macguineas. and bloomberg business week bureau chief david welsh talks about assistance to u.s. automakers. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: will that -- well, the house of representatives is due to come into session at 9:00 a.m. today. the house will work on several bills in recess until september. most members will return to their districts to campaign for the upcoming elections. this morning we want to know what you're issues are and what you want to hear from your congressperson and his or her opponents. 2 02 is the area code. what issues concern you most and

what you want to hear about? journal@c-span.org is our e-mail address and you can always send a tweed at c-spanwj, which is our handle. this is from the politico, speaker defends troubled majority.

that is just a bit of the politico article from this morning. and in "the new york times," it is this article. in midterm elections, afghan war barely services. -- surfaces.

again, what are your issues for this election 2010 as your members of congress return home to their districts? we will start off with an independent from atlanta. go ahead, felicia. caller: thank you for c-span. i am calling because i feel it is time for our elected officials to ask what we can do for our country. the long haul of the folks on the gulf side asking for this and that and talking about personal responsibility. but i don't support the wars but we are at war.

so i am curious why no one is asking for a sacrifice at all. we are at war because -- so naturally we will be in debt. when it comes to the litany of issues -- immigration reform, what can we do? our neighbors are coming from our south. they are our neighbors even though they are on the other side of the border. so, how can we adjust to make a more hospitable and humane solution and what do the people have to offer? i am ready to contribute to. and i think our president ran on that kind of, yes we can -- there is we in that and it is time for those of us. host: thank you so much for calling in. another political article. we have all been following the charlie rangel case. but this is on maxine waters. a decision year on waters ethics case. the house ethics subcommittee has completed its investigation

into allegations of wrongdoing by representative maxine waters. our next call comes from fred from virginia on the republican line. what are your issues for election 2010? caller: my issue is a human

being issued and american issue. we need to make some values instead of money, money for everything. mr. rangel is a great example, money is supposed to solve the problems. and my country they say politicians, they don't have father and mother. that means nobody wants to have politicians because it is a dirty job and very bad job. host: what is your country of origin? caller: i and from iran. host: all right, thank you for coming in. -- calling in. the next caller. caller: when is the government going to see that the car makers in detroit reissue all electric cars even though they have the technology already. when are they going to see that

the bow wall street makes good on all of the people that have lost their homes due to foreclosure? all of this public money went to bail out these companies who are doing money to provide services to the american people for jobs to the american people or opportunities to the american people. what is happening here? host: this is another article -- gn aidesove let's ensi testified.

david, peoria, independent line. caller: i think the biggest problem here is the immigration problem. it and facts jobs, the economy, health insurance. it is a number of things. i am from illinois but i am in arizona right now. our militia groups across the country have come down to protect governor brewer and a local police force. yesterday they were beating on the police station and surrounding it and the sheriff had to call in for state police telp. host: would you consider yourself on this issue a one issue person? caller: i think that one issue covers everything. let me know, i believe in helping people and helping your

neighbor. but when they say, illegal or illegal immigrants and all of this other, the first word is illegal. if they come and get in line and everything -- you know, i want a church help organization, a food pantry in illinois, we are willing to help everyone. we just need to know who is here and what is going on. host: thanks for calling in this morning. i want to show you the front cover of "the new york post" this morning. representative rangel it is on the cover -- washed up, is what they say. we will speak to richard sist from "new york daily news" later in the program about the charlie rangel case. this is an "the washington times" this morning.

on the democrats' line, raymond, ky. good morning to you. caller: can you hear me? host: we are listening, go ahead. caller: i would -- have been trying to get this across as somebody for a long time. if you give me a minute, let me explain it to you. host: this morning we are talking about your issues when it comes to election 2010, so if it is not related to that we will have to move on. caller: this concerns me -- i would like to get it to somebody. host: very quickly. caller: i retired from civil service and i had social

security paid into civil sorus -- service and when i retired it took 62% of my social security. there is a bill before congress to do something about that which has never been brought up. have you ever heard about anything like that? host: similar things, but i am not familiar with your case obviously or the actual bill you are talking about, but we appreciate you putting your issue on the table for everyone. we want to know your issues for election 2010. speaker nancy pelosi talk about some of the issues that will be faced an election 2010 yesterday. here she is. >> i said we are going forward protecting the middle class, making progress, never going back. preserving social security. reducing the deficit.

and our centerpiece, make it in america. legislation to ensure that jobs are good paying jobs, created here in america. and we began by repealing a provision in the law that gives a tax break to business for sending jobs overseas. host: the next call, rich in scranton, pennsylvania. a republican line. caller: good morning, sir. the issues that concerns me is, number one, of the economy. the economy especially here in pennsylvania is very bad. scranton, 10.4% unemployed. so that is the number one issue that i would be confronting our representatives with and what they plan to do about it. host: what would you like to see done about the economy? caller: joblessness is the big issue. the stimulus has not impacted on that at all.

you know, the democrats choose to say, if we did not do what we did the employment situation would be worse. i am not going to debate that. maybe, maybe not. but certainly i don't see any plans on the table for making any corrections to the current situation. host: who is your member of congress? caller: that would be casey. the congressman would be chris corny up for election and paul kantor ski. host: what district do you live in? caller: carney's district. host: will you be supporting him? caller: probably not. host: neil on the democrats' line. caller: my issue is, i guess what the other callers, about the economy and things. i think a lot of people are not

really paying attention to getting us out of this recession the right way. no one is really paying attention to history and the way we came out of these in the past. we all know history repeats itself. no one is really truly focusing on how to really bring about -- the changes that our country really needs to do. host: what would your advice on changing or fixing the economy? caller: building of infrastructure with the textile manufacturers and things like that. globalization has hurt us tremendously. we have to cut back on our exports and of importing we are bringing in, you know, those things right there are really hurting us. and we have gotten away from building up america. host: "the new york times" -- republicans blocked a bill to aid small businesses.

james in st. louis on independent line. caller: good morning to you. thank you. it is the national deficit. i believe it is a cancer on the united states of america right now and i would like to ask, how much the think the american public paid in 2009 -- $700 billion alone in 2009 to help repay the national debt of which we did not put a dent in and the iraq war cost about the same so far, $700 billion. would you agree this is a money pit we are throwing our money in? host: what would you like to see done? tax increases, cutting spending, a combination of both? what is this solution -- and we will talk to maya macguineas later in the program. caller: the solution absolutely is an overhaul of the monetary policy of the united states. when you eliminate the federal reserve, eliminate any of these

banking barons that has -- our country the past 30 years. i believe that sets the whole problem -- everything stems from that. host: beatrice, texas. republican minority caller: good morning. yes, i have issues on the election. i would like to say immigration is a big, big problem and we need to fix it. it is causing us a lot of problems here in texas, whether it is being said or not. next, we need to bring back jobs, like the gentleman before him said. we don't have any jobs here. all the stimulus has done is put roadwork up and those people who are working on the roads are people from mexico. when you have to have a second language in your own country to get a job, it is pretty bad. now, we are hurting really,

really bad, so why are our people in washington not listening. we are paying in tons and tons of money. we borrow money to send it to other countries but we got people here hurting really bad. host: the front page of "the wall street journal" computer evidence ties lang -- leaks to soldier. that is on the front page of "the wall street journal." inside "the new york times" it says military suicides hit

record high. colorado, anne on the republican line. caller: i am concerned about primarily the rhetoric on about right -- the right regarding our free-market system. example is the talk abt fannie and freddie mac constantly,

their responsibility for the recession and yet there is a complete lack of discussion. i would love to hear them talk about what the federal reserve did last year with their brand of stimulus. fannie and freddie mac received about $145 billion but the federal reserve bought out $1.20 trillion of, i believe, the private banks' mortgage toxic assets. no one ever speaks about it. and i believe we need to have that dialogue from our conservative friends to get up -- a more full picture of what happened. host: susan, washington, republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. i've got several concerns. i live here in washington state. patty murray is going to be running against somebody -- we are not sure who yet to. but when we have the stimulus

package, the board going to vote for that, i e-mail her along with other friends of mine that i was not supportive of it, and also of the health care package and she email back that well, she understood our thoughts but she was going to go ahead and vote for it anyway because she knew what was best. so i am looking for a representative, for somebody who will listen to the people and vote for what the people want and not tell us what they think we should have. and the second thing, when immigration, i was reading that john mccain and several other people voted that immigrants should receive social security. and my thoughts are, if they meet all of the same criteria as american citizens do, like they have worked 10 years and paid taxes and made all the qualifications and then i think they should get social security, but i did not think they should not have to meet the criteria as american citizens. host: representative kevin

mccarthy, a republican from california, is in charge of recruiting candidates for the 2010 election cycle for the republicans in the house. he is our guest this week on "newsmakers." he talked a bit about election 2010 when we taped the program yesterday. >> and of to get the majority? >> a couple of different things you want to measure. the first thing you want to measure, do you have enough people to run. in 1994 the republicans had 421 districts running. 2006, when the democrats took a majority, they have 420 did. since 1920, the 44 elections we had so far, only six times in history has republicans out- recruited democrats and only one of the times while in the minority. we just broke all records. we have a 430 candidates recruited in 430 districts. that is the most republicans running in the history of the party. a >> previous high point --

>> for rental and 27 in 1996. the uniqueness is we are in a minority so there are more people in the playing field. that changes the game. the difference between this term and -- years ago, for the different seats. the number of seats in play. look at what the democrats did. on the 21st, then holland, democratic chairman, says we will be an office and of every day nancy pelosi said we may have to give up on some people and we may need to tell the now and then they make their buys for tv, all of them are defending democrats, even congressman spratt and skelton who are chairmen of committees. host: that fall into the will air at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. this sunday eastern time. this tweet -- "the new york times" lead

editorial this morning, this is on surveillance and the internet. breaking the promise on surveillance.

how of the "new york times" finishes up in the editorial. new jersey, you're on the air. independent line. caller: i also a congressional candidate in the fifth district. my big issue is illegal immigration. i think we need to return to the tariff system to restore jobs in new jersey. a fair return on the tax dollar. host: you got to turn down the volume on the tv. who is the current congressmen or congresswoman in the fifth district? caller: is sitting congressman

is stopped garretts. i am just sick and tired of liars' -- lacking illegal alien response in congress while people working for a living starved to death. host: albany, new york. joe, democrats. caller: hello. i just called -- i think the republican party is making a sad mistake if they think they are going to be book to take back a senate or house by voting no on everything -- going to be able to take back a senate or house by voting no on everything. they've got another think coming. because most of the people that don't have the jobs are working people. host: from "the wall street journal" this morning. germany regains jobs lost in a recession, is the headline. i want to show you this chart

under the header, you're a's engine roars. engine roars. japan, 5.2%, the u.k., 7.9 percent, and spain, nearly 20%. florida, ed, independent. caller: i just have a comment on the issues in general, and i am hoping maybe there are some politicians out there listening. i think it is high time that we have a politician willing to come out with plans for programs that are not meant to please the people but are meant to fix the problems. host: such as? caller: what i am saying is, everything is party line. they blame this party and they blame that party. i think the american people are sick of hearing this. host: name a problem and named a solution. caller: just like immigration.

democrats plan republicans and republicans plan democrats because we did not get any laws passed or what ever. on all of issues, it is this way. because i issued to c-span. and they blame the other part is constantly. and i think the american people are sick of hearing it. it come up with a plan that works. and just do it. host: "washington post" northrop grumman second quarter profit rose nearly 81%. in "the financial times" this morning --

a couple of more articles and a couple of more calls before we turn our attention to charlie rangel. this is "the default -- "the detroit free press" this morning, a new poll. it says here -- fort worth, texas. jerry on the republican line. caller: i've got a couple of issues. one of them is the issue of the immigration status.

i have listened to all these programs because i have watched c-span for years and years and i listen to the republicans, including john mccain, standing up and say we need to give everybody amnesty and that came right out of his mouth. the thing is, i live in a part of town where a majority of them are spanish and they are immigrants. and i can't say that all of them are bad. they are not. they have made a great improvement on the area, in fact. but the thing of it is, the politicians up there, they have allowed this to happen. this started way back in the 1980's. this is not a new thing. it started back in the 1980's. i can remember that i have three divisions and two were shipped down to mexico. and this was the reagan area. they were doing this handover foot. all of the stuff that has been going on has been progressively going on since reagan. and i don't know why they talk

so great about reagan because he did more to harm this country than any president. it's good from page of "the boston globe" -- kerry says he always intended to pay tax.

the last call an election 2010 is katharine up in conway, new hampshire. caller: good morning. i have a suggestion to getting this country back on track business wise, in all areas. and that is, wall street traders, ceo's of companies and banks, and politicians convicted of white-collar crime shouldn't have the luxury of free food, shelter, health care, and so forth, in jail. instead, when convicted they should serve out their sentences by picking lettuce or working in a chicken assembly line processing 40 or 50 birds per minute. with sentences like these, honesty would quickly be -- and our country would be healthy. host: the front page of "the

philadelphia enquirer" this morning as an article about president obama's. on "view -- "the philadelphia inquirer" this morning as an article about president obama's appearance on "the view." coming up next, a discussion with richard sist from "the new york daily news" on the charlie rangel situation.

>> in the coming week, the senate is expected to debate and confirm elena kagan as the new supreme court justice. look back at the confirmation process online at the c-span video library, all free, every program since 1987. watch what you want and when you want. c-span programming, politics, books, history, is available at any time on c-span radio in the washington baltimore area at 90.1 fm, nationwide serious

excite satellite radio at 132 and iphone and ipad with our c- span radio apps and on c- span.org. now listen on your phone, through a partnership audio now, c-span rate of available anytime, just call. it is free, but check with your phone service provider for any additional charges. c-span radio, even more available on your phone. >> consumer advocate and four time presidential candidate ross neighbor -- ralph nader. he has written 20 books. joy in our three-hour conversation on consumer protection, corporate accountability and political activism with your calls, e- mails, and tweets with ralph

2's book tv. an host: richard sist from "and know your daily news" your story, page two and three -- richard sist from "the new york daily news," your story, page two and three. what did we learn new? guest: that it happened at all. it was a long time coming. more than two years of this investigation and then it finally came to this. what i suspect is that mr. rangel was quite surprised by this, that it reached this impasse, that a deal could not be arranged. i think what happened -- and this is just me -- is that mr. rangel -- and i will slip as to

go along, i will call and charlie because everybody does -- is that when he took an initial hit several months that, and that was about a trip to the caribbean allegedly paid for by some corporations, charlie claimed he did not know about its, that force and to step down as ways and means chairman. and i think what may have -- he may have suspected that the rest of it might go away or might be able to be dealt with. but this investigation continued, and last night he entered his office for the last time after doing some of votes in the evening on the floor, he was still hopeful or still have the thought that there might be some kind of an arrangement. host: to avoid a trial in

september? guest: even now, to avoid the trial. the last thing he said was that his lawyers had stopped talking to the staff, the bipartisan staff, of the committee. host: why? guest: because it was over. from their perspective the trial phase had begun with the reading of the charges. mr. -- from alabama, mr. mccall from texas was adamant about this, that the trial phase is done -- has begun. that mr. rangel was afforded many opportunities to come to some kind of arrangement with the committee -- how much he would pay back, how much he would admit to. mr. rangel was adamant on other grounds that he couldn't

possibly admit to what they wanted. they were adequate -- adamant that the trial phase had begun but the last thing that he left out there, mr. rangel did, was that between here and when it is right now really scheduled to begin, where he would be sitting there and what have what would amount to a trial, the lawyers from the committee presenting the charges against him, much as prosecutors would, charlie, mr. rangel, offered the possibility now -- although claiming that his people would not be doing any bargaining -- that the democrats on the committee might be able to work out some kind of arrangement with the republicans of the committee. host: two quick questions before we go to calls. at the numbers are on the screen, by the way, if you want

to talk to -- about this issue with richard sist from "the new york daily news." my understanding is at this point only the ethics committee can call off the trial. it would take one republicans joining the five democrats to stop the trial phase. guest: yes, they would need one republican, yes. host: water the odds? guest: the other possibility --s point, would be for him to resign. host: any indication that representative rang gold -- guest: none of that we know of. is it a possibility? sure. host: would you be surprised? guest: stunned. host: what was his mood last night when you saw him? guest: it was a roller-coaster. in the morning -- we do these

things -- you end up chasing him down hallways when he moves out of the office. it is an unfortunate thing, but that is the way it goes. before the 1:00 meeting, he popped out a couple of times and went over to vote in the morning and he seemed a little bit ebullient, his mood seemed to have changed a lot from the previous day. then it was all downhill. remarkably for him, he was snapping at us a little bit -- like it, would you guys doing here? and we are saying, are you kidding me? why are we here? come on.

he looked up beat in the morning -- to me, anyway -- and things were going, some last-minute talks between his people and his staff. they delayed the committee meeting for both ostensibly, so they voted and again he came off the floor and he talked to us a little bit, and that is where you see some of the quotes today, that there was no evidence of corruption hear the matter what the charges might say. he was a little bit of the beat and then at the end of the day it was downhill. he began talking -- ms. rangel

had a book about -- never had a bad day cents. it's good this is available, by the way. guest: he said it is not a great day. never heard him say anything like that. host: he seemed to have lost a lot of weight. host: he has. i think so. it is not recent, as i recall. fiscal let's take some calls. richard sist is our guest, "new york daily news." russell, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, fellow countrymen. i would like to pass a message to this country regarding our economy. we have to reverse what former president bill clinton did -- host: tell you what, russell, we are losing you. a bad connection.

and we are talking about charlie rangel. we have switched topics. massachusetts, sam, independent line. are you with us? i hit the wrong button. sorry about that. hanlon, sam, we will get to you. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have just a quick thing i want to say. i am not sure if politicians are above the law or they feel like they are above the law, but i owed taxes. i paid my taxes like i was told by the irs, or else. why are there two different standards? if you are a politician, does it mean you are above the law? you have to pay. host: what about that sense of entitlement -- both, i think it was "usa today" and "the wall

street journal" kind of comment on that, the long term member of congress sense of entitlement issue. guest: a 32-page response that mr. rangel's lawyers put out. but mr. rangel himself in statements he has made recently, one of the things he tries to save -- say, whenever he is charged with, he said, have i made mistakes, yes, but they were not intentional. you can back that back and forth. but there is, and that is his defense. these hundreds of thousands of dollars -- well, i made a mistake. or i did not check. i did not look at the books. what that intentional? this is what he has offered up as a rebuttal. host: flint, michigan. harris, a democrat.

you are on the air. caller: good morning. god bless america in this country. i think rangel actually is being -- it is a witch hunt that started with the running for president of obama and controlling congress. but i feel it is a good thing because now we are going to have to hold every congressman up to a better standard. i think rangel served the country very well. i hate to see this happening to him. but if he has made some mistakes, he has to stand up like any other american. but we should clean house in both parties, republican party, democratic party and who else is running for congress. guest: caller, this is one of the things that came out yesterday and really as this

whole situation has developed, others have tried to say that perhaps not as well as you just did, that -- the thing about mr. rangel is you can't find anybody who doesn't like him, on both sides of the aisle. it was evidenced yesterday even from some of the statements from republicans, that they are pressing ahead with this and one of the things they point out is the low opinion of congress and that something has to be done with it, and whether it is real or an impression, this whole thing of entitlement, that they did not have to play by the rules, that is a big factor in this whole thing. host: your paper has a sidebar story about when you are hearing from his constituents in harlem.

guest: yes. one of the great experiences in life is to walk the streets with mr. rangel in his district. it is quite something to watch people come up to him and start trading stories, and the back and forth, and some of the yelling and joshing, and you get a sense of his long involvement in the district. he knows every street an apartment and those who lives there. in those who has the business on the corner and used to have it before them. and it is quite something. it would be something monumental to see him defeated. host: de think there is a chance he will not one for reelection? guest: slight, but i really

doubt it. he has given no indication. host: florida, victoria, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is ellenton, florida. i feel really, really sad as an american citizen that mr. charlie rangel being on the ethics committee for 40 years? am i right? 40 years. and here is a man the people of this country trusted to do with the work for week, the people of america. i realize he is a human being, very capable of committing san just like the rest of us in this world, you have to come to maturity, and this man was

chosen because of his experience as a congressperson, working for the ethics committee and then trying to be above the law? host: any response? guest: one of the things -- i don't know what the house and all are or how the house and the authority works in florida, but one of the things about the whole situation here, and what really resonates back home, and i don't think would amount to a threat to his reelection, but the thing that resonates back home in new york through all of this is the deals with the rent control apartments. to get a rent-controlled apartment in new york -- i am not saying you would sell your firstborn but you would come close to that to get a rent- controlled apartment in new york city. charlie had four of them.

one of them was used for campaign office. and if anything resonates back home, it is, what is going on here, mr. rangel? host: let's say the house trial plays helped -- plays out, and the result is guilty. what happens at that point? could there be federal charges against charlie rangel, or is this purely a house issue? guest: the thing that has to be -- you really have to remember through this whole thing is that there is nothing criminal here yet. the fbi, the irs, justice department, has not been interested in this. these are violations, if they are violations, that don't amount to even mr. bienick charges. -- misdemeanor charges.

mr. rangel is the third one since the civil war to face charges like this, house member. the other two were cosimo years from pennsylvania and jim traffic halved from ohio. -- ozzie meyers from pennsylvania and jim traficant from ohio. traficant was for bribery and using staff members for personal work and so forth. in those instances, you also had criminal proceedings. nothing like that is facing mr. rangel. and whatever comes out of the committee, it is hard to imagine that it would come up to result in expulsion from congress, as it did with meyers and traficant. but there is that thing in --

what mr. rangel want to go forward with this stigma. host: alabama, sherman, independent. all right, sherman, you know the rules. we've got to come back to you but you have to turn down the volume otherwise you will get a delay. carl, republican, martinsburg, west virginia. richard sist from "the new york daily news" is my guest. caller: watching this show, you would think you were watching a week with you two guys. i think these politicians treat then sells more like royalty than servants of the people. -- treat themselves more like royalty. mr. geithner did not pay his taxes and now he is the top man and obama's administration. why doesn't mr. rangel use of this excuse -- i really did not know how to fill out my taxes. maybe that will work. guest: yeah, i guess charlie

might have wanted to do turbo tax like geithner did although that did not work out all that well, either. yeah -- [laughter] there's the tax issue, so what you do? you just pay back the money and move on? the committee has decided not to. host: let us go to the caller's comment that it seems like a weight. as a reporter, i know there has to be a wall between you and these members, but at the same time charlie rangel is a known for his bonhomie and effervescence. mike said, people like him. is this sad for you to watch this -- like i said, people like him. guest: truth in advertising. do i like mr. rangel? yes, i do. i covered him over the years. nevertheless, here is a this

situation -- and i don't think that you can say that my newspaper has soft pedal any of this. host: here again is page two or three from "the new york daily news." a sorry day for charlie. at and in new york city, democrats line. caller: i just think he needs to step down. i think parliament deserves a lot better. he clearly knew the rules. -- i harlem -- i think harlem deserves a lot better. i think it is incredibly arrogant of him to allow this to go forward to, in binging on the democrats. he needs to man up and do the right thing. host: does he have a primary challenge right now? guest: he has a couple running against him. mr. powell -- 9 host: grandson

of the former congressman? who charlie rangel beat 40 years ago. does he have a chance of winning? guest: still controversial in that district. host: does he have a chance of winning? guest: it does not appear that way. we just have a caller from new york city. one thing to watch for and one thing mr. rangel will be watching, coming of august 8, i believe, is his annual -- mr. randall's annual birthday bash. it will be at the plaza hotel. that is usually something. you can gauge his strength, his support, from that thing. it was a bit ominous, a few supporters of mr. rangel --

mayor bloomberg -- wednesday -- thursday -- said, well, are you going to his birthday party. he said, i don't know -- i have not seen -- but here we are. everybody will be watching that. host: long beach, new york. joe, independent line. caller: i did not know anybody who does not like charlie rangel, but that is not the point. failure to report income, tax evasion, that is not a crime? that is what they got alcohol on but i want to make a larger point. from illinois -- on trial because it -- blagojevich is on trial saying a senate seat was worth a lot of money. charlie rangel making millions working for the government. mayor bloomberg spent $95 million of as own money to hold onto a job that pays $150,000 a year? what is going on here? guest: yes, what's going on?

i think mr. rangel and his lawyers were a bit surprised yesterday at the length and specificity of the charges. in the military -- the term charges and specifications. there would be blank charge. you did x, and specifications would list the details. so, there were 13 charges that were enumerated by the committee. our -- we counted up -- i don't know the committee called them -- , and specifications, and there were 273. i can see what the caller is saying. come on, charlie, what is going on? and there it is. host: minneapolis. steve, republican line. your honor with richard sist from "the leader daily news." caller: thank you for c-span,

appreciate this. i am afraid your guest is talking -- talking about this like a friend who made a mistake. the american public has had enough. john kerry evading taxes, tim geithner, hhs sebelius -- $7,000 penalties, william jefferson 13 years and a pen, maxine waters is under investigation and charlie rangel -- this is draining the american spirit. i am a businessman. i pay taxes. i am a job creator and politicians do this. pelosi was to drain the swamp? you are reporting the wrong story, sir. guest: the caller's points are well taken. as i tried to explain it before, do i personally like charlie rangel? yes, i do. and do i personally -- i am

friends with a lot of people who have made mistakes. but i just have to point to our newspaper, and if you think there is any soft peddling on this you are barking up the wrong tree. host: is there any action taken, the ethics committee meeting at all, or aren't we pretty well through before the actual trial begins? guest: anything official -- there is nothing on the scheduled officially paired as i tried to indicate before -- nothing on the schedule officially. as i tried to indicate before, going behind the scenes -- host: would you be staking out mr. rangel's office? guest: i will be walking across the street right after this to see what may or may not be happening. host: richard sist, thank you for spending some time with us on "washington journal."

one hour left of "washington journal" because the house is coming in at 9:00 a.m. today. . the next thing is that it is very ironic that [unintelligible] and the third thing is this, 230

people in congress are millionaires. 180 of them were not millionaires when they came to congress. how can they take a $150,000 for your job and parlayed it into a million dollar income? host: richard sisk, comments? guest: all the charges being against democrats? host: and african-americans. guest: not quite. a lot of republicans have been hit. if you are from new york we have just had lots of scandals recently. and eric massa just resigned. >> that night -- host: did i hear that vitroo was running for

his old seat? guest: there was a rumor, but he said it was not true. host: richard sisk >> "washington journal" continues. -- host: richard sisk, thank you. ♪ >> consumer advocate and for time presidential candidate, ralph nader, is our guest sunday on "book tv." he has written over 20 books, including a novel. join our 3 our conversation on consumer protection, corporate accountability, and political activism with your calls, e- mails, and twitter messages,

for ralph nader on "book tv." this weekend on a "q&a," joseph campbell looks at 10 of the greatest news events that have been missed reported by the american media. >> the notion was that the women set fire to their bras and wave them around, but my research shows it is not true. >> mix in the media, sunday night on a "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from our studio in new york city, the president of the committee for a responsible federal budget. ms. mcginnis, in the recent testimony before congress chaired by erskine bowles, you called for stabilizing the u.s. dead -- u.s. debt at 60% of gdp.

that sounds like a big number. are we at that point now? guest: historical the our debt has tended to be 40% of the share of the economy. what has happened over the past couple of years we have been hit by a couple of things. budget deficits when the economy was good, then a downturn that drink revenues causing spending to go up on important things. we had to use money to prevent that from going worse. through all of this the debt climbed. right now is about 60% of gdp, which is high compared to historical averages. more importantly, it is headed up words that a fast pace. one of the things that we talked about at the fiscal commission meeting is having some kind of

goal. when we put together budgets in this country we are flying blind. we tend to spend a lot of it. we are not actually headed towards the fiscal target. it is important now that credit markets are looking at the u.s. that we have a real plan to get the debt under control. what i said was bringing it down to 60% would be a starting point, medium term, bring it down significantly farther in the long term. carrying a debt is too high. one of them is that you have a loss of fiscal flexibility, the ability to borrow when you need to. we are carrying a high debt load and are hit with another crisis, which we inevitably will, we will have a much harder time borrowing than we had in the past. host: the government

essentially has two tools for reducing the debt and deficit. how do you see that happening? in your testimony you talked about the long-term political timidity of congress in doing anything. guest: to start, you are absolutely right. there are two ways to do this. raise taxes or cut spending. there are no silver bullets out there. politicians will spend a lot of time looking for the pain free way to get us out of debt. we have waited so long in fact the long term budgets that -- long-term budget problems we always knew about in social security and medicare, driven by the aging of the population, are combined with these medium term problems of borrowing so much. the way that i would describe

it, if you look at the projection for where we are headed down the road we have a congress that is generated by federal spending. spending will go up significantly beyond what we have seen in this country. that said, you cannot take this problem with spending cuts alone. i have tried. we have sat around, looking at the different ways to bring the debt down to 60%. you can be aggressive as possible on spending cuts and you cannot get a reasonable goals. the way that i think about it, you have to do as much as you can, starting with getting rid of outdated and redundant federal programs. you find that there is not that much money there. areas where there are significant savings to be found, hopefully that is an area where republicans and democrats can work together. still, you will not even get close to done. you have to focus on the big

drivers of the problem. one of the problems is the automatic pilot. we do not even spend enough time scrutinizing the programs and budgeting for them. that is what we need to do with the entire budget. after you have done that, there will still be a gap between how much we are spending and bringing in. you have to turn to revenues, doing that by raising taxes in the most efficient or least damaging way for the economy, which will probably involve fundamental tax reform, looking at what we tax, how we tax it, scraping out a lot of the tax expenditures. the tax breaks, targeted credit, deductions, and exclusions. if you can believe it, in a $3.50 trillion budget, we lose $1 trillion in non-collective revenues every year. that would be a great place to start looking for savings.

your first point about the committee of congress is absolutely right, it is unquestionably a politically polarized environment. you cannot do this without both parties cooperating. there really has to be a strong, a political commitment to making changes and staying on track for the credit market. that is one of the big goals, we must assure credit markets that we will get our fiscal house in order, otherwise it is no longer even dramatic to say that we could go the way of greece. we know that we will have some kind of crisis if we do not change sooner or later. politicians may not want to cooperate on the hard stuff, but we have to make changes, otherwise we will find out what a fiscal crisis might actually feel like in the u.s., something that no member of congress or voters should be willing to let this country do.

host: maya macguineas is our guest, head of the committee for a responsible federal budget. phoenix, ariz., please go ahead. caller: good morning. i was listening to the summit budget hearings about one month ago. all of the experts and economists testified in front of the senate hearing. they made it very clear that it was not a matter of either or, it was not simply cutting entitlements or raising taxes, that had to be both and that it could be done proportionately to the rate of growth of gdp, which i think they estimated at 2% to 3%. after listening to that i decided that in terms of voting for which rep, when i would hear

republicans talk about responsible way is that they had to raise taxes and the democrats talking about responsible ways of cutting social security and medicare, i would vote for those people that more on this. i believe that it was jeff sessions from alabama after that senate hearing who made the comment that quite frankly, i have to say i do not have the stomach for this. host: maya macguineas, response? guest: that is such a great call. great to hear. i always think that i am the oddity when i go to cast my vote and i look at who is going to cut spending and raise taxes the most, not usually what voters clamor for. in many ways it makes it hard for politicians to talk about doing the right thing, but it is absolutely right. i think that the public is ahead of politicians here.

there is a change in the country where not only do we realize that deficit and that will become huge problems, but i also think depth voters are willing to have a more sensible conversation about this than what we have had so far. one of the things that will be the most helpful, we are about to go into a contentious midterm election season. while the deficit and the debt will be tough issues, people will be talking about what they promised not to do. which is the wrong direction. if we have people saying yes, i take a blood oath not to cut taxes and i would never touch social security, that is not the problem, without saying what they actually would do, we are going to set this whole process a number of steps backwards. the number of things that we could do, everyone realizes we will not develop a big comprehensive plan before the election but if we could get politicians to sign-on to agreements not to take things

off the table, to acknowledge that different people will have different approaches to getting the data under control and that tough measures will be in order, not to throw a rose and other ideas, presenting alternatives, would that not be the kind of grown-up conversation that we want to have? but bottom line is nearing a caller that says what you just said is so encouraging. it makes me hopeful that we could really turn this situation around, because so many people are saying that we cannot get it done and that congress is broke, i do not think that is true. if they hear the message from voters that they're willing to make tough choices, there is an important message here as well about having crossed that the savings that come from these changes will be used to get the debt under control. that they will get the debt down and stay on track is critical, and if they hear that message from voters i think that the

political message in this country can change where deficit reduction might never become cool, but it is something that politicians know that voters expect and that will be great. host: rob, west point, nebraska, you are on. caller: two things, actually three. [unintelligible] generally when the tax rates go up in the country, [unintelligible] host: what about that issue? growth, spending cuts, tax cuts, can we grow our way out of this situation? i guest: know, we cannot grow at our way out of this situation. it is too big. but we cannot get out with economic growth either. we have to keep an eye on how the economy is moving every difference that of the way. a couple of different things

along the road map of how we get out of here. right now we are still coming out of this economic downturn in a very precarious spot and nobody knows where we are headed. disturbing for all policymakers, it was something we had not seen before for our working lifetime. we did not know how bad things could get. we were hoping that the recovery would stick, but it is not clear that it will. a hard case for someone like me is that deficits are ok sometimes. we just ran startlingly large deficits over the last couple of years, but that is what a person does when you have a recession. you borrow more, coupled with saving. as we continue to come out of this economic recovery, i would say that the last thing that we want to do is suddenly start raising taxes and cutting spending this year.

what we might instead want to do, there might be important stimulus measures that have to continue. something like that might be necessary to keep the economy going, but we cannot do these stimulus programs in ways that over the long term if we decide for the state to grow and keep the economy jam up, there should be other stimulus members on the tax side, we need to pay for them over a longer period of time. extending unemployment benefits, how will you pay for that over five years? temporary payroll tax cuts over the state's, paying for pension liabilities, that would make sense for the economy but we have to have a way to pay for it over the long term. of long run it is a different set of challenges.

when we think about bringing the deficit down and getting the data under control, it cannot simply be an exercise in getting the numbers to add up. obviously it affects people profoundly, but it also affects the economy profoundly, meaning that the choices that we make has an effect on the growth. two examples, we have a budget right now that is very consumption oriented. most of the programs, over 80% of them, are geared towards consumption. very few focus on investment, human capital, or r&d. i would want to turn that on its head, on the links -- funneling spending towards investment and away from consumption, meaning that we rethink the budget with helpful the facts of economic growth in the long term. likewise, when we look at revenues, and i agree with the

comment of the senate budget committee, anyone that looks at this cannot find a way to bring the budget under control without some component of revenues. higher taxes are generally bad for the economy. fundamental reform, broadening the tax base, i am a big proponent of the energy tax. you want to tax more of what you have less of. right now we texting, and work, we want to shift that onto things that are better to tax. fundamental tax reform is a better piece of this. i assume that more and more plants will be coming out of members of congress. it is important that we look at these plans that will have

better effects on economic growth. host: tommy, independent line. caller: taking on taxes, raising taxes, what ever, but we spend billions of dollars per month in iraq and afghanistan, losing all of our young men. no matter how long we stay over there with the u.s. government, be willing have enemies no matter what. we give millions of dollars the other countries because they are cohorts. host: have these wars drained and contributed to the deficit and debt in a significant way? guest: unlike other times that we have paid for wars, taxes have always gone up.

we just did not do that this time. that contributed dramatically to the debt that we are currently in. however, looking forward, that is not with the problem comes from. the problem down the road is without question in the big entitlement programs. social security, medicaid, those are the things that lead to the unsustainable path we are on. that said, defense of security is a great place to start looking at the budget. halthere is an interest in gettg savings out of the defense budget. there are definitely savings to be found, we know about that. it becomes harder and harder to say no. oftentimes members of congress will ramp up the spending in areas beyond the request, which makes no sense, you need an overhaul of security strategy.

what is our role in the world? can we carry the same role in the future that we have in the past given the changes in the economy? you want to look at the waist in the area of the defense budget. you can find huge savings before you even get to whether the war continues are not. more as a defense question that a budget question, i think that defense savings is absolutely on the table. there is significant, significant savings to be found and i think we will make a lot of progress in the budget. what we have seen in the defense department has really given form. most of the national debt is at $13 trillion, the national deficit is at $1.40 trillion. the budget for 2010, $3.55

trillion. lexington, ky. caller: getting in, thank you for c-span. i would like to take exception to the press of deficit funding. the fact is that 10 short years ago, social security and medicare had a surplus. calling the fed makes solutions difficult to find. the american people are not experiments. we can move existing data, it had been known that it would cause a deficit. it is no surprise that it is now in financial trouble.

guest: i beg to differ. if you look at the trusties of the social security program, they were projecting unsustainable, says. , much more than we have a plan to cut revenue, but it does state unequivocably that the trustees and best protections has said that we do not have a plan to pay for these benefits. the result is that there would be a huge gap between what is promised and what is taken in. likewise in medicare, we have always known that health care is growing faster than the rest of the economy and that medicare and medicaid costs are going up faster than other programs in the budget. these were always long-term problems. even when we were running a surplus in the trust fund, it had nothing to do with the fact

that in the long run there was an imbalance. those trust funds, one way that you could get the money to pay for some of them was not nearly enough, the trust fund was exhausted. we always know we have to make changes to social security and medicare, but the problem is that it has not been at our doorstep. but get those trusties reports. they continue to warn that we need to make changes to the program and that the better we do with the better it will be for those involved. the lack of security in terms of not knowing what this will look like down the road for your parents or your kids, it is not the right way to run a program. currently we do not have that with large entitlement programs, so we have to find ways to shore them up, make changes and make sure that they are balanced. host: jim, south carolina.

caller: what amazes me most is that when we are in these times of a crunch, democrats are doing everything they can to give amnesty to illegal aliens, in doing so being eligible for a host of entitlements. if they do not qualify immediately for some of those, democrats will see what is offered in the future. host: illegal immigration contributing to the debt and deficit? guest: for a hot-button topic, i think that people are very concerned on what they are getting from the program. the fact is that most folks here legally and illegally will regularly -- regularly pay into these programs. it is not what is causing the

drain on the programs or the extra demand. in fact if you look at the number is one of the ways to make it easier to deal with all of this are higher levels of immigration, because there would be war -- it would be more workers involved. atopic people will have lots of opinions on. i do think that when you think about jumping to a related topic, social security and medicare, the kinds of things that we want to think about our how to get more people in the work force and keep them there. going forward one of the most important issues will be allowing people to age productively, possibly part time, there are all kinds of ways to loosen up those restrictions, making it possible for workers and employers to stay in the work force longer, helping to take strain of these entitlement programs. lots of people want to work

longer. when it comes to raising the retirement age, which we have to think about, we're all living longer, it makes less sense to spend more time in government -- more time out of working, people are cognizant of not being able to work longer. there is a big difference between working in a think tank and a coal mine. more tailor-made for this modern century, more people are working towards 70, working part-time. there are many changes that we can make that will help the program and help the overall economy by dealing with labor markets and improving them. host: washington, d.c., jack, you are on. caller: the caller four callers ago addressed my issue, but to

take it one step further, you said it was not a huge problem going forward but i hear people talking about more attacking iran as a real possibility physically, which it is not. foreign policy has to rely less on more and relying others on doing our dirt -- dirty work and more on diplomacy and actually being a good world citizens. host: maya macguineas? guest: i think that the budget will start affecting a lot of things it did not as much in the past. in the past when we thought about more, the cost is always an issue. but never the top issue. the top issue was always national security. that will be true going forward, but we have also can cut ourselves physically in a way we have never done before.

right now we are pushing up against the aging of the population. we do not have a plan to get these things under control. let alone to let them be more in the budget for new things. rigging of future wars, a possibility or not, there are also a lot of unmet needs in this country. things that we do not know. there will be needs, new challenges, new opportunities and threats. you want a budget that can respond to those. we have, for budgeting in a short-sighted way, let ourselves in a vulnerable situation where we cannot take advantage of the opportunities or deal with threats in the best way that we would want to because our fiscal position has become such a constraint. showing you that not surprisingly when you are short- term oriented, when you get to the next phase, you have let

yourself in a work stop position. we do not want to keep doing that. we do not want to keep borrowing when a next generation or before that, 10 years from now, we are not able to make the same choices in our budget, making the needs and opportunities, because we barroso much and were not willing to pay for what we stand. that is what it boils down to. we do not want to spend a lot and we want someone else to pay for it, a model that will go on, hurting the economy, the standard of living, and future generations. whether it is wars or other things we have to link those more towards responsible budgeting. host: we have one final twitter, beating this that deficit problem we must return to a divided government with a republican congress with a democrat in the white house. as bill clinton. is there any proof that this system has worked better for

reducing the deficit? guest: as a political independent i do not care much about which party wins or does not. i think that a divided government has proved helpful at in the past. everyone in the congress needs responsibility to approve the fiscal situation. everyone in washington right now is informed enough to maintain the challenges that we face, divided government might turn out to help that. the big question will be what the top issues are in this election. we know that fiscal issues will be one of them. what kinds of responses get out there? i keep my fingers crossed, basically, the people would be willing to talk about the issue productively rather than getting into a fight over the things that it will money to do. host: maya macguineas is the president of the committee for a responsible federal budget. and you for being an "the washington journal" from new

york. the president is headed to auto plants today, we will be going to detroit next with david wells from bloomberg. ♪ >> in the coming week the senate is expected to debate and confirm elena kagan as the next supreme court justice. look back at the confirmation process online at the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. c-span programming. politics, books, history, is available anytime on c-span radio in the washington baltimore area at 90.1 fm, nationwide on satellite radio channel 132, and on your iphone and ipad with our c-span radio

app, now listen on or phone as well. c-span radio is available any time, 202-626-8888. it is free, but check with your service provider for additional charges. c-span radio available on your phone. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in detroit, david welsh, the detroit blue -- detroit bureau chief for bloomberg news. what is the president doing in detroit today? guest: visiting a couple of plants. visiting where they make the jeep grand cherokee, a chrysler plant. after that he will be going out where they're making the new electric car, the chevy volt. the main purpose for his investment -- visit is to tell

the country about the auto business, talking about the disaster avoided and jobs that are saved. a big pitch for what they did to save the auto companies. host: what kind of state does the u.s. currently have in gm and chrysler? guest: they have essentially given control of general motors over to the board of directors. they have a 51% stake, about $41 billion. they have a much smaller stake in chrysler. the united auto workers take care of the health care trust. minority owners in chrysler, big investments in general motors in

their financing arm. the $84 billion that they tied up in to the auto industry. host: are you seeing an uptick in auto production in detroit? more optimism there right now? guest: yes, there is. remember, the industry and the figures coming out from the obama administration today, the industry lost 344,000 jobs coming up to last year's crisis. since then 55,000 auto jobs have been created, and a part of that is even though the economy is still pretty weak and the job market is pretty bad, it is better than it was last year. we were on pace to sell last year 10 million to 11 million cars. depending on who you talk to, it could be a 12 million vehicle market this year, historically

not great, but compared to last year it is not have bad. all three u.s. carmakers, including chrysler, are making money. chrysler only on an operating basis, but they are all in much better shape. gm and chrysler did not owe as much money to everyone. host: in "the detroit journal" this morning, "trade talk is taboo. no talk on the free-trade agreement that the administration is working on." guest: probably not. they call a motorcade earlier, going to be kind of a promotional visit where he talks about looking at the jobs he has saved and vehicles created, talking about the investments that they made it in a small startup company, elektra cars and green vehicles, purely promotional.

host: david welch is our guest, the detroit bureau chief for bloomberg business week. we are talking about federal assistance for auto companies. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. however, we have set aside a fourth line this morning, we want to hear from auto workers. if you want to call in to talk about your concerns and questions with david, 202-628- 0184 is the number for you to call. very quickly, david welch, you recently wrote an article that there is a chance that general motors could be worth more than ford as an entity. when is the new general motors going public? guest: they are expected to file next month. that means that they would actually start to sell the stock in november.

general motors, if you base their value on the bond trade, there are bonds that do trade and it is worth about $53 billion. depending on where they are trading, you are looking at a little less than $40 billion. they are currently worth more as a liquid investment, which makes sense as they are a bigger company that is now making money. guest: before we go to calls, yesterday president obama was on "the view" and he talked about the auto industry. >> restructuring the auto industry. there were lots of complaints about that. we have been bailing out the auto industry for years asking for nothing in return. we finally said that you restructure and as a consequence you do not go through liquidation. unit -- you now have all of those u.s. auto companies showing a profit, hiring 55,000

workers. we are going to get all the money back that we invested in those car companies. the best thing is that we are creating entirely new clean energy, clean car technology around advanced batteries and what not that will make as a world leader. host: for democrats, 202-737- 0002. , and york -- host: david welch , and your reaction to what the president had to say? [no audio] host: it looks like we have lost david welch's audio. we will see if we can fix it while we move onto a phone call. pauli, mansfield, of vayo. -- ohio. caller: i have been trying to call for ever and just got through. i am a retiree for general motors. what i wanted to say about the company, i am thinking that we talked about the government owning 60%.

my idea is this, because i am a retiree, i am afraid that if the republicans get back in there in 2012, i really believe that general motors will be completely wiped out. this is what they wanted to do in the beginning. they do not want an american auto company and they definitely do not want general motors because of the union. host: can you quickly tell us what you did at general motors, what you build, and if your benefits changed at all when general motors went into bankruptcy and put down majority ownership. so i work ought -- work at a plant in mansfield. people that hear me know what i'm talking about. i was a production worker. 10 years ago before i retired i worked as a union representative. i have since retired. i was afraid during the bankruptcy, really nervous.

but i did not have anything change. now every time that i get my pension check i look at them to see if anything has changed. so far for me, nothing has changed. host: thank you for calling in. you heard her comments about the fear of republicans taking over. any political comments from you? guest: i do not see what the republicans could do at this point. many of them opposed the bailout initially, but now that the government caused money is now in and general motors is paying back the equity portion of it, already having paid back a much smaller debt portion of it, the die is cast. the government is going to keep slowly paying it back over time. not much that any politician to do from a control standpoint to hurt the company. host: is the gm stock ticker going to be gm again, or is there a new one? guest: they have not said yet.

i would assume that it is, but it is sort of funny, when gm was delisted going into bankruptcy last summer, there was a company in canada with a ticker symbol called gm, some sort of mining company. i would assume that it would go back to that, sure. host: road island, independent line. you are on with david welch of bloomberg. caller: just a quick comment for the auto industry and beyond, essentially what we have done in the united states, we have shifted to a service based economy. until we get back into manufacturing, putting sprang back -- putting strength back into our workers in wages, we will continue to slip. the bottom line is that if you cannot afford to be -- to eat at mcdonald's when you were there,

where do we go? guest: that was one of the overriding beliefs of the obama administration, when they were weighing saving general motors and chrysler, they had seen the manufacturing base in this country eroding over a long period of time. they sort of said that enough is enough. i remember interviewing one of the auto task force officials who said that his belief was that one of the ways that you create economic value was to take raw material and turn it into something valuable. and that that is the real value added. that was what they were really trying to do. instead of watching most of the industry go down the drain or be liquidated, especially at the time they really thought that letting the toward the down, two of the biggest companies -- too

big a blow when the economy was so weak. what the administration was thinking at the time, when they -- agreed to do this. host: i am "the new york times" this morning there is an op-ed about the volt. i know the president is headed there today. "the general electric electric lemon. is the kind of car that opponents of the bailout worried that the government might order them to build. there were already committed when they entered the bankruptcy. as the obama task force reported in 2009, it would likely be too expensive to be commercially expense -- successful but they did not cancel the project." guest: he makes a good point. the car is not going to make

money. gm has not said that but the economics just do not work out. the toyota pre as did not make work -- make money at first i their. -- prius did not make money at first either. you start to get the parts cost down, advertising costs, you have to start somewhere with these kinds of technologies. that is just a fact of technology and new products. people say that it should be killed because the company should not do anything that does not provide a quick return to the taxpayers. this is not a political statement, but frankly i do not think even make those judgments for a company. if the company is going to return the investment to the taxpayers, you have to let the company make the return decisions. you have to trust them and that they know what they're doing and

let them do it. if you do not trust them and the decisions that they make, you find someone else to run the company, but you do not try to micromanage from afar. host: what happened to that sets the prototype that appeared a couple of years ago? guest: a lot of people did like the production car. i think that they have watered down, but that happens a lot. they are not hemmed in by manufacturing constraints or having a better head room or shoulder room, something like that. you start out with a concept car with these vehicles and you start pushing it back into something even market can easily manufacture. design elements go out the window. it happened here and with other cars. host: david, burlington, wisconsin, go ahead, you are on with david welch.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to point out one glaring problem with of manufacturing in the united states, many of our jobs were bled for the single reason of health-care costs. there were just crushing. crushing the auto industry. that is one comment that i would like to make. i am also very concerned about the government refusing to adjust cafe standards to a acceptable levels. when president obama came in he made it a point to change the standards, which i also think hurt the auto industry. i often remarked that the asian corporations were beating us in

cafe standards, mpg standard across the board. almost every vehicle that they make, there mpg was better than ours. host: david welch? guest: that was true for a long time. not so much anymore. general motors even use this in an advertisement, comparing their vehicles to toyota, making sure they had better fuel economy comparing engine for engine. over all of you would see the japanese and korean companies with better fuel economy as a fleet because they are not in a large pickup as tv business. pickup trucks are still is that -- still a staple in agricultural economies, even as the suv goes away. in the overall basis, he is right. vehicle to vehicle is more of a dog fight than it used to be. making comments about health care, that was taken care of to

a certain degree with bankruptcy, trust funds that pay retiree health care trust funds and pension benefits. it will not be quite a big drain that used to be what it costs $600 per car in monthly health care costs. host: mesquite, texas, democratic line. go ahead. caller: i have two comments, as well as one for your previous guest, she did not mention that social security is solvent until 2039. when people say that it is going bankrupt, it makes me mad. as far as general motors, car companies and all of those bailouts, we should have let it go. we are in a free market economy. the government does not own 60% of the company in a free market. i am 70 and i have never seen it

in my lifetime but it will happen again because it is still not structured right. we should have let it go. host: david welch? guest: the comments that the administration made at the time was that the amount of jobs lost, more than the auto industry in the towns and places that rely upon these companies or economic benefit, it would have been pretty great as well. there were studies done by different analysts showing the total damage to the economy if they just let these companies go under. it looked like it would be a huge sum to pay either way, the companies would be getting nothing back only paying social and unemployment benefits for a long time. all things equal, they might as well save it and have a chance in getting the money back. that is the way that they look at it. they will get some portion of it back. whether or not it all comes

back, that is the big question. they will get a chunk of it, and if they do not there will probably be a smaller cost to save the entire industry. once they know what that is, was it worth it or not? probably will be. host: has anyone had a chance to talk with rick wagoner, the former chairman of gm? what is he doing these days? guest: he just joined the job -- joined the board of "the washington post" co., i think, but he has not been publicly saying anything, he has been under wraps. i have not seen him quoted anywhere. host: does he still lived in the detroit area? guest: he still has a house here, but i think he also has a home in virginia and one of the carolinas. i had heard that he had been around town at a local country club, but i hadn't seen him myself. host: detroit, republican line, you are on the air.

caller: i have a comment and a question. why was the bankruptcy filed in new york, as opposed to michigan, which had preferential jurisdiction? secondly, what is the long-term benefit to the auto workers, unions, retirees, and families? relief for a buyout or a payout [unintelligible] i have a friend that works for one of the auto industries. they have shown no hardship, believing that the government allows the auto industry to file bankruptcy. some of the workers should definitely get some type of relief. i think that the bailout would be used if the funds had been

appropriated to the autoworkers. host: we will leave it there. thank you. david welch? guest: not sure what he meant about the harassment part of it. but the relief that the administration was trying to give to these workers for extended unemployment benefits, recently approved, just trying to save these jobs. he is jogging my memory on why they had chosen new york as a venue for the bankruptcy. if i recall, i think it was that the new york judge had been a bit more favorable to what they were trying to do with it the bankruptcy over other districts. i think in any kind of legal case there is an art to picking the right venue. for their purposes, anyways, i must have picked the right one because general motors was out of bankruptcy in 39 days.

very cleanly done, the company got out of bed -- out of that and are now making money. host: silver lake? go-ahead. caller: i wonder, this cash for clunkers and this other stuff, nothing more than a band-aid fix. i do not think it has helped us a great deal. the electrical cars, stuff like that, there are many ways when it comes to those cars, i was wondering if the infrastructure, bridges and stuff like that, would be able to handle that weight? will the electorate coatbridge be able to withstand these surges? is it practical to have anything like that? host: what kind of work do you do in the auto industry? guest: -- caller: i am retired now, but i used to be part of quality-control with general

motors. host: thank you. guest: electric cars do have very heavy batteries, but as far as taxing the roads, volt is still much lighter than many suv's and other vehicles on the road. he does bring up an interesting point about the power grid. at the small sales they are looking at with at the electric cars and hybrids coming out the need charged, it will not be very taxing on the grid yet. but if you look out long-term, hundreds of thousands potentially being sold every year, perhaps it could be. it is something that people talk about right now, but the real taxing of the grid is not really a big concern just yet. host: the president is going to leave at 9:30 a.m. this morning from a lot of the white house to

head to michigan. scheduled the land of about 11:00 in detroit. he is going to do a tour of the chrysler plant, with some remarks and the general motors plant and more remarks there, leaving detroit by 3:00 this afternoon. baltimore, jimmy, a democrat. hello. caller: by m calling in to try to get an idea -- i am calling in to try to get an idea -- a lot of people in america do not realize that the american government has been helping general motors, chrysler, and even afford in terms of energy, they gave ford a loan for $6 billion. nissan also got a loan from us, a japanese company got a loan from us, around $2.4 billion. a lot of americans do not realize that we have helped out

an industry that has been instrumental in creating and maintaining our middle class for the last 100 years. a lot of people do not realize that companies like volkswagen are actually owned, or partially own, by the government, and that volkswagen is actually owned by an arab nation. host: david welch, any comments for that caller? guest: he brings up a good point. for a long time one of the primary shareholders of both white and has been in germany. france needed a bailout in the 1990's and the government owned a piece of apple company as well. this is exactly what the administration was getting n. when they bailey's companies out, the middle class was created in the u.s. by the manufacturing economy and have been under pressure as the manufacturing sector has been under trouble for the past few decades.

they wanted to put a stop to that. his information is pretty good. host: david welch, bureau chief for bloomberg business week up in detroit. thank you for joining us to talk about the president's visit and held for the auto industry. the house of representatives is coming in in about one minute or so. this is their last day before the recess before september. they will be working on several different bills today, including a bill to protect whistle- blowers in the offshore oil and gas industry. it will be one of the things they're working on, just to let you know that "the new york times" is reporting that the u.s. economy expanded at a 2.4% annualized rate in the second quarter, slowing significantly from a revised 3.7% rate of the previous few months.

this report just came out this morning at 8:30. we also want to let you know that on "book tv" this weekend is our live, in that program on from noon until 3:00 p.m. on sunday. ralph nader is the in depth guest, the author of about 20, co-author of about 20 books, including his first, "unsafe at any speed, closure -- ," leading to general motors taking one of their cars off the road. here is the house of representatives. enjoy your weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] . the speaker: the house will be in session. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: o god, at times it seems you have rejected us.

our defenses have broken down and we feel vulnerable. calm and renew us with your spirit. your rock is split open. you let some of your people suffer hardships. others seem drunken on fine wine. but you have warned those who fear you. there is no escape before the judgment fall. deliver those who are dear to you. save them with your powerful right hand. answer with the word spoken from your holy sanctuary. the memorials built on the past speak of your victories. now, you need the cooperation of your people. so once again with your help, they may do valiantly, and you, our god, will prove victorious and receive the glory both now

and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announced to the chamber her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from maryland, congressman kratovil. mr. kratovil: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. >> madam speaker, today i rise to ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the

accomplishments of the salisbury alumni chapter of kappa alpha chi fraternity. this year marks 20 years of dedication to the youth of salisbury, maryland, by providing them with a positive outlet through their summer basketball league. mr. kratovil: the co-directors of the basketball league are bruce wharton and tom van landinghan. they have a program that keeps children off the street when schools are closed. the league started for kids on the west side of salisbury and over the years have shown numerous children the possibilities life has to offer. while basketball is the hook, they also strive to show kids the positive side of life by surrounding them with examples of positive male and female role models. bruce and tom plan seminars and everything from avoiding the temptations of avoiding a gang to good eating habits. their league is free to all children and includes children from ages 10 to 18. they play monday through

thursday evenings, four games per night, and a recent expansion has allowed students from nearby cities and states to form teams and play in the league as well. kappa alpha psi is an example of how to give children the support and guidance they need through sports. i commend them on this milestone anniversary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized to address the house. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, on wednesday i highlighted the significant tax increases that are heading toward hardworking americans at the beginning of next year. families, married couples and parents are going to be paying more taxes. washington liberals are planning to reinstate the marriage penalties and cut the child tax credit in half. cutting the child tax credit in half from $1,000 to $500 per child will cost the average

american family around $1,033 in higher taxes in 2011. reinstating the marriage penalty will cost an average of $595 for each family in 2011. in these tough economic times raising taxes will eliminate jobs. it is time for washington liberals to stop passing policies that penalize families and start passing incentives that promote job creation. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker, our current tax code is riddled with loopholes for big multinational corporations. many industries, especially those with high-paid lobbyists, get special tax breaks, many of

which actually reward companies for sending jobs overseas. the sire cues post standard pointed out these breaks cost us up to $123 billion a year. now, most businesses employ hardworking citizens and keep the economy afloat. where are the tax breaks for them? instead, they pay one of the highest tax rates, 34%, simply because they are american businesses. mr. maffei: we're putting our american businesses at a worldwide advantage while rewarding companies that build factories in china and mexico. mr. speaker, the bill that i've introduced this week will eliminate the irresponsible tax loopholes and use the money saved from that to lower the corporate tax rate by a third. that would help create millions of manufacturing jobs and other jobs here in america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the federal government has decided some people are more special than others. the administration thinks the wall street elites are special. the big banks and the big auto industry, well, they're really special and too big to fail. but the administration has decided that the blue collar workers who work on the oil rigs just aren't special. they don't want handouts like the special interest big shots got. they just want their jobs back. but the administration not only will treat these workers special, the administration just took their jobs away because of the offshore drilling moratorium. now these american jobs are headed to brazil, libya and to egypt. the drilling moratorium is not based on scientist. it's arbitrary. two courts have so ruled. i don't see anyone wanting to close all the roads down for people dying on the roads. the offshore workers should get

their jobs back, but that's not going to happen anytime soon because it's only special treatment for special folks and they're just not that special and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to join all of america in celebrating 75 years of a bedrock promise to our seniors, to our retirees of social security. that's right, 75 years of social security, a promise from one generation to the next generation. in this country, six in 10 seniors rely on social security for more than half of their income. over six million children, nearly one in 10, receive part of their family income from social security. i was one of those young people when my father was disabled. i and my siblings received social security to help us continue to support our family in a real time of need.

it really is one promise from one generation to the next. now, there are some on the other side of the aisle who want to privatize social security. they put social security into the stock market and maybe we'd face a year like we faced in the last couple of years and retirees would lose a third or more of their income. but that's not the promise that we make from one generation to another. and so this summer i and my colleagues are going to be talking about social security. i'll be doing it this weekend at a senior forum out in prince george's county in maryland. promise from one generation to the next generation, it's a promise that democrats plan to honor. it's a promise we make to the american people and we'll keep that promise no matter what our republican colleagues try to do. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized to address the house. >> mr. speaker, you know once again this morning my democratic colleagues are trying to scare this country.

mr. sessions: in fact, the facts of the case are as a result of the economic downturn of this country because of high taxes, more rules and regulations, more people are unemployed in america today than sense the great depression. that is what will kill social security. republicans are not interested in killing social security. they're interested in america having a vibrant economic output. they're interested in people being employed and being able to take care of their families. and so perhaps the democratic message will be to scare seniors and scare people about what republicans would do to social security. let's get it right, republicans want to make sure that we have a vibrant economy, we are for social security, we support social security. i'm disappointed that the democratic agenda is going to be that we heard about today to scare seniors about their future. i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. shea-porter: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. shea-porter: some say social security won't be there for them. we should scrap it now, privatize social security. they are wrong. social security is critical for those who depend on it. it's essential for the families of loved ones who needs disability insurance. it's essential for our senior citizens who paid their whole life into a system so they would have a safety net when they need it most. however, social security is not just a retirement benefit. it's also an insurance program. if a spouse or parent of a child dies, social security is there for his or her widow, widower or child. this is not a retirement system for seniors. it's an insurance safety net. the young people need to know that social security is there for them and can be there in

the future just as it was for generations and for our seniors today. however, we must defend social security from some republican efforts to privatize funds and gamble it on wall street. we must protect and strengthen social security, not dismantle it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized to address the house. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, june 30, 2010, will mark a significant date in the history of our country. on that date in mobile, alabama, the honorable w. edward lockett, became the 57th bishop of the acme chump. bishop lockett has been a longtime stall wart in the houston area. he's demonstrated what being one's keeper is all about. he's been his brother's keeper, and i'm honored to say that i have had a flag flown over the

capitol of the united states of america to celebrate this great historic occasion for the c.m.e. church for many of my constituents. i would close with this, bishop lockett. we thank you for what you have done not only for the houston community but what you have done in the united states of america. i hope and pray that you will continue to do god's work. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1574 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 229. house resolution 1574. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3534, to provide greater efficiencies, transparency, returns, and accountability in the administration of federal mineral and energy resources by consolidating administration of various federal energy minerals management and leasing programs into one entity to be known as the office of federal energy and minerals leasing of the department of the interior, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and

amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. . it shall be in order to consider as original will for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute the rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order

except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each amendment may be offered overwhelm in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment. and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. all points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on natural resources or his

designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 3, upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 5851 to provide whistleblower protections to certain workers in the offshore oil and gas industry. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the amendment printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions of the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended to final passage without intervening motion except one. one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and labor. and two, one motion to recommit with wore without instructions. -- with or without instructions.

section 4-a, in the engrossment of h.r. 3534, the clerk shall, one, add the text of h.r. 5851 as passed by the house as new matter at the end of h.r. 3534. two, assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment. and three, conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment. b, upon the addition of the text of h.r. 5851 to the engrossment of h.r. 3534, h.r. 5851 shall be laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for one hour. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the

record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. pingree: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, house resolution 1574 provides for consideration of h.r. 3534, the consolidated land energy and aquatic resources act of 2009. under a structured rule, and h.r. 5851, the offshore oil and gas worker whistleblower protection act of 2010 under a closed rule. mr. speaker, april 20, 2010, became a day that will live in history as one of the worst environmental disasters in decades. when explosion and fire ripped through the deepwater horizon, the first priority was saving the lives of the crew. sadly, for 11 men it was too late. as the oil flowed out of the well and b.p. unsuccessfully tried to stop it, the nation watched.

captivated by the story and untold damage to gulf coast communities. we learned a new language. the language of the offshore oil and gas industry. terms like blowout preventer and top kill became common words to the american people. to new shows, and on the house floor. -- news shows, and on the house floor. the evening news was filled with oil-coated beaches, and fish hemen who were afraid their way of life was slipping away. today as we debate these two very important bills, i wonder why it has taken us, congress, so many years to act on the issues we are taking up today. the problems and challenges facing the management of our resources like offshore oil and gas are not new. in 2007, before i was elected to this body, chairman rahall recognized that we needed to reform the dysfunctional system that allowed b.p. to run the deep water horizon rig without regard to the safety of their workers or the health of the environment. additionally, the ideas behind the clear act are not new.

they are commonsense reforms that should have happened years ago and maybe if they had happened the workers on the deep water horizon would still be alive. and the gulf would not be soaked in oil. mr. speaker, we need to continue responding to the disaster in the gulf and not forget the catastrophic environmental damage has been done. we need to clean up and repair the gulf, to hold b.p. accountable for its oil spill, to enact stronger environmental, technological, and response standards. to conserve our natural resources and invest in american clean energy future. but we must also remember that in addition to cleaning up the mess, repairing the damage, and cracking down on big oil companies, we also have to get serious about ending our dependence on oil and creating new sources of clean energy. if we had a clean energy economy powered by wind and solar and tidal power, we probably wouldn't be here having this discussion today. frankly, it's almost impossible

for me to imagine what would have happened if my state, the state of maine, had experienced a massive oil spill that polluted the gulf of maine. it's almost impossible for me to imagine the devastation to our fishing families, our tourism, and our beautiful coastlines if millions of gallons of crude oil began washing offshore. but it is possible for me to imagine the same gulf of mape with wind turbines, that have good-paying jobs, without the risk environmental disaster. today we are considering two bills that will help address some of our most egregious problems. this bill will provide protection for whistle blowers who alert the government to dangerous violations of federal law. nobody should be forced between -- to choose between his or her job and reporting unsafe conditions. it will also improve the leasing process, making sure all companies follow the environmental and safety rules and ensuring royalties are paid

on all oil drills or spills. the clear act reorses the department of the interior to provide -- reorganizes the department of the interior to provide better organization. the act eliminates conflicts that arise when the same agency in charge of the environmental review of leases, issuing leases, and make sure the rig holders are in compliance. and then turns around and collects royalties from these same companies. the disaster in the gulf makes it clear that we should be working to transition our economy to a clean energy future. investments in clean energy will help recover our economy and will help supporting renewable energy projects like offshore wind will strengthen the economy and help create good jobs that can't be shipped overseas. i am glad that language is included in the bill that will reform royalty collection. i am proud of the work that we have done on this issue and i thank chairman rahall for working with me on language included in this manager's amendment that will guarantee

that b.p. pays royalties on every drop of oil spilled in the gulf. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: good morning, thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you. here we are, mr. speaker, today, brand new day, 35th time this congress that i have handled a rule and once again another closed rule. closed rule. in fact,