and mortar construction. which would be would keynesian economics would say to do. most of the money was spent in

the out years and i think it was an excuse to grow and garden variety government. very poorly designed, it simply has no worth. if you look at all of the recessions in the postwar era, typically the deeper the recession the bigger the comeback and more strongly the economy will rebound. atypical, we have seen that and it is a testimony to how poorly designed of this legislation was. the most effective thing that we could do today is use the unused portion of the stimulus plan and send a signal to american employers and the credit market that we are serious about the credit market and start bringing down the national debt. >> all right, let's talk about cuts in spending. you are serving on this

bipartisan commission. is there something that you do not think that the commission should touch at all? the there is some federal spending that needs to stay the way it is? guest: i certainly believe that. host: what are those areas? guest: let me finish. [laughter] it is important to go into this with the attitude that everything is on the table. when all of the members take something off the table it becomes an exercise in futility, which it might be.3 two-thirds of the members are democrats or appointed by the president with the unfortunately short-term focus on dealing with a five-year deficit figure. we know that we have a long-term spending crisis. they conveniently reported after the election. i have high hopes and low expectations for the commission.

there are certain items that i do not think should be touched but in the spirit of trying to do something with a crisis is the only game in town. >> are you saying -- guest -- host: are you saying this to the other people on the commission? guest: we will let those discussions unfold as they do. i have come to these discussions to try to represent the american taxpayer and future generations, making sure they have a higher standard of living than my generation enjoyed. that is who i am going into this commission proceeding trying to represent. host: "the washington post" has this story, "vanguards against cuts, wary eyes on proposals affecting benefits." are you in favor of looking at social security and getting ahold of spending their? making some cuts?

guest: i will say again, everything has to be on the table. i do not know how many ways i can say it. i do not believe that you have to cut any of these programs, but ultimately i do believe that you will have to figure out ways to get better retirement security and health care at a better cost. social security has grown 8% each year on average. medicare and medicaid have grown at about 11%. yet economic growth has been slightly below 3%. ultimately you cannot sustain those growth levels. we will have to continue to have a national debate on getting better health care and national security at a reasonable cost. you do not have to cut one penny out of these programs but you have to find ways for future

generations, not current generations, who have planned for the programs that they are, but for future generations. it is not me saying this. go to the web site, they will tell you that all of these programs are going broke. unless we figure out ways to reform them, something that was a benefit to my parents and grandparents will be a cruel hoax to my son and daughter. host: south carolina, you are up first. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: these liberals, thinking rich, i am a long way from that, but the only way that i think we can straighten this country out -- and i think we could do it in two years, it might take an executive order. we need to cut the government's

40%. no organized labor can work for any part of the government. even the defense contracts. anything that has anything, including schoolteachers and on the highway and everything. we did save a lot of money and keep more people on the payroll. if we did that and did just that little bit of adjustment with our tax code i think that within two years we would have so much work in this country people would be coming out of the other countries to get a job. guest: i think that the caller makes some good points. but several things must be noted. since 2006 the federal government, we forget it was just two years ago that in these

few years we have seen government grow by one-third. i believe, yes, out of 10,000 federal programs, frankly there needs to be some rollback. we have to live within our means. that is the first point. since president obama took office you have seen non-defense discretionary spending, your garden variety government agency outside of the pentagon, increase 84%. we have seen the greatest explosion of federal spending since world war ii, which was just a temporary spike in spending. causing the deficit increase. the president has put forth a budget from 2008 levels doubling the national debt in five years, tripling it in 10.

these levels are not sustainable. we will ultimately wind up with one big, fat, reach bankruptcy -- greek bankruptcy. i also think it we can achieve greater levels of economic growth. listen, i want the government to have greater tax revenue, but i want them to get it from greater economic growth. i have co-sponsored a two tiered class tax system -- flat tax system. i believe that we could achieve economic growth well beyond the tax code, which is so inefficient. i believe that we could achieve growth rates of 5% if we had a more efficient tax code. so, economic growth is at least one component of solving the

spending crisis we have today. host: baltimore, independent line. caller: what is the difference between the gross domestic product and the gross national product? i get the impression of the gross national product, goods and services corporations overseas, that we would probably have a better bottom line. in this regard, what percentage of corporations pay no taxes? i hear statistics that may be 75% pay no taxes. how can we recouped this? what is a gross national product, not domestic product elapid why not do like the old days with savings bonds that we can sell to the country they can go for education and grandchildren, paying 5%?

i would love to have a 5% return on my money and i would not mind it lending the money to my country. if they default, we all the fall together. guest: there is a lot there. [laughter] let's see if i can get it all answered. one, investors can loan the government money today with treasury bonds. unfortunately we are now approaching almost 50% of our debt being owned by foreigners. again, mainly by the chinese. battles saying, whoever owns your debt will one day own you. part of the challenges that americans have traditionally had very low savings rates. japan, for example, has a large debt crisis itself. but most of theirs is financed

domestically because they have a much higher internal savings rate. regardless of who funds the debt, it will not be sustainable. i do not quite know off the top of my head of the latest gnp verses gdp. most professional economists tried to use the one benchmark, the gdp figure. we will have to get back to you of what the gnp figure is. but what we do know is that it continues to languish and unfortunately our economy continues to languish in almost double digit unemployment. the reason we have to show private employers, businesses, and investors that we are serious about dealing with the spending crisis or they know it will end in an explosion of tax increases at the end of the year. in fact, economic growth will

probably take even more next year because people love limiting economic activity this year to try to take advantage of tax rates before the increase next year. unfortunately the situation will get worse and the most important thing we can do to create jobs the day is put a plan on the table the deals with long-term spending. you cannot sustain a debt to economy ratio at 90%. which is where we are today. host: carl, chicago, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: how are you? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: nothing but an ideologue. i remember when you have the congress, you raise the deficit five times. the tax cuts they promised it would bring so many new jobs and bring this growth, over eight years i doubt that those tax

cuts have had the growth of an average 3%. most of what we spend, which you do not tell people, most of what we spend in this government goes to supporting businesses. we pay defense contractors billions of dollars. host: three different issues from carl. let's first began with the raising of the debt ceiling five times under republican control. guest: certainly the debt ceiling did increase. not something i am particularly proud of. i would say that as an order of magnitude in the 12 years that the republicans controlled congress, the deficit averaged about $160 billion each year.

since the democrats of taking control of congress in january of 2000 the deficit is averaging about $1.30 trillion. in other words used to be an annual deficit of the republicans, turning into almost a monthly deficit of the democrats. i am not proud of this spending record, but this is a spending spree that is unparalleled in american history. i believed it put us on the road to bankruptcy, leaving the next generation with a lower standard of living. i make no apology in not wanting to stand idly by and watching that happen. host: what about the president's tax cuts? president bush? guest: go to the web site on u.s. treasury, guess what? more tax revenues actually came in because they generated more

activity. particularly true in capital gains tax relief. i do not think there are any instances in the modern era the reduced those capital gains taxes without bringing in more tax revenue beside it. more economic growth. more jobs. we will more jobs and economic growth. looking at it from an area of tax revenues and economic growth, frankly the plan worked. now we know that tax relief is getting ready to expire and the they lot of middle income families are going to suffer these automatic tax increases. we know that a lot of businesses are going to be facing increased taxes on the dividends and capital gains and ultimately that is the capital they used to hire people. i think that these tax increases are exactly the wrong policy. host: the caller's third point was that much of the money in the federal government goes to

corporations. let me add to that with thomas freemen writing today, gifford read start up. -- gift for brad start up. our graduates are facing a bleak job outlook, that is the point. he proposes a new cabinet position strictly devoted towards competitiveness and innovation to focus on these start-ups, including corporate taxes, reducing regulations, i assume that this is something you would support as well? guest: i would have to look at the proposal. we have a federal government right now the 51 days later cannot plug a hole in the bottom of the ocean. i do not have a lot of confidence in the federal

government spurring of entrepreneurial activity. the best thing they can do right now is make the tax code more competitive. second to japan we have the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized nation in the world. we are not being competitive there. again, the democrats have controlled congress between the health care bill, cap and trade bill, two different omnibus bills, and between all of the dead there is so much fear and uncertainty you have all of this capital sitting on the sidelines, frankly it is a miracle that we do not have 8% of employment declining as opposed to having the unemployment hovering around double digits. this has more to do with expanding over what is fearful of what is going on two blocks over the shoulder in the nation's capital. host: miami, republican line.

caller: good morning to both of you, how are you? guest: fine. caller: i have heard you speak on the floor and there is a great deal that you say that makes a lot of sense. republicans i would like to ask you about specifically. we are talking about 40% of the budget here. 50% has to do with entitlements. mostly you are focusing on 40% of the budget. am i correct about that? guest: actually, i think we need to deal with the entirety of the budget. everything needs to be on the table. one of the reasons that i put forth a spending limit to the constitution that would limit the growth of government to its world war ii average, which would include everything. it would have the ability of congress meeting a two-thirds vote in should there be a declaration of war, ultimately i

believe that there should be a limit to the size, scope, power, and extent of the federal government enshrined in the constitution. ultimately i think that that would force congress to do the right thing. the easiest thing for congress to do again is to borrow money for future generations and spent it on schemes that will have happy endings -- not happy endings. host: are you still there? like caller: yes, i am. the other thing that i am very concerned about is that we have a largely liberal congress attempting to institute new agencies and grow governments. once we have a largely conservative congress we tend to take funding away from agencies. i would suggest that we need to look at the outcomes of those agencies very carefully. for instance if we take away the funding on something to the

point where it becomes ineffective, that is a roundabout deregulation but it is not a very transparent way. i called of the alphabet soup agency. mms, ims, fda, on and on. as americans we are living in a country where we assume that the alphabet soup of agencies are protecting us. that when you have a situation where an attorney has to go down three floors to use the xerox machine, or a situation in the department of defense where we do not have enough people auditing the and we are losing $4 million in gas on cap cards because we were not watching how the money was being spent, we have gone to the point of being ineffective through lack of funding. which is my concern.

guest: you make a lot of good points. i would prefer a federal government that focuses on doing a few things well as opposed to a lot of things inefficient or mediocre. truly, i think that we have to look at the output of government and traditionally liberals have measured our commitment to something like education or health care by how much money be put into the system and not necessarily test scores and what is coming out of the education system. wellness and well-being coming out of health care system. i believe that we must set up those kinds of measurements about comes to decide what cut -- what good the government is doing. even the programs doing well today, we have seen under the democrats in congress a deficit increase in which president obama has submitted a budget

that will double the national debt in five years. tripling it in 10. by historic standards that is where we start to lose economic growth. meaning that the next generation will compete for fewer jobs and a shrinking paycheck. they will live in smaller homes. we are on the verge of being the first generation to lead the next generation with a lower standard of living. which is why it is so critical that this president here and now do something besides putting the nation on the road to bankruptcy. host: we are talking with representatives hensarling -- rep hensarling about the ben bernanke hearing that will be taking place later today. missouri, joe, independent line. good morning.

caller: good morning. this might seem minuscule in the grand scheme, but i will tell you where i would like to see cuts, cuts in the salaries of the senate and the congress. they only need for 100 days each year. that is just ridiculous. also, in your retirement, there is no place in the private sector where it for a sinking codeword for eight years and draw retirement for the rest of their lives. that is just utterly ridiculous. host: congressman, do you make too much money? [laughter] guest: not according to my wife. [laughter] members of congress are paid well, no doubt about that. since arriving i have never voted for a salary increase. i never intend to. if one day we wake up and balance the budget, maybe at that point i might think i had earned it.

there are many reasons i ran for congress but retirement was not even one of them. frankly i do not even know what the retirement program is. every american should be able to qualify for health care programs. i think that the main thing that joe has to say is you have to lead by example. certainly i will fight any increase in congressional pay. certainly the health care and retirement benefits, every american should have the opportunity to enjoy any kind of package of benefits comparable to their member of congress. host: is that something that should be looked at by the commission? do you know how much it contributes to the federal government? guest: a few millions of dollars is not a small sum, but relative to the scope of the problem it is very small. i do think it is important to

lead by example because it sends a strong signal. certainly, be happy to have the commission look at it, but ultimately the bulk of our challenges going to have to do with social retirement programs over the economy. to some extent you are seeing that in europe, portugal, italy, greece. they made promises that they could not afford to keep. to mix metaphors, the chickens have come home to roost. they have a huge problem the hands. we must make sure that as a society we find more intelligent, smarter ways to get more effective health care and retirement security of more effective costs. anyone who avoids dealing with that is condemning future generations to lower standard of living. frankly it is tantamount to

generational theft in should not become susceptible in america. host: rocky mount, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to address what the congressman said. i notice that he said the government's cannot plug loopholes in he does not trust government because they cannot plug the hole with the oil coming out. you know, government is not in the oil drilling business. mainly because republicans do not want them in there. because they want the private sector. they want the government out. all of a sudden you are saying the government cannot plug the hole? i do not understand. what do you want? government should be controlling the oil. it should not be controlled by private industries from overseas. host: the point that i've -- guest: the point that i was making is that there are limits

to what the government can do. the president was the one that said that the government is in control. that is not why said, it is what president obama said. why is it that 51 days later we still have the worst environmental disaster in the making still occurring? i do believe it is important for the american people to take note of this. a federal government under the democrats that essentially laid forth the foundation to take over one sixth of our economy in health care, now under the financial system has a bill not so much aimed at wall street', but harming main street to take over another huge section of the economy. not a matter of being disrespectful to the men and women in the government, it is the system. i am saying that it is interesting to make note that

the federal government that says they are in control cannot plug a hole in the ocean, somehow they think they are competent enough to run 16 of the health care system and competent enough to run the financial system in america. i am doubtful. host: john, republican line. you are on the air. caller: good morning. longtime member of the republican party here. i am about to abandon the party because of the dishonesty of people like you. brentwood was a nixon invention. exploited even more by ronald reagan when he tried to stop the american economy from being taken over by foreigners. one-third of the economy was given to the japanese because of their incompetence. tax-cut exacerbated things.

i know you did not go the harvard and you have no idea about how the economy works, but i will tell you what will happen. americans will get to a situation where the currency will be so worthless is that the only way that america can be saved is by destroying capitalism. you had better get it together soon and stop acting like a bunch of schoolgirls. guest: i stand by everything i have said of the program. host of pensacola, florida. -- host: pensacola, florida. caller: i keep hearing you talking about the tripling of the budget under obama over 10 years, but bush and reagan also tripled the national debt. every time you get into office you do the exact same thing.

how does that make it anything but hypocrisy? guest: number one, the president himself cannot spend a dime without the approval of congress. i am saying that the president has proposed a budget that triples the national debt. what you are alluding to our democratic congresses that voted to spend money. i was not always happy with the way that that republicans spend money. i have fought my own speaker and leadership. i was not successful. i think that people view them as the party of fiscal responsibility and they did not live up to the mantle. different leadership, differed members are thoroughly committed to making sure that the federal budget does not break the family budget. it is very significant that this congress has again taken the deficit and increase it tenfold. right now we are at 90% of gross

debt to the economy. by any historic standards that means we are in the red zone. we are on the press of his of losing economic growth. losing jobs at the time the unemployment rate is already hovering around double digits. unfortunately the president and congress are still spending like there is no tomorrow. unacceptable. a word that i rarely used in for political debate. continuing to borrow in sending the bill to our children, i think it is immoral and it needs to stop. host: company times have you met? how often are you meeting? how're you balancing that with your duties on capitol hill? guest: one full-time job on top of another full-time job. there are two full meeting so

far. we have for lack of a better term working groups that are working on the taxation and go. the discretionary angle. as well as the entitlement angle. in fact the discretionary group will be meeting later today. maybe half of a dozen meetings of the group have been attended so far. i hope we are up to the challenge. i wish to the president would put forth a plan himself dealing with low interest and in -- the net -- dealing with long-term spending. they are the only game in town and we are the open mind. i hope that we can do something to save america. host: kentucky, jennifer, democratic line. caller: how are you today? guest: doing good. caller: rep hensarling phone, i

think that our economy is in bad shape -- hensarling, i think that our economy is in bad shape and i do not see anything making a better. what bothers me is that it is very unfortunate -- the democrats and republicans, i have never seen anything like this. they could not agree on anything. i think that really disappointed a lot of people. i have heard people tell me that i give up. i cannot believe that this is happening. i have never seen a party that could not agree on anything. i do have a very important question to rescue, ok? i am wondering if this has something to do with health care, ok? ok.

unfortunately i had to leave work, which was sad because i love working, ok? what is, all of this money for the next three years, there will be no social security raises. pension, i work for the federal government. nobody can tell me that we have the same benefits as other federal agents because that is not true. i cannot even afford my medicine that i need. host: can you respond to that caller at all? caller: -- guest: with respect to social security, cost of living adjustments compared to the inflation rate, if they do not go up by nothing to even say the social security will not go up. in future years it depends upon

inflation. with respect to republicans and democrats, listen, i respect my colleagues. particularly those that are committed to their principles. some democrats are committed to different principles. it does not mean that we cannot work together to find some common ground. i have entered legislative debates thinking i could get everything i wanted out of it, but there tend to be real differences in the party is. there are some members of the democratic party who say that they do not believe there is a spending crisis. disrespectfully i disagree. ultimately there are democrats that think that the government can do things better than a competitive market. not something i agree with. where i can find common ground i work with democrats on my other committee assignments, the financial services committee fox.

in fact i am working with congressman l. greene from houston, texas and we are finding common ground to work together. host: the editorial from "the financial times" this morning talks about maybe bp should be forgiving dividend payouts to shareholders for political reasons. do you agree? guest: i am not the head of the p and i am glad i am not. -- not the head of the key and i am glad i am not -- not the head of bp and i am glad that i am not. ultimately this very large costs is their responsibility. i know that there are other parties involved but ultimately they design and stand on the legal agreements, they are the

party most responsible and they will have to pay for it. personally i do not understand why dividends would be paid out to shareholders now. host: one last share -- one last call for you on the republican live from new jersey. -- on the republican line from new jersey. caller: one of my favorite arguments on the floor was when marion barry got down there and call that you and adam putnam. i will not repeat what he said. [laughter] i remember that very clearly. i remember those arguments. that is why i thought that how it pertains to now how the democrats were screaming at republicans for what they were cutting at that time, many bureaucrats from agencies that when needed.

anyways, to move on, i love it. my favorite. i will miss marion barry for that very reason. the ironic thing is that of all the things being cut i understand they are cutting funding for terror funding in new york. i am right here several miles out. i wonder, of all the things to cut, why cut that? guest: i am not aware precisely of what program you are being cut. i would say that we have to prioritize, just like anyone. i believe that the number one purpose of federal government is to protect us. certainly national security and homeland security should go to the front of the line. that is not to say that they should be not held accountable. there's lots of ways there. we should always be vigilant in our oversight and accountability.

i am not sure what precise program is being cut their. otherwise, thank you for paying close enough attention to your government the remember congressional debates from five years ago. you are to be commended for that. i hope as many americans pay as much attention because there is so much a state. host: i want to get your reaction to this, your of planning for a bank levy. what do you make of this? guest: i haven't seen the article, so i do not know. i do know that any kind of levy placed on the bank, how it will cause a bank to reduce your interest rate or extend credit, i do not know. the answer in wall street is the key -- to quit bailing out people. quit bailing out failed financial institutions. the public has to be held accountable. if we go to conference on the

financial-services regulation bill i believe in -- i believe that it in shrine's us in the too big to fail nation. host: are you in favor of the vote rule? guest: i am not necessarily in favor of upper volker rule. where taxpayer money is at risk i believe that there has to be a separate rule, but the voker rule is wide in scope and i think it would make it difficult to generate the capital necessary to create more jobs. most importantly the bill misses the mark. the reason we are in this financial crisis is mostly federal policies that were well- intentioned to make every american into a home owner.

particularly government sponsored enterprises that will prove to be the biggest bailout in history, those are exempt from the bill. we now have 150 billion reasons that are roughly the amount of taxpayer funds going to bailout. this bill does nothing about that, perpetuating the entire system. host: thank you for being here this morning. appreciated. next we will turn our attention to the oil spill hearing on capitol hill. our next guest serves on two committees that will be holding hearings on those situations. we will talk to her next. first news update from c-span radio. flats in the headlines from washington, d.c., -- >> in the headlines from washington, d.c., that there are no oil plumes detected from this bill. the comments came this morning

on network news programs. one day after the government said they confirmed underwater oil plumes from the oil spill, although the concentrations are very low. we will be talking about this bill -- we will be talking about spill on "washington journal." as said earlier, hostile fire brought down the helicopters in southern helmund province, where the taliban has heavy influence. speaking on public support for the war in afghanistan, robert gates said that it will adapt -- evaporate unless proved can be made that it is not a lost cause. israel is allowing some

previously banned food items into the gaza strip. taking a small step towards easing its 3-year-old blockade of the territory after worldwide criticism of last week's raid on a gaza bound international flotilla. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> no candidate in this race, democrat or republican, has given the voters of new hampshire more opportunities to ask questions to see what he is made of. >> face is that we see every day, see them at the c-span library. see the beginnings, search by name, title, issue, committee, interest group, and more. all available for free online. >> we have got three new c-span books for you. "abraham lincoln," "the supreme court," "who is buried in

grant's tomb"? to order, go to c-span.org /books. each was a great gift idea for father's day. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the rep is a democrat from texas, neighbor to our last guest, their districts are right next to each other. you serve on the transportation committee which is holding a hearing today on the oil spill and also on the science and technology subcommittee, also looking at the oil spill. two different issues, the first on liability. i want to get to some news from the associated press, thad allen is demanding more details on how the company is handling massive

damage claims in the gulf oil spill? guest: i think it is time for them to calculate the bills. they have total responsibility. host: how do you go about that? is congress going to make sure that the fee is on the hook legally? how do you go about that? guest: we work on it with legislation. ultimately i think the courts will have some say so. they are talking about every legitimate claim. we do not know what legitimate is to them, so that must be determined. i am not certain what would be considered illegitimate. asking a promise that they would pay, they have really caught it with publicity making everything good. we hope that they will hold their word.

host: you will also be of the science and technology subcommittee hearing today, looking at ways to clean up technology that could be employed to clean up the gulf oil spill. what do you want to hear from the hearing? guest: hopefully there will be some answer as to how. they have to be checked out. constituents sent me some samples that they say have been tested. we passed it on to the coast guard because it had be tested again. a freedom that we never would types of neutralizing elements.

host: are you going to be focusing not only on the oil that is close to the shoreline but also in deep water? a headline from " baltimore sun of close votes this morning and many of the headlines, -- a headline from "of the baltimore sun," of this morning and many other headlines. guest: it will take a bit more effort to make sure that we are headed in the right direction to make sure that this will not paralyzed us in the future. the laws are old. the people in place to not always have the techniques for latest technology -- for the latest technology. this will hopefully be a turning point. i am sorry that this had happened for us to look at how

can be done, however we cannot have this type of of the -- this type of disaster. although we have had members that have introduced legislation that would address it. some of them have passed the house but not the senate. it is not that we have not thought about it, i think of what happens is no one thinks that it will never be this bad. of course, this is the worst in history. i hope that it will be the last of this magnitude in history. host: c-span will be covering the house and science subcommittee hearing dealing with technology to clean up the oil spill. that starts at 10:30 eastern time. find out when that will air by going to c-span.org. our guest, congresswoman

johnson, has served on that committee looking at the liability side of this. the oil inclusion act of 1990 and other laws relate to this issue of liability. what did they say and how do you amend them? guest: they have caps on liability that are no longer appropriate. that is certainly not going to be adequate. the cap will be a major focus. requiring different types of technology, tested technology. in addition to that we have to make sure that the agency's will be beefed up.

a very easy, a cozy relationship with the agency and the people seeking these formats -- permits, nothing has happened to change any of that. we have a person that was appointed by to the culture that could not be broken. that is the person that was fired last week. we have got to make sure that the people and not on a buddy system. the coast guard indicated that they did not have the expertise to make the decision. which is not unusual with an incident of this sort. host: a couple of headlines for you this morning. the front page of "the miami herald" warns of possible environmental disasters that were quickly forgotten.

in the front page of "the times picayune" this morning says that "advisers sitting on the interior panel by falsely implying a system of the drilling moratorium in which they actually opposed it." secretary cells are will be before the energy commission today starting -- secretary salazar will be before the energy commission today. what do you make of that story? that he cited those people sitting on the panel as in favor of the six month moratorium that they say they were not in favor of? guest: in a situation like this you need to have a way to question them on their own.

you really need to know who and what philosophies they are going into with panel risk because we have not had this before. people that have knowledge of it probably do not have the full knowledge of the magnitude and which we are dealing. it will take some time to sort it out and get the facts but we are determined to do that. . .

host: democratic line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe that every problem is an there for a greater

opportunity. you have kids that drop out of school. i remember reading about fdr's ccc camps. this is going to be an ongoing. take these kids, set up camp down there. bring in teachers to educate them. make it possible for them to get their ged. at the same time, pay the kids out of bp's pockets a little bit of money. earn some money and get them out of the inner cities. guest: thank you for your suggestion.

host: back to the phone line. caller: there's been a lot of talk in the news about an increase of hurricane season in the gulf. as you know, the remotely operated vehicles that are repairing that particular leak down in the bottom of the ocean there about a mile deep needs surface ships in order to operate. my question to you is why is it that congress denies new clowar reactor technology to be used in some support of a submersible support ship so

that the -- in the case of a hurricane, those surface ships would have to leave. that disaster would continue forever. the only restriction here is + the fact that the congress by law has enacted and restricted nuclear technology from bp and other companies that make it's impossible drug dealers are actually coming in and delivering supplies.

guest: thank you for your opinion. the facts are on the table to be discussed to reach the best solution we can reach. i'll be the first to say we are not as prepared as we should have been. we have a responsibly to deal with it now and we will. host: bp announced that it will give revenues recovered to wild life recovery.

guest: speaking to the liability, whatever that amount is. they have major suppliers. they are the company with the responsibilitiesnd the ones we expect to respond. host: next phone call from florida on the indianapolis line. go ahead. i'm less than five minutes walking to the atlantic ocean. i'm worried about the oil if it comes into the loop affecting the florida keys and the west

and east coast of florida and into europe. they can be doling with royalties and the amount of oil that is leaked. are we going to recover that money? guest: we recognize right now it is not going to be done overnight. we have no clue how much it will cost. we will hold bp responsibly for that cost we can see that this

event will be handled like when we finally wanted to explore space. we need to start organizing we need to did something that will make a real difference we'll have to approach it the same way. we'll be able to have this in the future. that's what i have to say. all of the committees are at work. we hope to have a piece of legislation going forth.

we know we must begin to find the answers and technology to clean this up. caller: if the government would go back to the core mission and quit telling people what to eat, how to live and protect this country. democrats were in charge the last four years of oversight. i watched c-span. all the questions were should we take out the prophet. not once is being prepared on the booms.

host: did democrats do their job on oversight? guest: probably not as well as we could. our regulations were criticized. cultures developed within the departments and agencies that we had no control. everything is on the table host: twoing to the independent line. jim, i'll put you on hold and see if you can get you on air. going to california, joe on the republican line. maybe if i go back here. are you with us now? we'll get the phone line here.

is it liability legislation. what else do you expect to be in that legislation? guest: the caps, also technology. procedures we can update the legislation on the books now. it is old and outdated. we'll have to look at the insite. when anything is new, we have to do new things. host: back to the phone, jim? caller: thank you. it's a great concern to me.

those people risking their lives to go out and clean this up and they are told they cannot talk about this i'm concerned when i hear from the lawyer on the exxon case how that worked out for the residents for alaska it's outrageous that their damage was reduced to $500 million. is there a way to legally guarantee these workers the right to speak to the media? i want to hear what they have to say. guest: we'll have to look into in a. i'm on on a committee reviewing that at this time.

i have not even heard that they were damaged. that is on the table for review and perhaps even outlaw. i don't know about the gag order. we know one thing that this is deadly and dangerous for the sea life and human life we have to address all of that. this will devistate the economy

not only for the people out there getting the sea food for the restaurants and those depending on the sea food for their livelihood. we hope to address this faster than how the exxon spill was addressed. 20-some years is too long we hope to be able to compensate quickly. >> congress womb, good morning. i wonder why we are pursuing deep water drilling when the whole united states is now the number one country in the world with proven natural gas

reserves. such a fundamentally superior fuel by far -- the best fossil fuel. we could use our own domestic resource it's beyond me that hr 1835 has been -- it was filed in april 2009. it is still, it's never been heard from. guest: we are trying hard to look at alternative fuels. we are aware that the way we are handling our energy today will not last. it is not safe.

we are dealing greatly with out of the country fuels. this is not an american qup out there now. we attempted to pass cap and trade. the policy would put a great deal more techniques on the table. we know we have to do that. we've known this long before it happened. we will continue. we cannot give up on moving away we do have a lot of natural gas and other techniques that can be put into

use. >> were you surprised by the interview with obama? guest: hayward is talking a lot before committees. if he desires to do that, he is being very well occupied from one committee to another, both house and senate. host: will your committee be hearing from him? guest: we have heard plus we'll get a hearing. one person can give the assurances that can be given. we need to also put this into place with prevent a tiff measures. the ceo usually knows what the

answer is. host: california on the line. caller: thank you. if you would be so humble to let me respond. shouldn't we be focusing on trying to help bp clean up the mess instead of giving harsh criticism? we should be trying to help bp trying to clean up the mess. host: congresswoman. guest: bp is in charge. we will help. that is being worked out at this time. i don't see anyone sitting idlely by. if you look at the people in louisiana, the people in florida and mississippi. i don't think people are sitting idly by. host: and gooding to the independent line. caller: i feel not only bp is

responsibly but all of those that gave permission for the deep sea drilling should be responsibly. they should have been on top of this to see the results of a possible blowout or spill. where is the super takers that cleaned up the other spill in different parts of the world. we never hear too much in the possible breaks that might blowout if they finally tap that line off. thank you. host: do you have any additional thoughts? guest: we are attempting to deal with every issue. we have not been able to accomplish what we've tried do in the past. i hope this is the opportunity to get a great deal more done so that we will be ready if

there's ever another one. i hope we can prevent another one. we can up great our technologies. bp is a foreign company, although it is an american company, we don't have the same type of over site over an international company. all of that will be reviewed as well. the interior issued new regulations saying the drilling in the gulf can rezoom. new standards will allow drilling in waters less than 500 feet deep. the president will return to the gulf coast next week. host: san diego on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have a quick question. what was the origin of the $75 million liability?

it seems such a low number for such a high risk endeavor in that field. would you provide some sort of history? host: this figure is very, very old. it is outdated. the companies pretty much set their own liabilities. we will's them in doing that when we remove these caps this time. we have not had a reason. we have not reviewed. we have not needed to. these laws are probably 45-50 years old. caller: good morning. thank you for taking a call.

it's like foreign knowledge. you got to look at who gains. now, this is going to be used to fix obama's carbon tax and global warming scam. you can look at the documentation and see who gains. like who dumped their stock in the airlines before 9/11. one other thing. host: before you do that. the front pavenlgt times, obama attacks bp chief. their shares fell sharply oil prices have launched an attack. guest: there are a lot of second guesses we could do.

who gains, i hope the american people will ultimately gain. host: mark on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity. congresswoman, i have some questions about a different fee. it is not directly related to the oil spill. it has to do with regulation of large industry. that is u.p. i came across information from approximately two years ago that union pacific had turned over two tank car loads in downtown houston. had that color even escaped, it

could have potential wreaked havoc on the lives of 200,000 people. do you have any response to that, about how the government should be better regulating industry? guest: i think that an oversite is where we need stronger participation. i am very pleased that this did not happen. there will be other incidents in which we can prevent. hopefully, we will be able to say that in the future about most possible incidents that they were presented. host: new orleans on the line. caller: good morning to the both of you. how you doing? i do not understand why the

president is at fault of all of this mess that he didn't create. he didn't have no interest in the oil companies. you had the bushes and the cheneys for the last 16 years involved with this cozy relationship but owe becomea is faulted for everything. i know he may have some obligations to have it right but he's not at fault. host: moving on to the republican line from illinois. tom? caller: i just have a question for the congress lady about the plunging tax credit on the soy dees ill that hasn't been passed and why the congress can't get it done because this is renewable energy source. i don't understand why they are

delaying this. this is just not a good thing. guest: i'm sure you heard about needing 60 votes in the senate instead of 50 on everything. that's part of the reason. host: next phone call on the independent line from south carolina. good morning, rob. rob, are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i was in the marine corps for 20 years and felt with assault fuel systems in the marine corps that handled very large amounts of fuel. i have a solution on how to stop and control the leak.

i called the white house operator. she gave me a line to leave a message for the president. i called the epa and they put my name in a database. i tried to explain that i needed to speak to a person. no response i called homeland security. same thing, no response. i have a solution. i know how to stop the leak and control it. i need your office to give me a call at my home so i can explain procedures to totally stop the leak and control the fuel, the oil coming out of the ground. host: let me put you on hold. our producer will get on the line with you and pass off that

information. congresswoman? guest: yes. we have had so many people calling in with ideas and solutions. we've tried to pass that information on to various departments, coast guard, epa, interior. all of them have to be checked out there are hundreds of thousands of suggestions. they will have to be checked out. >> caller: i'm calling from texas. thank you congresswoman for serving. one thing i am concerned about is toxiyity. none of the cleaners out there in photographs are wearing masks. i believe this oil spill is

criminal. if i polluted the earth like they did, i would be in jail right now. guest: i'm from texas. we are accustomed to hear a lot about oil in texas. we are trying hard to make sure families don't loose anymore loved ones. that is a major direction we are headed. we hope to be able to make them whole as bp has promised. i don't know if you can make a family whole when they have lost a loved one. we are trying to move into the right direction. we are not perfect. we are not going to be perfect tomorrow. we are trying hard for to

gather the information and move ahead in the best direction we know how. i applaud the president for his attention. i don't know if you can place a single person in place who is at fault. we all have responsibilities to clean it up as quickly as possible to save lives, save sea life thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. host: we'll open the phone lines coming up. first the headlines. >> senator blanche lincoln won the arkansas primaries tea

party activists pushed the representative ahead of three rivals. there is a june run off. another tea party faff rite will challenge senate majority leader harry [reading graduates' names] in nevada. california picked two business women for top spots. former e bay chief executive will run for governor against former governor jerry brown. in florida, a new state-wide pole shows a slim lead for the three-way race. more than 1100 registered voters shows the bid ahead of the independent. in chicago, a key aid by the

side of rod blog took the stand today as testimony starts. monk, his law school roommate and later his first chief of staff pled guilty to wire froud and agreed to testify in return for a lenient sentence. one sign of better times when more people start finding jobs and others feel confident enough to quit them. a study shows more people have quit their jobs in the last months than have been laid off. and now washington journal continues. >> we'll continue with the last half hour today. a c-span crew down in louisiana yesterday visiting the fort

jackson bird rehabilitation center there, watching the staff clean pelicans. speaking to leaders there. we'll show you that and come back to take your phone calls. >> i'll hold the net up and let you take pictures of them. then when you see them outside,

you see that they are clean. the father gets put in the freezer and locked up to be considered evidence. later down the road when they work out what the cost of the environment is, they use these as they have in history as evidence. >> these birds are taking about an hour per bird to clean. this oil is really gooey. we are using dawn dish washing deterringent and a light vegetable or cannola oil that we heat up. it helps to loosen up the oil.

we tell people that we wash these birds in a percentage of dawn, which has been donated to us. we have done testing for years. we started in the early 1970s. in 1978, we started testing deterringents. dawn was like the wonder deterringent. today, it's the best thing. it takes a lot of scrubbing.

>> we remove all or the majority of the oil and rinse the bird. as we rinse them, you can see their normal feathers start to appear and enough up again. >> our job is to get the oil off the bird. after the bird is rinsed, it goes into a room that is warm and dry with hot air blowering

to rough l the fathers, when they start preening, it reestablishes their waterproofing. they will be in the drying room maybe an hour or longer. after that, they are moved out to an aviary with a pool. >> how many of these birds survive. jo we have a high survival rate. it's difficult to predict. we've had a few number of birds coming in. we would expect a high survival rate. that's about all we can say at this time. most of the birds come from louisiana department of wild life and fishry. our teams are out working under the direction of fish and wild

life. we have occasionally some boot operators or contractors, clean up contractors who will also clean up birds. where are you releasing these birds? >> when we are ready, we work with u.s. fish and wild life. they plan for the safest area based on the oil and the time of move and movement of populations normally. we released some birds this morning. those included a few different types. they were taken to florida to get them away from the oil. >> tell me about your group. >> i'm with the international bird rescue research in california.

i've been working here with two professional oil spill response organizations. we have worked together for years. >> is it a group of vets that ban together? >> we are all people that work with these organizations either full time, part time or a temporary basis. some vet farians. and people skilled in construction our operation isfully funded. >> that is the for the jackson bird rehabilitation center. our crew visited yesterday. can you go to c-span .org for more information. we are covering hearings today on the the oil spill at 9:30 a.m. eastern, a few minutes

ago, the senate energy committee was hearing from the secretary. live coverage on c-span 3. we are covering the clean up hearing on the house side, go to c-span .org for that coverage. we want to get to open phones this morning. tell us what is on your mind of what is in the newspapers and in the news. on the republican line in florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm calling in reference to ask you who is the panel that actually decides how to stop the leak? host: the panel that decides? caller: the oil spill. who do they listen to? to stop this oil spill? host: i'm not sure what panel you are referring to. caller: is it just bp?

who decides what to do sto stop the spill. host: i don't know the exact answer to that. if you listen to thad allen, he has said bp is responsibly in connection with the government and different agencies. on the independent line. good morning. caller: i wanted to let a lot of people know that seem to be blaming bp that on april 8, president obama was warned of i am mending dangers of all under ground activity. this needed to be re-evaluated because of unusual seismic activity. what happened in louisiana is a natural disaster, what happened in the minutes now. the president was adviced before this happened. host: before did you read that

he was advised on april 8? caller: the national advisory has put their warnings in to the situation room, they assured that this would be forwarded to the president the following day. the president had this information that it it was unsafe and sat on it and didn't share it with these companies. i wonder why the american government should pay any cost. isn't it a criminal act to put the blame on others and keep this information to themselves? host: going to the democratic line. caller: i would like to suggest something on how to stop the oil leak i haven't heard mentioned yet. that would be prayer. if you could ask god to please stop the oil leak. you know, it couldn't hurt. it just might work.

host: to north carolina on the republican line. caller: good morning. i was wandering, are there other ways of the clean up. i've seen on fox news that they have a way of using straw and some other mesh materials. there's just many ways i've heard outside of c-span and other news agencies. are they looking into all the different areas possible? >> why is that of interest to you? caller: just whatever will actually work. just as long as they try to use all different possibilities of clean up. host: the hearing i mentioned earlier before the squines and technology subcommittee is homeding a hearing today around 10:30 a.m. eastern about

different technologies to clean this up. go to c-span .org to find out when that will air. going to the phone line, done in texas. caller: i'm pretty outraged. i hate to tell the american public. you ought to be going crazy over that bank rip off that just took trillions from us. i'm talking $26 trillion, america. and europe. i just do not see how people in this country aren't doing more to take this government. host: more headlines on bp.

host: moving on sto more phone calls on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: it's laughable that republicans are blaming the government when just before

this accident, they were saying government should keep their hands out of private enter prize. it's laughable that they would have the nerve to blame the government. you figure that they would have computer models and testing to see what can be done in an instant like this. that wasn't done because they relied on lacks regulation, another republican idea. they didn't want to pay out the money to take the precautions. now we are paying the price. host: mike in ohio on the republican line. caller: a caller in the last segment. he was trying to ask -- he heard bp and goldman saches had sold off the day before.

you did not let the representative answer. you went to a side article. host: i was just adding to the question. she was welcome to answer any part of it. caller: you read from an article. you distracted from the question. i wish you'd let the calls go through. any time there's a call about 9/11 or some conspiracy, you never let them answer. i'd like to hear the answer. host: west palm beach, florida. caller: i'd like to see a listing of who, what and when specific ex-entions were given out to all of them so that the people can see and by who, i mean specific individuals and what agencies, government and bp and all the others affiliated.

i think there's a lot of people affected. everybody should be held accountable if the government played a role in this, we should eat some of this. i want to know what exchange is had. thank you very much. host: on the democratic line from little rock, arkansas. caller: good morning. good to see you. greta, what i want to say is, the-o i've made since obama has been in office. he has been attacked from birth certificates, from land and now from water. haloburton is suspicious to me. there needs to be an

investigation. that's an observation i've made. host: bob in florida. caller: i'm disappointed in the lack of clean up that they are doing. there's a lack of ships out there. i have possibly a solution. i don't know if it is possible or not. i know they tried to saw cut on the pipe and the plead got wedged. how about trying with a large enough plead, shut it down, wedge it in to use it as a damper to restrict the flow. >> michael on the independent line. your thoughts. you there? i think we lost michael. financial times front page this morning.

host: also, the front page of the wall street journal this morning.

host: new york, on the independent line. you are next. good morning. caller: i would like to express my concern about the dispersement they are using. i saw a couple articles. the russians wrote that it possibly could turn to -- it to change into gas, go into the clouds and form acid rain over north america that sounds pretty scary. and what happened in cheryl tan. it seems like they are having

problems with their crops there. i was wandering if those were related. also, i was wandering why don't they use a super tanker like they did in the saudi oil spill to suck up some of this oil? host: maryland, on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to say. it just amaze me to say when people call in and how bad they hate the government. the government is people's sons, daughters and sisters and brothers that they are hating. those people are working hard. they should be we'rey of who they hate so much. host: republican line in tennessee. caller: good morning. i was all weekend on the phone trying to get information like how to volunteer to help out with the wild life.

it seemed like i met a dead road everywhere. one place took my information. they said chances are name turn you around and send you home. host: i saw a similar article this morning saying that they have enough government workers and bp people down there that they are discouraging volunteers. caller: the people down there, the animals would be crying out for help. if you talk to any natives down there, surely they are going to hear that they need more help. all i'm hearing on 9 news is there is not enough help, now the government is saying there is enough help. host: going to the republican line. caller: wanted to chime in on the oil spill all together.

i think it is sad that people can't even work down there. it's terrible because the economy and the environment are affected. animals are choking on oil. i feel this way about it -- if the american public gets tired enough of this oil digging, they'll start supporting other initiatives. i think that's the whole plan here of bp to sabatoge themself. host: dave on the indnt line from new mexico. caller: my main concern and request is why is the government not taking the lead and taking over the government

should be the boss we need to see the government come in. this is america and our future. our government needs to come in, take over and push bp aside and make them pay what they ought to pay. host: to the republican line. good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. i'm furious about thad allen bringing back all those memories from katrina. what went on there bringing the same people back is ridiculous. instead of sending 20,000 troops to afghanistan, send them down there to have the army clean this up.

this is a huge environmental disaster. host: russell on the independent line. caller: they were worried about losing $30 million, $30 billion. they should pay more. they could put a big tent-like thing and a funnel up through the middle. it only makes sense the way the wind is blowing that would funnel off a lot more than what they are losing now. this bit about we forget regulations were going on years before. this was going on 30 years. we have to be americans first. host: on the democratic line from north carolina. good morning.

caller: i've watched this from day one. the one thing i don't understand is why they don't go back and set all of these blowout preventers. it was said earlier that this particular one had a hide raul yick top. i don't understand why they don't go back. they've said there's a number + of oil wells that have six all-star problems. i don't understand why the company developed and made these particular items to find out exactly who is responsibly. host: the former director of the pension guarantee writes an

opinion piece this morning saying washington and your retirement. host: on the republican line. you are next from new orleans. caller: i just don't get it why they are so upset with president obama. it has nothing to do with not stopping the leak. it had to do mainly with the

clean up. the governor has been trying to get approveal to do thing that's might help us with the oil spill. the impact is environmental. the president is in charge of people. 25 days after the spill, and still going on. and trying to clean up these birms. why hasn't he talked to bp? i'm amazed that he hasn't talked to the man in charge of the whole thing. host: donna in wisconsin on the independent line, the last phone call. caller: i've had a question since the beginning. could this oil spill be stopped quicker if they weren