"road to the white hou >> we will talk with jane harman on the war in afghanistan. later, american small business league president will be here. "washington journal this this in journal" . . host: in arizona there could be

a core group -- court ruling on that state's new law. it possible settlement involving charlie rangel, democratic leaders are urging the new york congressman to resolve the issue before going to the ethics committee. president obama goes to new york and new jersey today, talking about the economy and going to fund-raisers. we will begin this story with the front prayed -- front page of "the detroit free press." the price tag has been announced for the gm bolt. $41,000. would you spend that amount? is it a good investment? for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. again, the headline from "the detroit free press, is a "sticker shock for bolt."

this is what looks like in the business section. "it will cost $41,000, one notch above its gas field counterpart. "the long anticipated general motors electric car will cost $41,000, leaving consumers to decide of its environmental appeal is above that of similar size conventional automobiles. gm and nissan are relying on the tax credit for buyers of the electric vehicle to offset the costs. they're hoping that the lower of the novel power source will make up the rest." do you want a green card? cough up the cash. "drivers can go green if they have enough green. general motors starts taking

orders today on its website. delivery will begin in certain regions earlier this year to compensate for the least purchased $32,000.70 -- $32,000 nissan vehicle. gm will try to lure drivers with attractive lease offers." for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. by the way, you can join the conversation online at [applause] -- at journal@c-span.org or twitter.com/c-spanwj. again, you can see the comparison of the differences between the $41,000 for the chevy volt and for the nissan. we will get your calls in a moment. this from "the new york times,"

"u.s. military chief is pressing the iraqis to end the deadlock to the rest in securities gains. nearly five months after the elections in march ended without a decisive leader, the leaders of political blocs are divided over staying in power for a second term. many politicians say that the impasse could extend after more than seven years of war, reducing the number of troops to more than 50,000 by the end of august. " another energy related story this morning, "on the surface the oil spill in the gulf is vanishing fast." it says "the oil slick in the gulf of mexico appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected. a piece of good news that raises tricky new questions about how

best bet big government should scaled-back its response." also this morning on the front page of "usa today," "closures in three areas, almost all of the beaches closed from the spill have been clustered in three areas of louisiana. this is the 20th annual report conducted by the national research defense council. the massive gulf of mexico spill has not hit the vast area of the beaches but is still could scaring tourists away. -- still scaring tourists away." this is from inside of "the wall street journal." the chevy volt to start at $41,000. the first call is from joshua. good morning. we will try one more time? this is the president yesterday

as he talked not about the price of up volt but energy legislation in general. he talked about the agenda for the remaining weeks as the house and senate are in session this month and following a recess, before the november election. >> if we have learned anything from the tragedy in the gulf is that our current energy policy is unsustainable. we cannot afford to stand by as our dependence on foreign oil begins. we keep on pumping out the deadly pollutants that threaten the air, water, lives and livelihoods of our people. we cannot stand by as we let china race ahead to create a clean energy jobs and industry for the future. we should be developing those high-wage tied skilled jobs here in the united states of america. host: that was the president yesterday talking about the

energy and climate bill, one of the ant -- one of the items still in play for the obama administration. we will get to your calls on the price of the chevy volt and the impact it has. first, a political note from jonathan allen, who has been following the story of congressman charlie rangel. thank you for being with us. car -- caller: thank you for having me. host: is there a deal in the works? there are conflicting reports in what you and others are talking about this morning. caller: the ethics committee lawyers and the congressman's lawyers have been working to hammer out something where he would admit to the accusations against him and probably accept some form of punishment from the house. at this point there has been that no deal struck. probably a lot of considerations have been made for the congressman, including the extent to which he would talk to any wrongdoing affecting

his legal status outside of congress and the things he had been accused of, which could rise to the level of actual crimes. host: this is what the headline this morning light. what would it look -- what would a deal look like this morning? caller: a good question. in the past they have cut deals in a variety of ways. at this point he would have to admit to almost everything that he has been accused of. in part because he would need at least one of the republican members of the ethics committee to sign off on that and that does not appear likely to happen anytime soon. partially because there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes discussion and debate over whether democrats have cut republicans out of the process of negotiating a potential deal with him. the committee is supposed to be bipartisan. host of this is looks like in

"the new york post." they point out four options. "expulsion, center, reprimand, fines." caller: certainly, all of those are possible. we have seen this happen historic way in congress. the last time that we sought a trial was when an ohio congressman -- the last time that we saw a trial was when an ohio congressman was expelled. i do not expect to see that, but you never know. it is possible the ethics committee knows things that the public does not. there is the possibility of center, which is a formal reprimand. a lighter punishment. certainly there are lot of options for the ethics

committee. for the house itself to vote, they are the ones that need of this punishment. host: who else is behind these negotiations? you are talking about some pressure coming from george miller. chris van pollan said that all parties are talking. what does that mean? caller: you have a lot of signals being sent to congressman rangel from the democratic leadership. signals that they would like to see him find a way to bring closure to this, perhaps striking a deal with the ethics committee that is not favorable to him or resigning his seat. there are a lot of eliot politics in play. you have a politically vulnerable moderate democrat, all lost all of them are white, -- almost all of them are white,

they would not like to see this controversy coming into the election. we have already seen at least one person do that. if they all start, it could cause problems with that the congressional black caucus, who does not want to see mr. rangel lose out on due process. they believe, or at least most of them believe that he is entitled to a defense and trial. there are a lot of potential land mines for democratic leaders and they are hoping that charlie rangel himself will help them navigate through those by falling on his sword. host: one final point, time being of the essence because of the august recess that is coming, if he does not resolve this before tomorrows ethics committee meeting, what kind of pressure is defacing?

caller: at that point i think we will see everyone getting the official allegations from the ethics committee. it will come out publicly, but it is likely that the ethics committee will not have acted by the time of the primary. even though it is congress, and everyone keeps calling this a trial you want to see that completion of that. if you are congressman rangel you would like to be able to get through the primary without being punished by the house for something. host: thank you for talking to us. this is from "the washington post." "the white house pledging to put

1 million electric cars on the road by the year 2015." by the way, the president is traveling to detroit again on friday to talk about the recovery efforts for gm and chrysler. john has this point on the twitter page, "government motors getting $75,000 -- $7,500 to buy its product? our question, would you spend $41,000 for a gm volt, is this a good investment? nicole, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i do not think that a lot of the american people right now have the money to pay $41,000 for a car, especially when many people do not have jobs right now. it might be a good investment for the future down the line

when jobs are created and people can invest money, but the people i am talking to the need a car are going to dealerships and getting things that are good on gas. $41,000 right now is too expensive. thank you for taking the call. host: for democrats, 202-737- 0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. jerry is joining us from detroit. good morning. caller: i have been looking at this volt and the new cars in detroit, there is a lot of excitement. when i look at the volt i think about what a deal it is. right now i spend $50 per week on gasoline. that is how much it would save me in terms of gasoline.

couple that with tax deductions, down to $25,000, actually. i think that general motors, ford, and chrysler are trying to get back on the top. it is just a great deal, i think. host: "gm does not expect to turn a profit from the first generation of the vehicle, costing twice as much as the similar size crews. they hope it will improve their reputation amongst the environmentally conscious consumers, eventually generating earnings as the technology becomes less expensive." one other point in terms of marketing, "only 600 other dealers will be able to sell bumper volt in the initial

market. people will be able to travel to dealers, but they will not be able to lease it until 2012." lesley is joining us from merriman. good morning. -- joining us from mary land. good morning. caller: [unintelligible] host: it sounds like your driving, we cannot hear you. we will move on to joe. good morning. caller: i have a comment about the volt, not just that many electric vehicle, all it will do is push a bunch of more stress on our already stressed out electrical grid. our electrical grid in this country is completely engine and

overburdened and now we are going to put a bunch of cars onto it? i disagree with that because of the technology. maybe hybrid or hydrogen vehicles, all right? host: lesley, listening to what's on c-span radio. go ahead. caller: i am waiting for the test love. i have a honda. my husband had a previous. i am waiting for my car to die and hopefully by then, which is about $50,000 right now, that is what i will go for. i trust toyota technology and tesla technology more than that with the volt.

host: you would spend $50,000 for that vehicle? caller: say again? host: you would spend $50,000 for that? caller: i expect my honda to last a while and hopefully test load will be more affordable by than. host: thank you for the call. al, tennessee. caller: the first thing you need to consider, this is a government run company with that the government putting up a huge rebate. reminiscent of cash for clunkers. i cashed in on that, purges in a volkswagen. designed in germany, the engine is built in germany, the rest of the parts were from canada. this is another government deal that no one will be interested in unless you take money from someone else to make it sweeter. second of all, in terms of the

technology involved, most people are forgetting that it costs money to fill about. you have to pay for the electricity. where does that come from? mainly from coal-fired generators. i am anticipating the government putting down another mandate. if you purchase the volt produced by government motors, we will give you a bunch of money and make your employer paid to feel it up at work. that is probably what will happen. the other thing is we're just talking about the electrical components of that car. what about the rest of it? amenities, what it will do, is it comfortable villa all of the things that make a car desirable? all we are talking about is president obama with an ideological agenda that electric cars are good and we are forcing government motors to put them on the streets with all of these

sweeteners, even though the car might not be good at all. host: one point we are picking up from the twittered comments referring to it as government motors, it was a publicly held company, do you sense that the obama administration is running the show? caller: yes. let me see how this car does. if you put it out there without government sweeteners. when you say that the car cost $41,000, it does not. it costs $41,000 less these incentives. if it were triggering something that the consumer wanted, the market a big survey, determining that people want a car that will go 100 miles before it needs to

be refueled that no one can work on and can only carry about two people. if they thought the that is what people wanted, they would have killed it one year ago, but they are not. host: "government and business working to bridge the gap, can be blood? willis exceed"? "want a green card, call of the cash -- cough up the cash." the first electric vehicle in mass production for general motors, which they will begin marketing a round country and nationwide next year. what do you think? maryland, good morning. caller: the biggest supporters for the volt but of be ball in

venezuela, iraq, iran, the people that are scared of americans coming at them and sending blackwater to plant bombs and kill 600,000 people like they did in iraq, which they continue to do. our water is turning black in the gulf just because god is punishing us for what we did over there by looking the other way when blackwater was killing all of those people, which they continue to do. all of these bombs in pakistan and iraq, oil for blackwater. it will save us from doing that for the world. i hope to god that this is a great success. it will save the world on the monsters we have created. host: thank you. "$41,000, that is more than i over my house. i would purchase a segue first before i spend that much of my car." who has insurance, who does not

have health insurance? looking at a state-by-state breakdown, the number of uninsured in massachusetts is 435,000, washington, d.c., 65,000, ohio is that 1.1 million, virginia is of around 1 million, california is a 6.4 million people here ." the source is the u.s. census bureau. john, louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment that reinforces the sentiment that has been made. i believe that the volt is not only inefficient and ineffective, it is impractical. the fact of the matter is that it has a very limited range. there are people involved in what i would consider magical

thinking in thinking that the fuel is free. it will not be freed. you have to pay for the electricity, which is burned -- produced by burning coal, natural gas, or a nuclear reactor. another point that was brought up earlier, not only because the price but the impracticality, it will greatly overload our power system. host: thank you for the call. from the front page of "the philadelphia inquirer," "a secretary meets a queen. former secretary of state, condoleezza rice, an accomplished concert pianist, performing with the off referred to queen of soul, aretha franklin." jerry, good morning.

$41,000 for a gm volt, worth be involved -- the investment? caller: know, is not. general motors would do this, overprice the thing. their forecast is to sell 10,000 of them. it looks like they have figured out what they want to price it at, then added $7,000 for what the government will be back. -- give back. basically they delayed the rollout by one year because they said they wanted to build a stronger battery for the sound system. it is crazy. a bit earlier you were reading a blurb that general motors said they would not make a profit on it for a couple of years. then again, if you look at the bottom of "the wall street journal," article, it says that

they will not build a car that they cannot make an instant profit on. back to the price point thing. six months ago we purchased monthshyundai for 20 -- repurchase they've -- we purchased a hyundai for about $20,000 left. they come out with this now, one year they will declared a dismal failure. but they are building it in china. it is crazy. host: thank you for your comment. this from a viewer, "when the government controls the market you did amtrak, negative earnings, just like the u.s.s.r.. the free market is best." and unwelcome encore to the oil spill in jefferson parish,

"lessons from the bp oil spill," in virginia, "officials are still looking at the possibility of oil rigs off the coast of virginia." nancy, colorado springs, colorado. caller: good morning. i have no desire to purchase a volt. first of all, cars depreciate. they do not increase in value. did over the years your car will eventually depreciate. that is what they do. to spend something like that on a car instead of an investment on a house, that is just crazy. to think that someone wants to spend that money, what is the

purpose of this entire thing that led to what, clean up the air? -- the entire thing is to plowh, clean up the air? i have no idea what they are trying to do, like we can somehow save the world by having the least car -- or the volt. it makes no sense at all. other than a liberal plot, a liberal idea. you bring nobody on to talk common sense. to bring this up as a subject is silly. host: we are bringing it out today because the president will be talking about the auto industry when he travels to detroit on friday and the obama

administration is hoping for upwards of more than 1 million battery operated vehicles by 2015. "since the middle class has been destroyed in this nation, who do you plan on selling a $41,000 car to"? "$41,000 for an environmentally autumn -- environmentally friendly automobile cut most people out of the game when it comes to protecting the environment." herbert, good morning. caller: good morning. i am looking at your volt, i would like to comment on the volt. host: that is why we are asking the question. caller: i think that the battery operated electric cars are not the future. the future is hydrogen. we should have, in europe, germany, and in japan already

they produce hydrogen cars that are less than $40,000 each year. host: they also have natural gas bosses. caller: they have hydrogen buses there as well. and in germany. hydroelectricity, if you use it you are fine. natural gas also destroys the environment. the question and and have been is why have we not -- the question i have is why have we not done this already? in 2008 the u.s. army and department of defense created, along with burlington national railroad, created a hydrogen elektra railroad engine.

boeing has a light plane that moves on hydrogen. i do not see why we are not moving in that direction, instead moving in the electricity direction. i do not understand who makes the rules. host: we are talking about the $41,000 chevy volt, now in production. other headlines this morning, " campaign finance legislation is dead for now, the vote failed to reach the 61 vote mark to avoid republican filibuster. the vote broke along party lines, signaling the possible death of legislation to blunt the impact of a landmark supreme court decision striking down major portions of campaign finance laws that were intended to limit special interests in campaigns.

there is the possibility that it could come up again this fall. this from "the philadelphia inquirer." "audit from the pentagon cannot account for $8.7 billion. the u.s. audit has found that it cannot account for more than 95% of what totalled over $9 billion in iraq reconstruction money, from mining complaints that there is little -- there is little to show for the money pumped into the cash strapped, war ravaged nation." john, saratoga springs, good morning. caller: just a couple of points on this. people are missing the point. these batteries are getting more efficient, smaller, and like everything else eventually the price will come down.

these people do not remember, televisions and computers used to be 10 times bigger and more than they are now, now you can get a laptop for $400. this view -- is a good thing. in an independent, i go either way, but if we do not -- i am an independent, i go either way, but if we do not do this and other countries will and our car companies will look like fools that they are for not doing it. talking about the electrical grid, we have got what they the grid. we are spending billions of dollars fixing iraq and afghanistan while our own grade goes down the toilet. we have got to make these changes. our car companies are going to develop a matter -- a better battery. will get cheaper. just like everything else levers comes out. it is a move that we have to make. this country is being left behind.

host: from "the new york times," "vp volt -- the of volt -- the volt is covered under warranty for eight years or 300,000 miles, three years longer than the gasoline engines." coming up in about 15 minutes, the chairman of the house subcommittee jane harman, and the tax cut signed into law in 2003 referred to as the bush tax cuts, congressman devin nunes wants to keep them in place. "the biggest debtor in the history of the world is offering $7,500 to purchase its product so that we will be the broker, but green."

john, good morning. caller: my opinion is that when the government gets serious about electra cars -- electric cars, they will adopt a better infrastructure like the one the guys in israel have come up with. an automatic battery exchange station. whenever they get serious, that is how they will go off. myself, i kind of like the compressed air cars myself. thank you. host: thank you. from mike, "many folks do not understand the architecture of this car. its power from several ways." also yesterday, the house vote

to approve $69 billion for funding for the war in afghanistan, "the house agreed on the funding to continue financing the two wars, but the division and anxiety amongst democrats over the course of a 9-year-old conflict. the final vote was 308 to 114. it will, on a regular basis for the house and senate to approve." sharon, good morning, 45 out -- $41,000 for a volt. would you pay that? caller: good morning. i would not. many people in that last for about 100 miles. what i was working, it was a 70 mile drive to and from work. where will you plug it in? will government officials be driving these cars? what about the tanks that they use for more?

-- war hos? host: this from a viewer, "how can gm made this big comeback when the country is in a recession and the company has this huge debt." "the fact that gm has given us a means of argument is over in terms of short-term costs. i would purges they volt regardless -- i would purchase a volt regardless of the cost." elizabeth, california, welcome. democratic line. are you with us? caller: i am. i do not know if i would spend that kind of money and i do not know of it is a good value or not financially.

environmentally i wonder if it is a good deal. i know that a lot of environmentalists praise the electric car, but i have heard that these particular kinds of batteries are more toxic. if the card gets into an accident and the battery breaks open, if there is some kind of a spill is more hazardous. what about the cost of replacing these batteries? i have gone online and looked around for answers to my questions, but i am not a researcher. i wonder if anyone else out there has any information about amp'that. host: thank you for putting that on the table. todd, republican line, gaithersburg, maryland. go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on the air.

please go ahead yuri caller: thank you for taking my call. some of the call in earlier has a right, this will be a giant leap over electric battery power to hydro, that is the real future. when you looked at some of these programs that are out there right now that the government is sponsoring, a lot of these entry-level electric vehicles that are coming into the market, that are supported by government loan programs, they will be over $80,000, $90,000 for the initial entry of the technology. that is a bit of a hard sell for people to swallow. we need to think about how to get automobiles out there not coming in at such a high price point, hoping that the price will come down over time, only to have some of us left holding

the bag and we find out we have problems with technology, lithium batteries that do not have the life that people thought that they did. what about all of the garages down in washington, d.c., that will have to be retooled so that people can plug in? how are we going to deliver the electricity aside from being at home? how will we deliver electricity to everybody can have the infrastructure to do it? host: from this you are along those lines we have those similar comments on our twitter page -- by the way, you can join the conversation for twitter pat journal@c-span.orat twitter.com. "the electric car will not really take off until apple decides to enter the market." "house gop helps obama fund war,

clearing the house, ready for the president's signature. democratic leaders ceded to the demand for action, giving up their hopes of tackling billions of dollars in new stimulus spending." we will talk more about that in a couple of minutes with rep jane harman. evelyn, new york city, good morning. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead. caller: sorry, i am a bit nervous. host: no need to be. we are glad to hear from you. caller: my comment is on a few subjects, across the board. i am from new york city. i do drive, however i do not have to drive. public transportation is so

reliable here and wonderful. however, i think that people across the country are going to see this pricetag as very high. my comments go across many issues. i think that we need to just collectively come together, what ever it is. whenever roosevelt era infrastructure we have together, this is the ideal car for the middle class person. host: this from one viewer, "why

not make a car that has a solar panel roof meant to be parked in the sun"? "the new head of bp will take over on october 1, a native of mississippi." that from "the financial times." good morning. caller: we are doing this all wrong. do not put the power in the car, put it on the road. with a meter in the car, pick it up off of a strip in the road. they got off the work of tesla from over 100 years ago, -- pick up off the word from tesla, over 100 years ago, you will find everything that you need. host: this comment, "there are cars that run on compressed air in france. it is amazing to me why

americans do not look to the future." another comment, "does this mean that the fleet of vehicles in america will become volts instead of big suv's"? another viewer, "what happened to the fuel-efficient volkswagen? nothing but a government agenda." coming up, democrat and republican votes in the house of afghanistan and the bush tax cut. we will spend a few minutes to talk about the case in chicago, the case of the former governor looked rod blagoevich. jim warren, who has been live in the courtroom, is joining us on the phone. caller: can i ask you a question about the carburetor on my honda civic? host: [laughter]

let me begin with this question. "the client is not the sharpest knife in the drawer," let me ask you about that. caller: a predictable theme of the flailing, theatrical defense closing argument that we saw yesterday. basically they betrayed blagojevich as a benign, law- abiding, bumbling fool in some way to was the victim of slime ball aides that conservative -- and circled him. all the they were left with after a month of damning fbi wiretaps and the difficulties that they had in how they could make their closing argument given some key evidence theory rulings by the judge in the case.

host: the judge picture on the front page, what is his background? what kind of reaction did he get in this chicago courtroom? caller: interesting guy, one of four children, a product of a biracial marriage. white mom, black bad. -- dad. very theatrical. yesterday in what the intended solemnity was supposed to be in federal court, there was something dissident about his performance. it works well in state court, has worked for his father four decades and for him in his short time in the court, but it is like having a jazz saxophonist stock in the middle of a string

quartet. -- stock -- stocks in the middle -- stuck in the middle of a string quartet. he did not even -- he could not allude to the fact that names mentioned in the case were not brought to the trial, they wanted to insinuated that supported the in -- innocence of blagojevich. "in the closing arguments yesterday, -- host: in the closing arguments yesterday, sam adams said that his biggest mistake was in the judgment of character. what was he trying to get at with the jury? caller: trying to suggest that rod blagoevich as a governor sort of accepted blindly the

friendship of too many key people around him, not realizing that these people were all screaming. implying that several have already been convicted or pled guilty. several others picked up immunity deal from the government. most of the key people around, including a fact that the jury will never learn that one key defendant committed suicide not long before the trial. i am glad that you mentioned 24 counts. most of the other counts, less sexy than the senate seat the bottle, are going to put him in hot water. -- senate seat belt buckdebaclee

going to put him in hot water, portraying him as rewarding loyalists. will put a window on to the fundamental reality of a lot of american politics when it comes to the daily interaction and swap that can take place with someone being rewarded with a state contract. even though it may not be as blatant as what was found here in the wiretaps, it is surely the kind of thing that happens frequently. host: what will happen today when the jury gets the case? can you speculate how long it will take to deliberate? caller: the judge was a very good no-nonsense former federal prosecutor, he will probably take 45 minutes to an hour to instruct them in all of the different accounts and what they need to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of, it will

be a primer on the law. and then i believe he will call the alternate jurors, a couple of the jurors that do not know that they are alternates do not know that, he will tell them thank you for your service and dismiss them. they will go to vegas for the next week. he will talk to the jury to tell them that they can set up their own schedule for how i want to deliberate. they will probably, i would think, start this afternoon. the trial has gone on long enough, the counts are complicated enough, i would not be surprised if they did not take a few days to render a year -- verdict. host: jim warren, we will invite you back next time to talk about automobiles. thank you for spending the time to talk about the case you are covering, the case of the former

illinois governor rod blagoevich. caller: thanks a lot. host: thank you for your time. we will follow the story as it continues in chicago. coming up later in a conch -- in the program, congressman devin nunes will talk about the bush tax cuts and a breakdown in your income. what is next in the strategy with afghanistan? a topic for rep jane harman of california. c-span is now available over the telephone. keep in mind that regular calling charges apply. listen live, if you do not have c-span radio or xm radio, it is also available online at c- span.org.

c-span radio available 24/7. we will take a short break. "washington journal," continuing in just a moment. ♪ >> with new york representative charles rangel in the news because of the house ethics subcommittee announcement, use the c-span right -- library to follow the story. the c-span video library is all online and free. washington, your way. consumer advocate and for time

presidential advocate, ralph nader, is our guest on sunday. he has written more than seven books and a novel. join our 3 our conversation on consumer protection, corporate accountability, and political activism with that ralph nader, sunday on "book tv," on c-span 2. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes. created by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we would like to welcome democratic congresswoman jane harman, the subcommittee chair of intelligence and terrorism. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you, steve.

host: two members of congress share these sentiments as they talk about the situation in afghanistan as we continue to approve funding, $59 billion in the u.s. house. >> military experts tell us that it could take up to 10 more years to achieve an acceptable outcome in afghanistan. we have already been there for nine years. i believe that it is too high of a price to take -- to pay. for those that say we must pay it because we are going after al qaeda, afghanistan is where al qaeda used to beat off. today there are fewer than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan, which was confirmed last night -- last month by the cia chief. they have relocated to other countries and regions. i yield myself an additional minute. i have the utmost respect for our troops, who have done everything asked of them. but they are being let down by the inability of the government

of afghanistan and in some instances, pakistan, to do their part. i would be willing to support additional war funding provided that congress would vote, up or down, explicitly on whether or not to continue this policy after a new national intelligence estimate is produced. absent that discipline, i cannot but my constituents in the eye to say that this operation will hurt our enemies more than their hurts us -- more than it hurts us. >> i am confident that they will be able to complete their mission in afghanistan. the president did remind us why we are in afghanistan. it was the epicenter of where al qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks against innocent americans. the timeline for success in afghanistan cannot be dictated by arbitrary political plots in

washington. that must be driven by what is going on in the afghan countryside. we hope and pray that this can be accomplished by july, 2011, but conditions on the ground must set the pace. the democratic readership is trying to advance their agenda on the backs of our forces, committing one anti-war measure after another on the house floor. this is cynical and wrong. a vote on the troop funding bill is long overdue . we should have accomplished this work months ago. we must send this to the president without further delay. and host: joining us again this morning, congressman jane harman. thank you. is this a war worth fighting? guest: the mission to prevent al qaeda and other terror groups

from birth that -- from attacking our country is again, absolutely essential. that mission has to take us to afghanistan but also to many other countries. i have argued that spending $100 billion or more in afghanistan only for the maintenance of u.s. troops is not sustainable. my view is that we need a new mission to achieve the objective, which is to prevent al qaeda from being too rigid being able to attack our country. host: much of the debate in this country is about the july 2011 deadline, if nothing else viewed as a visit -- transitional point in the war. what about july 2012? what will the afghanistan look like? what will the operation be like? guest: i think that before the end of this year we will hear from the obama administration about a change in our strategy

in that region. i do not know if it will be minor or major, but i think that the vote yesterday, which was much closer than some people predicted -- i voted for the funding because i know that some of our individual troops are moving into harm's way, but i think that the vote sent an unmistakable signal to the obama administration that many people are concerned that the strategy is not sustainable. i do not know what july, 2011 will look like, but i am hoping it will look like a new strategy for the region. they have to want peace more than we wanted, and at the moment that is questionable. ethnic rivalry and disarray

amongst the afghans. caller: -- host: we will get your calls in a moment. here is the president on efforts in afghanistan. >> i am concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations. the fact is that these documents and do not reveal issues that have not already informed the public debate on afghanistan, pointing to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of the policy last fall. let me underscore what i have said many times. for several years we failed to implement a strategy adequate to the challenge in this region. the region from which the 9/11 attacks were waged. that is why we substantially increased our commitment there,

insisting and greater accountability from our partners in afghanistan and pakistan, developing a new strategy that could work, putting in place a new team including a fine as general hours to execute that plan. host: there are two points that i would like you to react to. at the end of the comment he referred to general david petraeus, not a new strategy but new players. will she change the dynamics in afghanistan? . .

guest: there are two strat industry jis. some of the wikileaks material added more information to something we already knew, and let's understand, that material is only up to january. january of last year. so the obama strategy is not included in what are really field reports. this is not analysis. this is just raw intelligence. so that's one part. the second part is, are leaks acceptable? my answer is no. at least on the wikileaks website, according to my staff, which downloaded it, there are names of state department officers, u.s. military personnel, and afghans and the towns they live in in that material. that's just a new target list or enemies list for the taliban. they compromised sources in

essence, and here we compromised some of our sources. and i think that's hugely dangerous. people die when that happens. i do agree that a lot of information is overclassified, and one of the things this is pointing out is that some material, some basic reporting probably should never have been classified, leaving out names, and we're learning from that. a bill that i authored in the house homeland committee is moving through the senate right now. so hopefully we will have a federal law soon that helps the government or prevents the government from overclassifying information about security. host: we've been reading reaction here in this country to the leaks. what kind of reaction is this getting in afghanistan, pakistan, and elsewhere? guest: from reading public sources, the karzai government apparently thinks there's nothing new here, so they're not upset, and it gives them the opportunity to blame the pakistanis, because one of the allegations in some of this law intelligence is that the pakistani intelligence service continues to collaborate with

the taliban against u.s. interests and pakistan afghanis in afghanistan. that part is causing us problems in pakistan. i think the most damaging aspect of all this is that it is strange our relations with pakistan. i'm not defending everything that pakistan does, and i know historically the pakistani intelligence service has played both sides with us. they've helped us and hurt us at the same time. but i believe that in this current chapter with them, where a very capable person named ahmad is head of their intelligence service, a man i have melt, that they are really taking huge risks to work with us against the taliban target in pakistan and to create estrangement now is a very dangerous thing. remember, al qaeda lives in afghanistan, and they have 60 to hundred nukes. host: do you trust the pakistani government?

guest: i -- i -- i think the pakistani government is making a good-faith effort to work with us. do i trust every single person? i don't know every single person, so no. but i believe that the trajectory is very positive, and we need their cooperation to achieve our goals in the region, our goals are a stage region, and to block the ability of al qaeda and related groups from attacking us, let's understand. that's the u.s. objective. host: jamie on our twitter page has the sentiment that many liberal democrats have been espousing for many years. congressman harman, please stop using 9/11 as an excuse for an endless war. there is no meaningful victory, so we should leave. guest: well, i am not for endless war. i never was for endless war. i am not for calling this the war on terror, because terror is a tactic. what i am for is a strategy that stabilizes a region where terror groups, want just were,

but are training people to attack america and western interests. and that's what i want to do. i don't think we do it with military force. i've said very clearly that i'm skeptical of the surge in afghanistan. i don't think expanding our military footprint achieves our objective. but i am certainly for surge, diplomacy, and development in the region. i think it's in our economy interest as well. pakistan, for example, could become a large trading partner of the united states. afghanistan, we have just learned, holds lots of mineral ores and was historically a breadbasket. so there are lots of opportunities for good things to happen. guest: i want back to afghanistan and pakistan, but put iraq on the table as well. there's a story inside the "new york times." admiral mike mull an, who is in baghdad this week, and the word that he pieces, in the piece, iraq has a sense of a country adrift. the elections were held in

march, and still no formal government in place. what's going on? guest: well, i think that's devastating. i do. i'm glad that admiral mullen just went there to talk about this. i was recently at a conference. there was a major u.s. industrialist there who said, gee, i really want to build a hotel in baghdad, and i'm going to do it as soon as there's a government. i mean, iraq's failure to close on that election is preventing good things from happening. but here's the point. we had a drastically flawed strategy in iraq. everybody understands that, i feel very strongly about it, and we had a massive intelligence failure, which led to the actions that were taken in the first place. but putting that aside or moving on from that, finally there's an election and no conclusion. and this shows how hard it is to transfer a country to its own governance, even when

counterintelligence succeeds. this is why i'm so skeptical of the strategy in afghanistan. if it doesn't work or isn't working yet in iraq, how is it going to work in afghanistan where the government problems are even bigger? host: added to that is a piece in the "philadelphia inquirer," an audit, the pentagon cannot account for $8.7 billion in a fund that has been used or earmarked to try to help rebuild the country. guest: well, we've done a lot of things wrong, and the taxpayers are noticing. a lot of money intended for good use, clearly that was, has magically disappeared. we have to do better, especial at a time of high unemployment in our country. people are right to demand, one, transparency in how our dollars go overeast, but two, a sustainable approach to what we do abroad. and that's why i think we are

going to change our strategy in afghanistan and come up with a broader regional or global strategy against terrorism, a counterterrorism strategy closer to what vice president biden was arguing. host: so that's the way going forward. but in hindsight, looking back, if there's one thing in afghanistan you could have changed based on what you know now, what would that be? guest: in afghanistan? host: in afghanistan. guest: well, i think we should have kept our eye on the ball following our action in 2003. instead we invaded iraq, and most of our brain cells and resources moved on to iraq. in hindsight, senator bob graham, who opposed the action in iraq, was right. he said this will distract attention from afghanistan, which is our real target. and to the caller who said, why don't we ever get over 9/11? i don't think we're ever going to get over 9/11. i'd like us to learn the correct lesson, which is not that we should have a military footprint around the world forever, but which are that we

live in a world where there are a lot of people who can be taught not to like us, and we have to project our values and win the argument with these people to prove that we are a good global citizen and that we care about human rights development of the world. host: representative harman is the subcommittee chair of homeland security intelligence and terrorism, as we talk about afghanistan and the situation in iraq. we'll get to your calls. ed joining us from texas, democrats line. good morning ching caller: good morning. it pains me to say this, but i believe the bush administration got it just right in afghanistan with the level of effort they had there, they reduced the number of al qaeda operatives in the country to fewer than 100. remember, the al qaeda that we were fighting, not the taliban, we punished the taliban

forgiving them safe haven, and we did that very well by removing them from power. the al qaeda hijackers were not trained in afghanistan. they were trained in the united states. we got it just right in the bush administration, and we're putting way too much money and killing too many u.s. troops in afghanistan right now fighting the taliban. guest: well, let me say, ed, agree with much of what you said, except a couple of things. one, afghanistan was a training ground, but so was germany and so is other places -- so are other places in the world, like yemen now, training ground for terror attacks. so let's understand we can't forever -- and again, an earlier caller got it right -- just hang everything on the hijackers had something to do with afghanistan and that's why that's our target. the whole world is a potential

training ground, so let's start with that. you are right that basically in pakistan and number of can a and iraq and other places. that's correct. but if the fear is the taliban takes over afghanistan or at least part of afghanistan, it will invite al qaeda back. i don't buy -- this doesn't persuade me to think we should surge everything into afghanistan. as i said, i think there are more immediate targets to u.s. security in pakistan, yemen, somalia, and elsewhere. so again, i agree with part of what you said, and i certainly agree our strategy is not sustainable. host: front page of the "l.a. times," this headline, "the pakistan taliban ties may be key to u.s. afghan goals." and one of the points from the story from l.a.'s alex rodriguez is the pakistan government denying again, as you said earlier, any ties or assistance to the taliban, but the story continues to surface.

guest: well, yes. the story hasn't died, and i don't think -- you asked me if i know there is no pakistani collaboration with the taliban. no, i don't know that, and i think at some level, somewhere in pakistan, there is, and it has taken a huge effort, led by persuade the pakistanis to invest more resources, their military and police resources, and going after the taliban in pakistan. but they are doing it, and there's a loss of life there for doing it, but they have reclaimed some areas of their own country, like the swat valley. i visited there with ann patterson recently, from the taliban. let me just mention something i department mention, steve, which is, why is this? why are we having so much trouble there? do they hate afghanistan? no. they are worried about india, and they believe that if we leave afghanistan, which they

think we will do in the near term, at least leave militarily, that the indians will come in and take over afghanistan. and that will surround them and pose a huge security risk to them. i think it their fears of india are overblown, and i also think we could work harder, we the united states, in terms of achieving our interest in the region to tamp down pakistani, the intentions. we did that. we probably could get farther with our argument that pakistan should not help the taliban in pakistan at all. host: so what exactly is the mission right now in afghanistan? guest: well, i think president obama would answer that by saying his mission is to succeed with a counterintelligence strategy, a coined strategy which protects the afghan population and per said them to lead the fight.

my answer is the odds of that working are so steep and the u.s. resources that we would have to commit and the time period is so long that our objective should be some stability there so that the chances of al qaeda coming back are minimal. but then our focus has to be much more defuse across the world to prevent al qaeda and other like-minded terror groups from attacking our country. host: jeff joining from us minneapolis, independent line. you're on with representative jane harman. caller: yes, good morning w. all due respect, ms. harman, i'm calling to say that, what is it the democrats don't understand about that the american people do not want our troops there anymore in iraq and afghanistan? we could be there for 40 years to try and get pakistan and

that tribal area cleaned out, and still, once we leave, they're going to be back there anyway. and besides, i'd rather have our troops home here protecting us from the al qaeda that live in this country right now, because i know they're here. so therefore, the money should be spent -- americans don't want money spent over there anymore. we've got a huge deficit. we're bankrupting our country. and we want our troops home. we're tired of them being slaughtered down in the valley and everywhere else. guest: well, that message is out there, and i appreciate hearing from you, and many of the comments i've made so far this morning i think are sympathetic to points you raised. i do not agree, if this is one of the things you said, that we should have no dashte u.s. should not project our presence abroad. i think we should. i think we should project our values. i think we should promote development and opportunity for all the people in the world.

i think we should aggressively oppose human rights abuses. and i think from time to time, as necessary, as a partner of nato and other collective groups and when we think our interests are threatened, we should project forth. but i do agree with you that a mission in afghanistan particularly, where we keep 100,000 troops there for any long period of time is not sustainable and not in our long-term interest. host: dale, good morning. republican line, richmond, virginia, you're next. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i've always for the troops and i'm so grateful for my freedom and prosperity. but the thing is, i believe that this is not a war. this is just a conflict that will go on forever between free people and people who want to subjugate people. and we have our own government in our own country trying to subjugate us. they won't secure or border.

they won't give money to the police, but they've money to spend all over the world to do all these things. and meanwhile, we're just increasing our debt substantially and out of control, and we need to come home and take care of our own and protect our borders and spend our money wisely and stop spending it all over the world. the middle east is like the wild, wild west times 100, and you will never tame those people and you will never change them. guest: well, let me say a couple of things. first, caller, i'm glad you mentioned our troops. i should have said this much earlier. all of us -- i'm sure this is true, every caller and anyone listening to this and watching the show agrees that our young men and women serving in afghanistan deserve our highest praise. they are enormously courageous. they are very capable. they are doing things there at the developmental level, the lowest level, to rebuild schools and on or about things that i think everybody would think and applaud.

you are right we have a merging deficit. i voted for the supplemental yesterday. did i that, because as i mentioned earlier, i actually know some of these young people who are in harm's way right now as part of the surge, and i could not send a message to them that i'm not going to fund, fully fund their protection. however, when i did that, i said that this is the last war supplemental i ever expect to vote for. the obama administration has changed the practice, which i applaud. i applaud the change, not the practice -- of funding wars as part of so-called emergency spending. that means not on our budget. i want us to fund any wars we're in, and i hope there will be a limited number of wars in our future, only those absolutely necessary. i want us to fund them on budget. that means that we see the cost of those wars and get to compare it against other spending, which we're not doing, for example, to maintain teachers as the caller pointed

out in our public schools and the cost against the debt and deficit. so i think we'll be able to make much more responsible decisions as a country, and that includes the people who live in the country, not just the elected leaders, if we see war costs against other costs as part of our regular budget. host: by the way, the "houston chronicle" has a look at soldiers from the texas national guard, nine months in iraq, four days to get back home. the dateline is texas, a look at their journey as they return home. the headline is not home just yet. congressman harman, there's also this from washington, d.c. she says, al qaeda and the taliban know that the u.s. is fighting this war on a credit card. that knowledge is more encouraging to them than any anti-war red rick anywhere in the world. if this war is vital to u.s. security, then we need to get our heads screwed on right and pay for it. guest: i agree. that's exactly what i just said. host: thomas from toledo, ohio, good morning.

caller: good morning. you mentioned the $1 billion missing from the pentagon. i'd like to remind people that the day before 9/11, rucksfels got on tv and mentioned the $2.3 thrillion were missing. nobody's ever explained where that money went. so that's pretty significant. host: thanks for the call, thomas. guest: i don't recall that statement of secretary rumsfeld, but i don't think anyone will claim that the pentagon has had a tight enough rein over its budget. i applaud the call by bob gates to put some spending cuts on the table. and i say that as someone who represents the los angeles area and who relies a great deal on defense spending.

nonetheless, we can do this better, and if we are going to bring our hemorrhaging debt and deficit into some reasonable bound, we have to put everything on the table. and i've been one who's been saying this for a long time, and that certainly included putting defense spending on the table as a place that needs to cut waste and also a place where we need to monitor much more closely the places like afghanistan and iraq. host: the focus is on homeland security, terrorism, and intelligence. what worries you the most, what keeps you awake at night? guest: well, i worry about attacks here. i've made that very clear. and i think that -- host: what type of attacks? guest: well, i think the most likely type of attack is a conventional attack. some very capable, sadly, u.s.-yemeni people, one of them is anwar al-alaqi that everyone

has heard about, was an imam in united states and is now in yemen. another one is a fellow who's very good at designing, you know, materials, propaganda materials, are now living in yemen. and the other fellow has produced an online magazine recently called "inspire," written in english, which includes how to make a bomb, how to encrypt messages, and just the right selection of encouragement from a variety of radical sources. and things like this are having an impact on what we call home-grown radicals. radical beliefs are protected by our constitution, but violent behavior isn't. some people, not all of them, you know, from -- not all of them born are picking up these propaganda tools, and i think the chance of their attacking using conventional weapons, i.e.d.'s and suicide bombs, are

increasing. and what we just saw in the arrest in times square and the arrest of the fellow who was purchased peroxide of bombs for the denver area are evidence that this is happening. some of these people train overeast. we had a huge number of intelligence successes, so let me praise local law enforcement in our intelligence community, but let me also say that we have to be right 100%. we have to be right once, the bad guys, that is. and the odds are not, you know, overwhelmingly in our favor. so i worry about a home-grown attack. i also worry about a few people getting into our country abroad. and so conventional attacks are my biggest fear. i wrote an op-ed in "the wall street journal" last week with senator susan collins that a radiological bomb, a drty bomb using materials that are available in the united states in our hospitals, and radiology

machines -- i don't want to explain this too carefully because i don't know anyone to get new ideas here, but they could create the components for a drty bomb and radiological materials won't kill a lot of people instantly, but they can contaminate huge, large areas of our city. and that's an enormous problem. i stay up late at night worrying about these things. host: how often are you briefed on these matters? guest: quite frequently. i have access to materials when i need them, but i have in-depth briefing at least once a month by very senior intelligence officials with others in congress. in a classified room in the keep, and i take those briefings very seriously, and i protect the information that i'm given, and we have some excellent people advicing our

country, and again, i want to not only commend our soldiers in harm's way, but our intelligence community, many of whom are also in harm's way, living in so-called unaccompanied posts where their families can't be and doing jobs that their families don't even know about. host: we're talking with representative jane harman from california's 34th congressional district. dan is joining us, annapolis, good morning, republican line. caller: yeah, good morning. i just wanted to make one comment to the representative there and really to the nation. i served as a naval officer for 23 years, and i'm currently in the intelligence community. my son is a u.s. navy seal officer who served three tours now over in that area. he's currently sitting on the border right in between afghanistan and pakistan. and my opinion is that what we're doing is playing politics with this war once again. we haven't learned from wars in the past. we're making tremendous mistakes, as was just said.

my vote is pull the young men out of there. i don't believe we ought to be playing politics with our lives. i think this is leading to failure. and i don't respect what our leadership is doing. thank you very much. guest: well, dan, thank you for your as much as thank you for your son's service. i get it how dangerous this service is. and i don't think we should be playing politics with this. i am a democrat. you haven't missed this. i'm stepping up to urge my administration, which i strongly support, to change the strategy and to come up with something that protects our country better. but i do this, as i say, our kids, your kids in particular, and people i actually know are in harm's way now, and that is why i voted to fund this mission because i will not send a signal to them that i'm turning my back on them. host: victor from gulfport, mississippi, thanks for joining us. caller: good morning. thank you very much for the call.

you just had a man, a loont commander, his son in afghanistan with the seals, i'm a little surprised he would say something like that. i've been in the military myself. i'm 79 years old. and i've been in the korean war myself. what if we were to bring all these troops home? where would you put them for the american people? as a comment for you, representative harman. where would you do it in the event of what's happening all over the country, all over the world? guest: well, first of all, thank you for your service. many people, certainly including my husband, have served honorably in our wars, and i value that. our country values that. thank you very much for fighting for freedom. i'm not talking about bringing, you know, every soldier home.

i hope i made that career. i'm not talking about every single soldier leaving afghanistan. i support -- i probably support, as we are doing in iraq, leaving a number of people in place in the right circumstances to make sure that we can protect our interest in those countries and in the region. i'm talking about a much smaller military footprint, and i'm still talking about forward bases around the world. but i think the way we protect our interest is to reduce our military footprint in afghanistan and obviously we have been doing that in iraq, and to consider on a global basis the right strategy to protect our country from terrorism and to contribute to economic development around the

globe and to the projection of american values that are positive so that young kids growing up pick any place in yemen think it is much more appealing to go get an education and be a productive citizen of that country than to become a suicide bomber. host: paul from houston, texas, you're next. good morning. caller: representative harman, with all due respect, i just believe you've got a choice here. do we want to be feared or loved? and, you know, all you're doing is creating more enemies. you know, it's all hearts and minds. that's the only way you can win in this ideological battle. i don't deny that there are people out there who want to kill us, and i hope that you would try everything in your power to prevent that. but we're just not, i believe, in the muslim world's eyes, we're not an honest broker.

we're not an honest broker in israel. the palestinians really have no representational advocates in congress. you kill -- you kill 10 civilians for every terrorist, and where does that get you? it just gets you, you know, hatred and death begets death. host: among those lines, there's this from chris in alabama saying, that i agree with you, remit active harman, however, i suggest reducing our footprint in afghanistan. guest: yeah, i'm agreeing on reducing our footprint in afghanistan. on the feared versus loved, it's a machiavellian choice, he's saying feared is better. i think what we want is to be respected because we res

guest: smart power is a good

way going forward. that does include military force, but much more important, it includes diplomacy and development and getting all of those things right, and those are part of the coined strategy, the counterintelligence strategy that we're trying to do in afghanistan is just, in my view, out of whack here, and the expansion of the military footprint is unsustainable, and it won't lied to what we're trying to achieve. host: our last caller is from myrtle beach. caller: thank you very much. ms. harman, we're not trying to impose our will on people? we invaded two countries, and you're saying we're not trying to impose our will or views on these people? i mean, come on, please. guest: well -- caller: and please, before you -- could you talk a little bit about how you were willing to sell your vote so the israeli lobby could get you a cabinet post? tell us a little bit about that. guest: ok.

we're -- our formal policies are that we're not trying to impose our will. they are that we are trying to help societies develop democrat with governance and stability, which, in the end, protects us. i do get it that a lot of people think we're trying to impose our will, and i think our strategy is not succeeding as we had hoped. that's what i've been saying for half an hour on this show. as far as the other comment, i'm sorry the caller believes what was a ridiculous smear campaign. but that is over. i hope you know that, caller. and my view about israel and the palestinians, by the way, which did come up in a prior call, and i did not have a chance to say this, is i strongly support a two-state solution with the state of israel and the state of palestine living side by side in peace and with the whole arab region, 22 countries, and

israel, part of an economic market which could be fabulously successful and lead to the development of everybody living in that region, and i surely am sympathetic to the plight of many palestinians who live with no hope, and i would hope that they would get back to direct negotiations and include a proper deal where a jewish state of israel lives next to a palestinian state which represents the interest of palestinians. host: do you think we'll see that? guest: i hope so. from briefings i have been receiving from the administration, they are encouraged. i think progress is extremely slow, and we've missed many -- not me, they, the parties who have to come to the table, have missed many opportunities to move forward, and i think it is a strategy. i travel to that region all the time, including to the west bank, and i've actually visited gaza, and i visit regularly

with palestinian leaders, as well as israeli leaders, and every time i encourage them to move faster. host: let me put two issues on the table. we're going to talk about the bush tax cuts. you've been speaking out on this issue as well. we do have a $13 trillion debt in this country. do tax cuts spur economic growth or do they increase the deficit? guest: depends what tax cuts. we now know first that tax cuts cost money. they're not free. that means we forgo the revenue that the taxes would yield so. if we cut -- pick any tax, if we eliminate the estate tax, which is zero for most people, but only applies to the top 3% or maybe even smaller number of people, if we eliminate the estate tax, which is the current law for this calendar year, we are forgoing billions of dollars of revenue. so let me make that point. in terms of our tax cuts

stimulative, they are if the people who pay the lower taxes are going to spend the money. i think what evidence shows is that tax cuts for the middle class are stimulative, and i support maintaining the bush tax cuts for people earning under, i forget whether it's $250,000 or $240,000. i do not maintain supporting the bush tax cuts, and my family is in that end, and i am against those tax cuts. i voted against them when they were first proposed by president bush. host: a question in the election coming up, what will the democratic majority, if there is a majority, look like next year? guest: well, i'm sure you're not missing it, steve. if you go anywhere for dinner in this town, that's all anybody is talking about. i don't have a magic ball. but the one part of the answer that i think i know, which is hugely depressing, is that regardless of the outcome -- and i predict, but i can't assure this, that the democrats

will maintain control and margins will be much smaller and the partisanship will continue. i think that will be true even if the republicans -- which win the majority in the house, which i don't think they will, but the toxic partisanship will continue, and i am -- i'm just heartbroken by this. i believe in bipartisanship. i represent a very bipartisan district, in my first three terms in congress, it was a lean republican district. it no longer is. but i think that the best policy is made on a bipartisan basis, and we are missing huge opportunities to solve the biggest problems, which include finding the right formula or the right stimulus, doesn't have to be money necessarily, to build new jobs in this country. incompetence governance at many levels, making our government as competent as it can be, projecting our values, and protecting the security of the american people. and those are the things that i care about, and my constituents

care about, and they'll find me every day trying to promote bipartisan solutions to those problems. host: representative jane harman, democrat from southern california, thanks for joining us. guest: thank you, steve. host: will you come back again? guest: of course. host: appreciate you taking our calls. we'll get the republican perspective in just a moment with representative devin newton, who's going to talk about those bush tax cuts that were signed into law in 2001 and 2003. a new way for you to listen on c-span radio, if you don't have access to c-span here in the washington, d.c., area, or on x.m., it is available online. you can also join the conversation and listen in by calling 202-626-888. keep in mind, regular calling charges and your calling plan may apply. the service provided through a partnership with audio now. c-span radio available 24/7, 202-626-8888.

nancy is in the c-span radio studio with a news update on this wednesday morning. >> it's 8:38 a.m. eastern time a possible cheating scandal at the f.b.i. justice department is investigating whether hundreds of f.b.i. agents cheated on a test of new rules allowing the bureau to conduct surveillance and open cases without evidence. in some instances, agents took an open-book test together, violating rules that they take it alone. f.b.i. director robert mueller testifies today at an oversight hearing. you can watch it tonight on c-span.org. a suspected attack has damaged a japanese tanker near the strait of hormuz, a transit point for much of the world's oil. the bahrain base said it's investigating the explosion. meanwhile, 11 somali nationals accused in separate attacks on two u.s. navy ships are scheduled to appear today in separate courtrooms in norfolk to enter pleas on piracy charges and other counts. six of the men are accused in the attack on the u.s.s.

ashland. five are charged in connection with an attack on the u.s.s. nicholas. the ships were patrolling waters off of africa. the piracy charge carries a mandatory life term. and senator john kerry has told massachusetts tax officials that he will pay taxes to the state on his new $7 million yacht that's based in tax-free rhode island, this following news reports the senator was trying to avoid the assessment. senator kerry will now have to pay a one-time sales tax of nearly $440,000. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> with new york representative charles rangel in the news because of the recent house ethics subcommittee announcement, here's the c-span video library to follow the story and watch an oral history with congressman rangel. the c-span video library, it's all online and free. it's washington your way. consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate ralph mader is our guest sunday.

he's written more than 20 books, from his first in 1965, to corporate power in america and a novel, only the super rich can save us, join our three-hour conversation on consumer protection, corporate accountability, and political activism with your calls, emails, and tweets for ralph nader, sunday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome representative devin nunez, a member of the house ways and means committee, republican from california. welcome back to the "washington journal." guest: great to be here. host: thanks for being here. let's begin on what we talked about in our last segment with representative jane harman. tax cuts, do they increase the debt or spur economic growth? guest: well, i think that they increase the debt. if you let them expire at the end of the year, we're going to have a huge, the largest tax increase in american history. host: so what impact will that

have on the debt? guest: i think it's going to grow the debt. host: why? guest: because it's going to throw the economy into a tail spin. host: this is from the tax foundation, for example, if you're a single parent with one child and have an income of $25,000, your income owed right now is about $1,800, and you can see the increases it goes into red and blue what you'll pay. the blue is the higher number. the tax cuts proposed under the president in 2011, let's move it up for married couples earning $150,000, two earners, two children, right now you'd be paying $18, 468. and under the bsh-era tax policy, $19,000,268. can you make sense of those numbers? guest: first of all, there's no proposal that's been introduced in congress. host: but it'sed on the math of what the tax cuts will look like now. guest: i can't see your little chart there. host: bottom line, if you make $150,000, you could potentially

see higher taxes next year. if you make half a million dollars, you'll see a significant increase in what you pay in taxes, an increase from $123,000 to about $130,000 in taxes for a married couple with an income of half a million dollars. guest: well, look, let's just put it simple so people can understand it better out there in the real world. you're going to go from every tax bracket is going to increase. so the top rate is going from 35 to 39. you're going to go from -- what is it, 33 to 36. lower bracket is 10 to 15. corporate rate goes up. dividend tax, i think, triples. tap gains goes up. these are all huge taxes that will equate to the largest tax increase in american history. and if that happens, you will see a tremendous impact on jobs and the economy. host: what impact do you think it will have on the deficit? that seems to be the overriding issue that we're hearing from democrats.

guest: so the only way that you're going to get out of this deficit debacle that we have, it has nothing -- taxes are a small part of it. what we really have to do is fix the entitlement program. including healthcare, which a lot of people don't have the appetite right now, because i think most americans feel that healthcare was just overhauled, but in fact, it wasn't overhauled. we created a new entitlement program when we can't pay for the entitle am programs we have in both medicare and medicaid. and so now with this new -- with the obama care healthcare plan, these entitlement programs are spiraling out of control. so if you look at the deficit, the year-to-year deficit, it continues to go up, and that does not include fixing medicare and medicaid and paying for this new obama healthcare plan. you also have to look at social security, which is bankrupting the country. there's about $13 thrillion in

debt today we have roughly, but that is the debt the congress looks at. it doesn't include the debt the congress is ignoring, which is at least $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for healthcare and social security. if you don't fix those programs and have a complete overhaul of the tax code, you're going to -- you're setting up this country for a complete train wreck. host: do you think that the way it was set up was fair and equitable? guest: it was the only way that they could get it done. look, it led to a great era of prosperity until 2008. so if you look at what happened in 2001 and 2003, we lowered taxes. lowering tax rates is good. it's not what i would have done. i think we should go a step farther. i mean, really what we should be doing now is not even talking about extending the bush tax cuts. we should be talking about going beyond what the bush tax cuts did and really reform the tax cuts.

so many include a flacks tax. so if you pay 10% on the low earners, 25% on the higher earners, two rates, that's it. so you if you get rid of the corporate tax, dividends tax, and simplify these marginal rates, if you want to grow the economy, that's what you have to do. so under $100,000, over $100,000. there's a lot of proposals out there. i'm not married to one proposal or the other. but if you -- the bush cuts didn't even do enough of what we have to do to be competitive in the global marketplaceful so right now, we have the second highest corporate tax rate. this is why corporations are not only in my home state of california, but they're fleeing the united states of america, and they're going to foreign

countries where they have less taxes, less regulation. this is something we just continue to ignore, and meanwhile, you look at every country around the world is doing these bilateral trade agreements. i mean, despite what's being talked, about the presses says he wants to move the south korean free trade agreement, it's stalled. that has a huge impact for the state of california. you're talking to a guy who has 20% unemployment basically, a state that lost the most jobs, and we have a speaker of the house from california, most of the top leaders from california who refuse to move a trade agreement that would impact agriculture, that would impact all of silicon valley, that would impact all the biggest firms in california, and not just for california, it's all over the country that this would have an impact for that would be positive. and meanwhile, we do nothing, and other countries, like china and the european union, are making bilateral agreements all

over the world. host: our guest is from california, devin nunes, san joaquin valley, now in his fourth term of the house of representatives, a member of the house ways and means committee. we'll get to your calls. you can also send us a comment by email. and our conversation on our twitter page is twitter.com/scpanwj. there is a projected $1.4 trillion deficit for this year. how do you produce that? guest: well, you have to -- it goes back to what i said earlier. you have to reform the entitlement program. host: so can you continue with tax cuts and still bring down the debt? guest: absolutely. we have a plan that does it. you can completely reform the healthcare system, social security, and the tax code and balance the budget long term.

guest: what you really have to do is change the way social security works. so one of the ideas is that anyone take anyone 55 and older and keep them on the old plan. 55 and young kerr go on the new plan where people have the ability to, similar to what members of congress have, and federal employees have, where they have their own program that they can be a part of, and they put their own money into. host: if you have a certain income level, should your social security benefits be reduced for other people who have other sources of income? guest: like i was saying, right now, if we act now, so the longer we wait, it gets harder to fix. so today, the easiest plan that you could implement is anyone over 55 completely stays the same, social security is safe for them. anyone under 55 is on a new program where they have

ownership, they have control, and we don't have, you know, we basically decentralize the power in washington and give it to the people of america, their own money that they've earned, and let it grow let them invest it, obviously under supervised plans, very similar to, if you're a federal employee, a member of congress, you know how this plan works. it's been a very good retirement fund. host: the unemployment rate in your district, is it at 20% or pockets where it's 20%? guest: well, there are pockets where it's 40%. the san joaquin valley is rough willing around 20%. if you calculate in the people that aren't working any longer, the san joao kin valley, a lot of people don't realize when i say i'm from california, they say, are you from los angeles, hollywood, or from san francisco? the answer is, you know, california is a country, really, in and of itself, so i'm in the middle of the statement it's the lammingest agricultural region in the world. and basically between the state

and federal regulations, they're hollowing out the entire economy there. so we've just seen our unemployment creep up, up, and up so now wrths a disaster. host: do you blame your governor, arnold schwarzenegger? guest: well, he hasn't done anything to fix it, but really, you have to look at 30, hoe years of really left-wing policies that have been slowly implemented over time, and it's really gotten bad when you put some of the federal regulations over the top of it. if you do anything with your hands, build things, grow things, like the timber industry in california has been virtually completely wiped out, so we've had 70 saw mills that have closed, because of the air regulations emissions, standards in california, most of the trucking industries have moved out of the state, so the trucks are still on the road, but they're paying taxes in another state. and then if you look at agriculture, where they're

basically cutting off water, not only to farmers, but to all of los angeles and san diego, where we have the infrastructure in place that's there, but they've cut the water off, and we have hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland out of product. this year is better than last year, because we've had a pretty good rainfall, above-average rainfall, but this is a situation out in california that is really desperate. and people in washington and sacramento have got to take real action if we're going to improve the economy in california. because as california goes, so goes the rest of the country. host: and neighboring nevada has an official unemployment rate of 15.1%. joe joining from us carlisle, pennsylvania, with representative devin nunes, republican from central california. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. host: joe, you with us? caller: you're talking about -- host: try one more time. guest: i can hear him. host: ok, go ahead. caller: you're talking about the bush tax cuts, and you're saying allowing them to expire will be a tax increase.

weren't these bush tax cuts a republican-sponsored initiative, number one? and number two, why in the world were they formulated as a plan to expire in 2010? there had to be some underlying reason for that, and i'd like to know what it was. i'll throw in a third quick question. what did bush mean when he talked about his base being the have's and have not's? guest: well, the last question, i don't remember the quote that you took from president bush. i can't speak for him. but what i can say is the reason that they expire in 2010 is because, in 2001 and 2003, they were unable to secure 60 votes in the senate. and you may remember that it always takes 60 votes in the senate in order to pass something, and they were never able to get that and make dash 60 votes to make it permanent. and so they were only able to get 10 years, and so they all expire in 2010.

that's essentially what happened. look, this is -- the tax cuts are not even -- don't even go far enough. i mean, we really need to be doing something more bold in this country, which is why i started out with saying that, you know, just to extend the bush tax cuts is not enough. i think we have to revamp the entire tax code, go to a rate where you pay 10%, 25%, some type of flat tax, simplify tax and get rid of most of the taxes on business, because that's how we're going to create taxes, eliminating jobs and make the government run more efficiently. host: from twitter, the caller misquoted former president bush, and did he, so by the way, at one of these washington dinners. he said his base was the have's and have some more. so that's what the caller was referring to. len, shelby township, michigan, good morning, republican line. caller: yes, good morning,

gentlemen, and good morning, america. the one thing that it seems like in the media that i'm hearing about, the bush tax cuts are coming up there, if they do not continue is very shrilling. i've talked to several financial people, and everybody is holding back to see what's going to happen this november, and one of the things that i just wanted to bring up this morning that if seems like no one -- i haven't heard it since the time it happened, and i believe that, correct me if i'm wrong, i believe it was june of 2007 that there was a day that we actually collected, with these bush tax cuts in place, the largest amount of taxes that the federal government in the history of america, and i believe the one day, it was $85 billion. so these bush tax cuts work.

so that's all i have to say this morning, and thanks for letting me say that. host: gary duncan says there must be concurrent spending cuts with any tax increase, including his suggestion of reducing federal salaries by 15%. guest: yeah, so look, you can freeze government spending. you can close the entire department of agriculture. you can get rid of all the ear marks and the country still goes bankrupt. so really, what we've got to do is we have to take the entitlement program and reform that. if not, they're going to sink the country. and that's the thing that we've really got to get focused on, and it's unfortunate that we waste it a year and a half on a stimulus bill that hasn't worked, debating healthcare, which only created a new government-run healthcare program without fixing the existing healthcare programs we have, and now we really face this monumental cliff that we're going to walk off of here

if these tax cuts expire where we have the largest tax increase in american history. host: if you're interested, you can follow online at c-span.org. the fourth public hearing with what's known as the debt commission, co-chaired by erstine bowles, and former senator allan simpson. the official name is the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. congressman, they will come back with their recommendation on december 1 after the midterm elections. everything they say is on the table. what should be on the table? guest: well, first of all, the whole commission, from my perspective, although it's important to play a part of it, the president asked us to be at the table, and the republicans agreed to be at the table. but the reality is that it's really the congress's dereliction of duties, really, that they haven't followed through on what their job is. i mean, this is -- you have a party here, and i'm not saying

that republicans are perfect and republicans governed as good as we could have or as good as we should have. but you have a super majority in the house of representatives, you only have 250-some votes, and last time i checked it only takes 118 votes to pass a bill. you had 60 senators for a while, now you have 59. still unprecedented majorities. now, why do you have to have a commission? this is a party. you have a democrat party. heavily democratic controlled senate. democratic dominated house of representatives. you can pass whatever you want. host: but to be fair, the republican party and george w. bush had a budget surplus, and you saw that change in the six years that the republicans had control of the house and the white house. guest: sure. that's -- i don't disagree with that, and that happened. there's a lot of reasons why that happened. one is we're fighting two wars simultaneously. we also had a down turn in the economy. and we failed to fix the entitlement program. and if you remember, president bush set out to fix social

security. and he spent a long time going around the country saying that we had to fix social security to save it for americans. and the democrats didn't put one proposal on the table. i was there. itself on way to the ways committee the first time when we had the meeting on social security, and they didn't put one proposal on the table, so they were never serious about fixing these entitlement programs. they only wanted to demagogue. they figured by using the war and politicizing it that they would win back control of the house and the senate. and republicans weren't perfect. but they have super majority. and now they've taken, in four years, they've tripled the debt, our deficit, doubled the debt in four years of control by the democrats. so, you know, like i said, this is -- we're long past playing the pointing fingers at people. but to put together a commission with people who are not even elected is really a

poor, poor showing on a democratic controlled house and senate where, for the first time in history, we have no budget passing the house of representatives, no budget. i'm on the budget committee. we've had hearings, but we never mark up a budget. now, how can you run a government when you can't even pass a budget and you have 250-some votes? something's wrong. .

it is shameless to blame social security and say it is ruining our country. there are lots of other things that came in during the eight year republican rule that have contributed deeply to the ruination of this country. i also think that old people are not going to let you get away with this. i know that we look like a group and the downtrodden, but we are not. please, please find some other way to argue. because it is our money. host: -- host: thank you for the call. guest: thank you for saying that i seem like a nice guy. you must have misunderstood me and i hope that we will continue to think i have a nice guy after answer this question, but i never proposed doing anything with your social security. the proposal we have on the

table is anyone over the age of 55, we will save social security. that is what we are trying to do, save social security, save medicare and medicaid, really save the entire health-care system. if you leave the entitlements on the path that they are on you will see a complete meltdown of the economy because of the $60 trillion in debt that congress is ignoring that we are not dealing with because of federal entitlement programs. i am trying to save social security because i think in five or six years the program begins to go into a deficit. host: what timothy geithner said on sunday was that the bush tax cuts would remain in place for those making $250,000 or less, the obama administration is

saying that they would be phased out for the wealthiest americans. guest: first of all, to the governor is a nice guy and a site -- smart guy. he is also one of the ones that promoted tarp, the bailout, granted there were republicans involved in that. host: from president bush. guest: supported by a heavily democratic house and senate. secretary timothy geithner has pushed the stimulus package that is in a debacle, money thrown down the drain. he backed up a health care plan , knowing that medicare and medicaid are broke. putting more people into medicaid that are broke. the program that was created for four people in this country, they basically -- poor people in this country, he does all that

and let's not forget that this is the same secretary that did not pay his taxes. the last person on earth that i think they should listen to on tax reform is from someone that does not pay taxes. the only proposal, and i could be wrong, but the only proposal i have seen on fundamental tax reform over last month that has been introduced in legislation in the united states congress is a tax exemption for special status introduced by members from new york to help to bail out the new york economy. that is the only poll from the democrats i have seen. host: "investor's business daily" has this last week -- had this last week, "if you pass away after december 31 of this year, the death tax will return over 55% of the state's.

-- -on estates." guest: some of us worked in a bipartisan manner in the senate with a modest proposal, a roughly $5 million exemption and a 35% tax from there on out. it passed the senate. the house of representatives refused to even take a compromise bill. we could have actually had a fix for the death tax this year. they have no interest, the controlling party has no interest in doing fundamental tax reform. they want these taxes to expire.

host: kelly, california. caller: i have a new name for america. it should be called the chinese states of america. we are pathetic and ridiculous. we do not even own our own country. this tax bill, i think that we are standing over in afghanistan and iraq because there is no corporate tax. that one arms guy over there said he wanted to build a hotel, but meantime we are dying back here. watching c-span every day has made me physically ill. our country is making me ill, and i believe that timothy geithner is a " for sure. host: we do not want to make u l, we hope that you continue to watch.

guest: i have to say that it is not the fault of c-span, is simply their job to communicate what congress says. host: that we put this on the table. republicans -- democrats maintain control in the white house. how will that change how this works this year or next year? guest: it would be unprecedented for the republicans to pick up 40 seats. guest: but if they did, i am wondering if there would be more cooperation or greater attention. guest -- caller: i would hope that the president of the united states would -- guest: i would hope that the president of the united states would at least listen to us at that point. the president came in with a lot of support.

the american people were behind him. we hope that the president is going to bring us all together. he had a great opportunity on the stimulus bill where he could have brought united states senators on the republican side that wanted to vote for something. i think that a lot of house members wanted to vote for something. they originally floated this trial balloon about infrastructure and unemployment extensions. it seems somewhat reasonable at the time. what they did was they basically traded this trillion dollar boondoggle, and you watch, this will continue to roll out over time. i think you will see complete brought gin at every level based on programs, money that is being given out all over the country, with no strings attached to let and no real process to follow in some cases. if we begin to follow this money

trail i think it will get ugly. if you look at these investments that are being made in these so- called green jobs, we are actually giving money to people that i cannot even find out who we are giving money to. as a member of congress, i cannot figure out where the money is going. host: a question from new york city is next. caller: you might want to look at the military and see how much of the money is going there. host: you are talking about that $8.7 billion in iraq? caller: the subject of wanted to talk about, this is one of the biggest canards of the republican party. you had your tax cut in 2003. eight years of george w. bush. how many jobs that we create?

according to "the wall street journal," and i know you might not get it, but look at january 9, 2009, one year ago. about 3 million jobs were created during the and hire eight years of the bush rein in our country. a great article. guest: you do not support the bush tax cuts. what should the tax rate be? you can tell me, out what is your proposal? you want the tax cuts to expire, the highest will go to 40% roughly. caller: go back to what bill clinton did. 23 million jobs were created in his term. you can have your opinions but you cannot have your facts.

the facts are that tax cuts for eight years during george w. bush got a 3 million jobs. guest: i will remind the viewer that republicans had control of congress while bill clinton was the president. i think that the republicans should share in some of the credit for those jobs. if you want the bush tax cuts to expire, it sounds like he will have your wish because it will expire at the end of this year and we will see who is right. the economy of -- improves. let's all put our best foot forward, putting real plans on the table. calling not just for bush tax cuts, but for completely simplifying the tax code, going to a 10% and 25% rate.

host: will there be a challenge for house republicans leadership? especially john mainer -- john boehner. guest: who knows, he is very popular with some. his goal was to become the next speaker of the house of representatives and is working hard to do that. host: the contract with america, what will it look like in september? guest: we do not know and it will not be called contract with america, i know that much. we are out there listening to folks right now, using upcoming an emerging technology to reach out to the american people, one of the things that president obama was very good that in his last campaign for president of the united states. we have tried to adopt those ideas, listening better to the american people so that we do not seem aloof far out of touch,

as the president and the white house like to make us out to be. we will see what the republican leader and eric cantor put together. host: from clinton, maryland, republican line, go ahead. caller: first of all, let me say that i was a republican, leaning independent. this congressman, you know, sir, you are one of the main reasons why the party is really going to be shocked in the midterm elections. you are sitting up there, blatantly -- i will not call you a liar, but you are blatantly misleading the american people.

i talked to a lot of voters that feel the same as i do. host: you are a registered republican? caller: yes, i am. i have switched my party affiliation because of what has been going on for the last year- and-a-half. host: what has been going -- what about that, senator? guest: every american is entitled to their opinion. we are all beholden to our constituents. if you are from maryland and you do not like republicans, you are in good hands because democrats control every state in the state of maryland. also the two united states senators that are in the party here you should be in good shape. host: this question from a

viewer, "if the bush tax cuts expired, will earnings on retirement accounts not be higher? guest: if you have on your home for more than two years up to $500,000, you will not be. it is more than that, you will. look, all of the taxes are going to go up. that tax returns, the dividend tax, every individual marginal tax rate goes up. host: another thing people have talked about, assuming you are retiring and you have half of a million dollars in your account, could there be another tax on that money? a source of revenue that congress could be looking at? guest: some of that is taxed already, which is why we need to reform the state security.

we need a program whereby if you have already paid taxes once, they should really be expanded. it is one of the practical ways out there for the american people to take their money and put it into account, letting it grow tax-free. hopefully we will get to a point where we will not tax them. host: "if raising taxes save jobs, why not make the tax is 98%"? guest: that is why ask the caller what the rate should be. host: massachusets, good morning. caller: for one thing, this man is calling it a death tax.

also, sam wall was a great man. they cut wages and benefits, destroying the unions. host: the issue of the death tax, as i understand it, is a onetime tax on your state? -- estate? caller: bush created jobs, millions of jobs, all in other countries. they want to cut taxes, but how will they raise revenue? guest: it does not really matter what the tax rate is at this point, without really reforming the tax code, medicaid and

social security, the country will go bankrupt. which is the sad part, these problems are so big, congress with supermajorities on the democratic side of the aisle has a cut -- has the country going down the tubes. host: what will happen? guest: we will have to wait and see what happens in the midterm elections. going back to my district, we have an economy from spiraling out of control because of the federal government making it so hard to conduct business. creating jobs and growing the economy, you are releasing them what i think is possibly the future of the united states. taking place in real time, in my district, of what will happen to the rest of the united states if

we do not. host: thank you for joining us here on c-span. please come back again. president obama will be traveling to new jersey with a couple of fund-raisers, stopping at a sub shop in new jersey to talk about businesses, that is our topic this morning. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> no one survived the crash of an airliner today near islamabad. two american citizens were amongst the 152 people killed. the cause of the crash is not immediately clear. an update on the economy, a report today released shows the durable goods orders fell short of the 1% gain that had been expected.

following another drop in consumer confidence one day earlier. immigration issues, the sheriff of the most populous county in arizona said that he would not put up with civil disobedience when the new immigration law takes place tomorrow. he says that if protesters want to block his jail, he will put them in it. it requires officers to check a person's immigration status. speaking earlier on "good morning america," he says he does not know what the big deal is and that everyone should force the law. >> with charles rangel in the news because of the reason health said -- house ethics subcommittee announcement, the c-span video library, online and

free. washington your way. consumer advocate and for time presidential candidate, ralph nader, is our guest on sunday. he has written 20 books over the years, including a novel. join our 3 our conversation on consumer protection, corporate accountability, with calls and e-mails sunday on book tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are welcoming lloyd chapman, president and founder of the small business league. your organization is based in california? guest: yes. host: from your standpoint, 18 months into the president's administration, as he down what you have expected him to do with regards to small businesses?

guest: absolutely not. i am very disappointed. i campaigned for president obama. i got up to the radio shows across the country. he said that he would do a couple of things. he said that he would end of the diversion of small federal contracts to corporate giants, restore budget and staffing, restoring budget and staffing, restoring the administrator to a cabinet level position. and he has done none of those things. i am really surprised, to tell you the truth. 52% of the private-sector work force is employed by small businesses, creating 100% of the new jobs. small businesses are responsible for 90% of the innovations and the obama administration has given small businesses an insignificant amount of money

for the stimulus. every day they are giving most of the small business contracts to the biggest companies in the world. host: what can the government do to create jobs or for that individual that does not want high taxes or government dollars, you seem to be saying that the fda and others have the job to spur small business growth. guest: there is a law that says the 25% of small-business contracts, creating all the new jobs, that is probably the largest program to direct the infrastructure program across the economy.

small business firms getting federal contracts, small businesses would very much like to receive the appropriate call. host: here is what the president said yesterday. host: many of these businesses cannot get the loans they need for the capital to hire new workers. we have proposed steps to get them that help, eliminating capital gains taxes on investments, making it easier for small lenders to support small businesses, expanding successful programs to help these businesses access the capital that they need. this is how we create jobs, by investing in the entrepreneur is and businesses that have brought prosperity. the kind of common sense steps that both parties have brought in the past, spurring private sector growth and investment.

i hope that we should not lead america's small businesses be held hostage to partisan politics. certainly not at this critical time. host: that was the president yesterday. your reaction? guest: the term is just all talk in my opinion. when you see president obama talking about his concern for all businesses, 43,000 employees and revenue $43 billion getting around $785 million in federal small- business contracts in one year, showing companies in italy, england, holland and france

hitting small business contracts. i am not impressed by that. here is what i predict. he talks about an extension on investments in small businesses, featuring the capital gains tax. i think it will be a loophole for venture capitalists. karen mills haeaded sva as a former venture business capitalist. i have been predicting for one year that president obama is going to do what i call a two- pronged loophole, exempting the small business bank taxed, trying to change the federal definition to include companies owned by some of the largest in the country. in my opinion i think that they will try to sell the small business contract programs to

the venture capitalists. making contributions to try to get that legislation passed. host: we are talking to lloyd chapman. give us a call. the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or check us out at twitter, twitter.com/c- spanwj. more recently the wall street regulatory reform bill, some say that it is reform, others call it a regulation. how did those pieces of regulation impact small businesses? guest: to tell you the truth, i do not know how will it will affect businesses, frankly. i do not think that many people have fully come to grips with that bill. guest: it means a lot of government agencies overseeing

the regulation, does that trickle down? guest: the only thing that i can think of, if they regulate wall street more, i think that we are still waiting to see how the health care bill actually pans out. i am just kind of concern about the health care bill. it will provide more people health care in the system, the system will remain the same size. it seems to me like that is going to -- i feel confused about how it will help small businesses. we will wait to see how it hands out. host: what is your background and how did you get involved in this association? guest: i am a small business person who was a sales manager for a computer company in california. a woman came in and she had lost the government set aside contracts, it was supposed to be

set aside only for small businesses. i went to the government data base of small businesses, going to the accounting office, launching an investigation, finding about 5000 large businesses around the world, i started to call washington for some help. host: sun city, arizona. caller: how long has the gentleman and his organization been in this business? guest: we have been around for about four years. we focused on the computer industry prior to that, the abuses that we discovered for

the american small business lead. host: how do you define a small business? guest: 98% of small firms hire employees, generally with less than 20. the largest in use is 100. host: murphy, republican line. guest -- caller: with all due respect here speaker, i am a small business owner and a contractor, as well as a public- school teacher. your guest is a sucker. i know that does not offend him. host: what is your business, murphy? guest: a small vending business. i am an independent contractor. guest -- host: how many employees? guest: -- caller: myself and that is it. i face the same problems as any

other small business. i have a couple of comments and questions for your speaker. i teach american government and no where in the government can i find where the federal government is used -- is supposed to support any businesses at all, rather it is supposed to afford opportunities for people. if you are really interested in helping small businesses, your focus should be getting the federal government out of financing small business and issuing contracts that just about anyone. except for the deal in the free- market. the second thing regarding the attitude that the government is a force to give -- supposed to give people everything. when you talk about the government, you talk about the taxpayer. they will overwhelm my

granddaughter, your granddaughter, your son and daughter, because the numbers are unsustainable. that should be your main focus as opposed to worrying about who gets awarded contracts in the free market, let the free market dictate the policy. guest: fascinating opinion. host: we get them all. guest: [laughter] host: your turn to answer. guest: basically there is nothing in the constitution that says we should take care of anything like that. basically, small business says that 23% of all government contracts should go to small businesses. it makes sense. at the caller is concerned about taxes, small businesses generate majority taxes. general electrify and exxon mobil paid the most federal taxes. i think that he is the one being played for a sucker if he does

not understand that this country is a small business economy. that is where most americans work and where jobs are created. he is a small business owner, he should understand that. go to my web site, look at some of the stories and i think you will understand. small businesses are the heart of our nation's economy, which is where we should be focusing. host: vivian said yes, sir, make sure that small business has not a chance against the giant corporation. guest: that is what is happening here in washington. i hate to say it, but washington is anti-small business. when you forget the rhetoric and the speeches and just look at the policy, every year for the last five years the inspector

general has said that the number one problem in the small business administration is the diversion of contracts. yet congress has failed to adopt legislation to address it. even president obama said that it was time in the diversion, but we're not seeing action on the hill. i have a bill that would simply stop the federal government from getting billions of dollars in federal contracts each month for some of the biggest companies in the world, starting in the house and senate small business committee. host: a lot of people participating on twitter if you want to join in, saying that you are only interested in government contracts for small businesses? is that fair? guest: it is fair to say that that is my main focus.

host: if you are a government contractor and you get a bid from a small business and let's say that the contract is $1 million and the small business can do it for $1.1 million and a larger company can do it for 900,000, would you not want a larger company at the lower costs for taxpayers? guest: to tell you the truth, it is a better investment to go for the small business. the coffin foundation put out a report a few months ago saying that over 100% of these new jobs have come from companies that are less than five years old. if we are trying to balance the budget in america, i do not think there is a better use for our tax dollars than investing in the small businesses where americans work.

frankly, those numbers are reversed a lot of times. small businesses routinely have lower overhead. host: lloyd chapman is the founder and president of the small business lead. checkout apple asdl.com. rick, independent line. good morning. guest: -- caller: i have been an independent contractor for small businesses. the capital did not always have to get along. but a lot of them did have the capital, not wanting to get into something bad was $1 billion in competition with the federal government for 100,000 or $1

million. deciding to get their hands in it, you cannot compete with the government. no one knows where this is going. guest: isais survey that said the 75% of small-business owners does affect the economy to go into another recession before it gets better. 60% disagreed with how president obama was handling the economy. i can understand that sentiment. people worried about what will happen. it is a big mistake for the government to focus these stimulus funds on wall street with so little to small businesses. if you were the president and you knew that -- he looked up at me and said 100%. that 7 year-old kid knew a lot

more about economics than people in washington. it would have been a lot more successful at the stimulus funds had gone to the middle class economy and small businesses. host: to the other part of the argument from earlier, higher taxes and regulation, what concerns small businesses more? guest: they are equally scary. higher taxes and more regulation. no one likes that. i am afraid we are in a situation -- i am not for higher taxes, but i am afraid that we are in a situation where that is inevitable. to tell you something about increased regulation, most people would say that they would not want to increase regulation, but i think a lot of people would agree with me if we had more regulation over wall

street. if we had more regulation over the oil and gas industry, we might not have had this bill that we had. in certain areas we need more regulation, like in wall street. in other areas we need less. host: "your last caller was right, taxpayers foot the bill. small business deficit for government largess are a drain at this point." milwaukee, democratic line, good morning. caller: i have not heard him say anything about the republicans that blocked everything that president obama is trying to achieve. i watch c-span and the senate consistently. i always see where the democrats are trying to do something for small business, but those republicans and do not want to

do anything to help president obama. you know what the truth is. thank you, bless the day. guest: robert has a good point, something that my republican friends would not like the here, but the truth is that ronald reagan tried to close the small business administration in 1984. republicans tried to close it again in 1996. during the bush administration because of budget staffing in half with an attorney telling me that -- telling us that today is that the lowest point in 30 years. i think it is true that democrats approach more small businesses than republicans when looking at the facts. i am not dazzled with how president obama and democrats have handled the economy and how

they have treated small businesses. host: talking about the economy and small businesses. lloyd joins us from oregon on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i am a small businessman myself. i kind of enjoys seeing the argument going back and forth. both parties are demagoguing each other about who can do something better or worse than the other one. host: what is your business? what do you do in oregon? caller: i manufacture small optical components for the aerospace industry. it has been fairly stable for a while. host: do you get government contracts? guest: -- caller: in directly. i get contracts for naval research and things like that.

the point i want to make is that as a small businessman, when taxes go of it is harder for me to grow my company. i have to pay all of my loans back with after-tax money. i have less money to actually pay off my loans and grow like company. the other comment i would like to make about employment in general is that during the previous decade, when the argument was made about who was creating more or less jobs, largely due in the bush administration we had full employment. there was not really as much need to create jobs because the unemployment rate was less than 25%.

guest: there is an argument to be made that during -- let's say during the bush administration, the economy was strong because of things done during the clinton administration. during the obama administration, you know, we're definitely seeing the impact of things from the bush administration. both parties wanted to try to use that to their advantage. no question that here these policies are affecting us today. when president obama leaves office, that will affect the next president. i would think that larry would agree with my position. being a subcontractor to government contractors, in terms of taxes by and not a tax

expert, but what i see the general like trick is flight -- paying no federal income tax, it will increase the taxes for larry. i would like to see the tax burden spread out more evenly across the country and corporations pay their fair share. host: larry cutler was on the program last week saying the opposite, saying that exxon mobil was one of the highest corporate taxpayers in this country. : -- guest: they may be one of the biggest in america, but they do pay taxes overseas. they were paying no u.s. taxes. guest: -- host: taxes at the

lowest they have been, according to this viewer, but see what we have gotten for it. caller: in a small business owner, running a company that makes martial arts. the problem that i see is that it is cut and dried. small businesses are not spending their money where they need to spend it. companies and programs where some of the money goes where you want to take it as a business owner, some of the money needs to be put on wall street. you cannot touch the money until you become stable as an organization. a lot of people live above their means as small business owners.

obama gets a lot of backlash, but bush ran it into the ground. with that type of situation going on on wall street', gettig away from spending taxpayer dollars and not spending responsibility, we need more regulation on wall street and on small business owners. guest: icahn agreed that we need more regulation of wall street'. of this and more on the economic stimulus, maybe they would not have the types of problems that

we do now. i agree that we need more regulation of wall street. the kinds of problems that we see in the past. host: how you keep track of the flow of federal dollars to small businesses? guest: there's a great company that we used all headmine, they have all the data on federal contracts thing. you can see which contractors and large businesses have freedom of information request coming out of the government. fairly readily available. host: can you provide examples for something that was subcontracted? guest: the dollars coming out are not available.

you cannot find the volume of contractors, simply trying to take a look at the subcontractors. giving in to a fortune 500 prime contractor, by law they are supposed to subcontract out. when we want to see that information secret. we have never lost one of those lawsuits. you can see contractors not complying with federally mandated small business. host: our guest is lloyd chapman, founder and president of the american small business league.

caller: i have a few comments. and a question. for those of us that watch c- span and have for years, when the democrats were pushing the concept of red line, they would not make bank loans for home loans in those areas. consequently they push in conjunction with republicans, making loans in red light areas. they fell to fannie mae and freddie mac. wall street rebuttal -- we bundled -- rebundled when the economy went bad.

that is one observation. it is what led to the current economic downturn. guest: i am not sure that that is the sole reason why the economy is in the situation is in right now. my opinion is that there is lack of regulation on wall street and in the last few years there was a lot of lobbying by wall street and institution, looking back seeing that that is a mistake. i cannot agree with jim that the current economic downturn of the government selling bad loans overseas, i cannot agree with that. host: lesley, good morning. caller: this is a good program. i am a small business trying to

get government contracts for the last six years ended is overwhelming sometimes. when you read the paper, documents give you the impression that it is a 1, 2, 3 thing. certified, etc., etc., and when you finally get in there and start to get involved in various contracts you will find that the federal government and the state government has all types of little clauses in their to automatically discovered someone trying to get in there to start something. host: what is your business? guest: -- college of telecommunications. host: how many employees you have? colored coat as many as i can have. with these government contracts

you almost have to go through a [unintelligible] host: do you have any? caller: i was in for the lottery commission, they ask me if i wanted to participate. of course i wanted to participate. i submitted my paperwork to the proper contractors. they wanted to contract and did not give me access to until i found out, looking for work, that they were using contractors to do the same word. calling the company, i was like i have got the contract, where's mine? guest: i have heard that problem million times. prime contractors submit their bid to the government saying that they would do a certain

amount with small businesses. once they get the contract, those small businesses do not get the word they were supposed to. i was talking to someone about that just yesterday. government prime contractors are very loosely regulated. to make sure what they're doing with contracts, they think they could get to work and prime contractors, it is unfortunate but maybe we can get some regulation to stop it. host: we expect to hear a lot more after the august recess. what the impact will be, for

small businesses? guest: their taxes will go up. people do not understand. we look at a small business. if you have one in california, you will be in the highest tax bracket. the average american might say that the small business but is making $200,000 per year, that is a lot of money, but when you lose half the taxes and you have to pay the rest to financial receivables, it is hard for people to understand that you could be making $40,000 each year and only taking out $30,000 for yourself because you have to use the money to finance the rows of your business. -- growth of your business. i think it happened that small businesses are going to wind up paying higher taxes, which is unfortunate. host: robert, good morning.

caller: they divorcees band. i want to thank mr. chapman for his work. the availability of tax dollars and where they go, it seems that no one has addressed the prioritizing of the dollars and the estimated cost for the incursion in iraq, which was based on faulty information costing the american taxpayers an estimated $3 trillion by the time it is done, whenever that will be. that money could be used for small businesses and health care. your last guest was touting the republican party and i just felt that the fact that $3 trillion was being spent on an incursion in iraq takes away money and i would like to hear mr. chapman's

opinion on that issue. guest: personally, i do not feel that we can afford those wars. i think there's a good chance that we go into another recession. a lot of economists think that. to me, we simply cannot afford it. i would stop them both tomorrow, pumping up security in america. i just think that we cannot afford it. host: topic for another segment. guest: [laughter] host: james, the morning. caller: i wanted to thank mr. chapman for everything he has been doing. i wanted to mention how some of the earlier callers were on warranted in attacking mr. chapman. second, i wanted to mention something that two callers ago

had address, the concept of a little-known fact, i am about to let america aware of a little- known secret. the small business owner actually teams with large, multinational companies to get those government contracts. i will hang up and let mr. chapman take it from here. guest: teaming is a mentor protege program. i have to say, i am not a big fan of that. it gets abused their lot. many times a small business can contain a much larger business and be part of a contract. and it works. i was talking to someone yesterday that does that. but there are a lot of abuses. often what happens is the small

business will be used as a tax break so that small businesses appear to be getting the contracts actually going to large businesses. it has positives and negatives. i am not a big fan because of the abuses i have seen. host: republican line, marie. caller: i agree that government contracts should not go to large corporations. should there be more regulation in that regard? guest: -- host: you are just saying that you wanted to be equitable? guest: small-business contracts should not go the fortune 500 corporations. you would find a hard time with getting anyone in america to agree with anything different. host: pamela, good morning.

caller: what effect does free trade have on small business? i have fought for years that that is the biggest issue that we face, it is impossible to compete with foreign labor sources that are charging one fourth what the american worker has to be paid living in this country. i know that it has decimated -- decimated by business. i have been in medical transcription for over 30 years, employing up to 30 people at one time. now i have a workforce of five. every one of those contracts that has been lost to my company has gone to indian based companies. i think that this is what is estimating america. this is what president obama said he would address and he has done absolutely nothing. guest: i am from houston, i grew up in