and the representative from the national association of manufacturers about exports. later, we begin a week-long series about energy issues. we outlined ways of constructing energy-saving homes. "washington journal" is next. . .

host: the tax plans would be skewed and there will be lower taxation. for an america of ordinary means, lower taxes would be outweighed by other changes. the plan replaces the tax exemption for employer-provided health plans. it is a good idea in principle but the projections are too optimistic. caller: i think we are going to

have to pay more taxes to overcome our deficit. we should not prevent the tax cuts. i am concerned and someone will have to convince me that the tax revenue that would be generated from making those particular cut to expire would create jobs. host: could this trigger a double-dip recession?

caller: i don't think that would be the case for the top 2% or 3%. america will be investigating investing in manufacturing overseas. host: let's go to elizabeth on the democratic line. will you pay higher taxes? i will put you on hold we will get the producer back on with you and maybe we can come back to your phone call.

we will go back to elizabeth on the democratic line, go ahead. are you willing to pay higher taxes? caller: yes, i am glad to do separate i think everyone will benefit from it. i would like to know how british petroleum got the contract to supply our military with all the fuel for hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

host: are you willing to pay higher taxes? caller: yes, i am. i don't know how much we pay but we are on the lower end of the higher income. i believe and i am willing to pay. the billionaires' need to pay higher taxes. we are doing well and i think we

should contribute.

caller: you just need to go online and you will see. there has not been a republican president that has helped. there is a tax system that is why you see jimmy carter who had a bad system of government especially when the economy was going down, he paid down 3% of the debt further has been no republican president. you can go back to president nixon did he paid about 1%.

he was kicked out of office. mike republican friends say they care about the deficit even though they cannot define what a deficit and a debt is. even though they care about the deficit, this is when you pay more taxes. host: john painter, the minority leader in the house -- johnbehner was asked yesterday about tax cuts. >> you can't raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy without risking a double dip in this recession. president obama's favorite republican economist cannot

several weeks ago and made it clear that raising taxes at this point in the economy is a very bad idea. >> tax cuts are not paid for, is that correct? >> i am not for raising taxes on the american people in a weak economy. >> our tax cuts paid for not? >> listen, you are trying to get into this washington game and they're funny accounting. you cannot get the economy going again by raising taxes on those people who we expend to create jobs in america. if we want to solve a bunch of problems, we have to have a healthy economy and we have to get our arms around all runaway spending that is going on in washington. host: robert, of the republican line, in nevada. caller: i don't think we should

raise taxes. obama got us into this situation and a is so damn smart, pardon my french, if i had a son or daughter and they were going to go to harvard, i would shoot both of them. he is the worst president we ever had. and i think we ever will have. that lady was talking about making $200,000 per year, the most i ever made in my life and i am 77 years old is $46,000 per year and that is including my social security and the little in, i have. that i get every three months. host: are you on social security now? caller: yes, these people don't

have to depend on social security and many people depend on social security and they make may be less than $500 per month per those are the ones that we need to help. welfare is way out of line and so is also security. so security -- a social security is set up for people who need it when they get into retirement age. host: there is talk of trying to save money and tackle the deficit by raising the retirement age. you are 77 but if they had raised the age when you were around 60 -- when did you retire? caller: i retired finally and i took an early retirement. in 2007.

caller: this country is truly falling apart because of too many people not paying enough taxes. host: hang on the line because i wanted your thoughts on this piece.

caller: i'm sure they were paying more before the bush tax cut. and before the reagan tax cut. i think we need to repeal all of those that go back to 1950 rates were the top 1% are paying 90% in taxes if they don't take all

the deductions they are offered. and never pay those kinds of taxes because everything is structured differently where they can take these deductions. most of it has to do with reinvesting in their own business. host: a little more from this piece this morning to get your reaction.

that is in the "the wall street journal"this morning. our republican is next. go ahead. caller: i worked for the government for 30 years. what little i draw in social

security -- i pay $167 medicare tax that as per month. a pay over $4,000 for health insurance. obama says he will do all this. the people voted for him but if even keeps one promise, we would not have this. i am tired of paying taxes. host: independent line, caller: bike make significantly more money than the president is talking about and i would be happy to pay more taxes.

we cannot start closing the department of education and deny students' college education to put the country further behind. that does not make sense. host: what do you do for a living? caller: i have my own company. if i felt someone could increase my income, i would hire them, in respect of of taxes. host: your listening when we read that last piece? caller: yes, if i could increase might net income by hiring someone and i had to pay higher taxes, i would pay the higher taxes. i don't know what that dilemma is. host: it sounds like it is not only higher taxes, it is higher taxes and a cost him more to

employ people and in this economy where he cannot sell more, he is not hiring because what would he spend money he has to hire more people when it costs him more money and his sales have not gone up? caller: in 40 years, i have never found where if i am providing value to the marketplace i cannot sell something. is the value of what he is providing substantial enough for people to pay for it is perspective of what he pays in taxes? that is a totally illogical argument host: what do you think about the argument that if businesses have some certainty about where things are headed whether it is taxes or health care or energy costs, then they will take this money they are keeping on the sidelines and reinvested into the economy? caller: that is probably fair.

the money is being courted in large corporations. ho arded in large corporations. ba ba

caller: the money that was thrown away in the iraq war and on the hearings showed how bundles of cash or unaccounted for during the iraq war. the bush tax cuts were unfounded and people are not well informed. that gentleman from nevada said president obama is doing a poor job.

the republicans really did honestly get us into this mess we are in. how can we expect anybody whether it is president obama or a republican president, how can we expect anyone to get us out of this mess without giving the president more time to undo the horrible the fed ponders next to prepare for removed. a disappointing jobs report has caused speculation. the fed's most dramatic move would be to purchase new mortgage back securities or treasury bonds to lower interest rates keep more but such an initiative is staunchly opposed by inflation hawks on the open market committee. far more likely, the bank will take a middle ground

jesse on the republican line, good morning. would you pay higher taxes? caller: i do not want to pay more taxes. people in this country pay high enough taxes. host: how much do you pay in taxes? caller: not that much. i have been retired for several years. while i am not paying so much myself, there are other people just paying taxes and we just keep coming up with other

things to that, stimulus package, other things like that. somebody has to pay it back. it appears that the people who vote on these bills that go to the president, these kinds everything that they send him, it does not make a difference when it is. not all it is doing is adding more money and the taxpayer will have to pay it back. >> yes today, two former fed secretaries spoke on cnn. roblin rubin had this to say about the next move for the economy. >> i would stay, roughly

speaking, on the same fiscal track. we do have deficits, which is affecting demand. >> so you would not do a major second stimulus? >> no, we could run the risk that it could be counterproductive in treating counter-certainty. at the same time, i would try to put in place a serious beginning of debt reduction that would take effect in the specified future. it would not take effect right now, when the economy is still vulnerable, but if you could do it, and it was credible, and it was real, that would do a lot more confidence. host: robert rubin talking about what is next for the economy.

he journal" -- denton, texas. robert on the independent line. aren't you willing to pay higher

taxes? caller: i am disabled, so no, but if i could work, i would pay higher taxes. i fought for this country, and i believe for this country. i lost two nephews in the iraq war during the bush administration. like the other person who was disabled, there is money that is missing, and unaccountable from the bush administration that we should not have to make up. host: and gregg on the democratic line. new york. cried go -- caller: yes, i am willing to pay higher taxes. the question, are we all like to pay higher taxes? the question has to do with pushed tax cut coming to an end.

america needs to understand the motives of two parties. the republicans did not want to repeal the tax cuts, and john boehner repeat -- refuses to answer any questions. however, the solution is not to raise taxes on middle america. they are having the top one, bridget 1%, 2% -- 1%, 2% of incomes should have higher taxes. host: what about the idea that everyone will eventually have to pay higher taxes in order to tackle the deficit. caller: every time i crossed the

george washington bridge, i have to pay. people who work for the transit system have to -- do not have to pay. i believe everybody needs to pay for the bridge. money does not grow on trees. you go to work and you pay your share. that should apply to everybody. i am and every day, first thing in the morning c-span watcher. the motives of politicians on both ends of the spectrum are to represent today represent and to deliver services to the people they serve. to ask john painter how are the tax cuts -- boehner hal r. the tax cuts paid for? they never answered the question. his intentions are about his pockets.

this is in a newspaper that caters to the elite, when it comes to money. anything in "the wall street journal" is not for the average joe. they average person goes to the store and pays for what he can afford, pays his mortgage, and lives his life. the average wall street broker, everything that they spend it is written off. there is only one of motive to survive. to live comfortably. everybody needs to pay their share. we need to stop supporting the top. without the bottom, there is no top. host: we have your point. ryan, bakersfield, california. caller: i agree with people paying more taxes in is not a

difficult responsibility. i do not think the answer is raising taxes. the answer should be stopped spending money and perhaps save a little bit. i wanted to join the coast guard but i cannot because there is a big waitlist because of the budget cuts there was a comment made by someone who said higher taxes means higher wages, well, these companies cannot afford it. it is putting so much stress on the low income families. i do not agree with it. host: in "the financial times" --

raleigh, north carolina. richard, are you willing to pay more taxes? we will come back to you. also in "the financial times" --

marion, democratic line. gainesville, georgia. are you believe to pay higher texas? cerf caller: yes, ma'am. our economy is in a rough situation right them. the party of no chose to a vote against everything that president obama tries to do. we were in a bad situation when he took office in 2008. we have had bills come from the republican party. they have been the party up the hill. nobody knew what was happening in iraq. big oil companies have been the driving force behind the bush tax cuts. people are just misinformed.

we need to take a good look at where we are going. host: remember, you can also send us your comments on this conversation to twitter.com/cspanwj. also, send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. jeffrey in kansas. good morning. caller: in topeka, kansas, we raised a half cent sales tax, but shouldn't they decide what they are going to use before they raise it? what about the taxes that we take from people from other countries? if we are taxing, why are we

giving all of our jobs to them when they do not have the income tax held back? would that not increase our tax income? host: carlson, texas. fred, on the independent line. caller: i do not think i would be willing to pay more taxes. i would prefer congress to do their oversight first. host: are you talking about waste, fraud, abuse of money? caller: yes, but we also need to tackle entitlements. those people who say they are willing to pay more taxes, they can do so now. you can go to the department of treasury and figure of how to send in their money to pay more

taxes than they are currently paying. have a great day. host: here is an e-mail from one of our viewers -- the new york. brian on the democratic line. -- new york. caller: president obama mentioned repatriation of sales taxes on products manufactured overseas by american corporations. in other words, the jobs were shipped of america beginning with nafta. those corporations and businesses overseas, there are no taxes on those products coming back to america.

so what did america get for losing all of the top jobs, taxes, local, municipal products that would have been developed, product research -- incredible amounts of money lost because of nafta. the products made over there are not taxed and there are no taxes coming back to the united states. any sales made on products from american corporations goes to offshore banking. host: later on in the program the are going to have the national association of manufacturers un, and they are calling for increasing exports. one way to do that is to pass the free trade agreement with south korea and other countries. what would you say to that? caller: we have to manage our trade.

naphtha was an open-door policy, beginning with an american. if you look through the history of nation building economics, the work that would have been used to turn all of our manufacturing jobs out to foreign nations would be economic treason. and the wealth of any nation is in manufacturing for export. host: what about exporting things other than durable-goods? caller: we are exporting for the green revolution that the president has been speaking about. eight out of every 10 machines that will turn that the film for solar panels are being exported

to the asian countries. so all of the manufacturing capacity is that we are looking to to save our workers is actually being shipped overseas at a rate of 8 to 2. the actual manufacturing machinery, all the tooling on the floor, ship it overseas, and that is our green revolution. host: we will be talking about energy issues this week on "the washington journal." today, our first topic is the construction of the energy- efficient homes. tax credits that go along with it. of course, one of them is a

solar power. "roll call" and this morning. that is paul singer's pc. -- piece. manassas, virginia. are you willing to pay higher taxes? caller: yes, i am. i listen to someone earlier who said they wanted to join the coast guard.

ironically, they said they had a freeze as a part of the spending cuts. we have to make these decisions. you do not just retire in 20 years, have your house paid for, education. money had to come from somewhere, you know? and just to say we are going to cut spending -- yes, we could cut spending, but people do not see what really happens. and these are people's lives, jobs, benefits. so yes, i am for the bush tax cut to expire. host: we are going to leave it there.

we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we turn our attention to national security issues. michael hayden, the former cia director, is with us for the next 45 minutes. we will be right back.

>> we cannot go around expecting double dealings, crockery. you cannot run a democracy like this. >> watch this candid 1982 interview with millicent stanwyck. she was an inspiration for a doonesbury character. part of a treasure trove of in the c-spanthevents library. finding of about the new books coming out this fall. >> how did this young girl,

growing up in the 1950's become the secretary of state? he is a health-care expert, is politically savvy, and is telling us about a major event that got us to health care reform. this is an account of what it was like to be with her dead. >> a learn more about these and other books coming come this fall. for the latest in nonfiction authors and books, "book tv." host: and general michael he did was the former cia director under the bush and administration from 2006 to 2009. let me begin with "the washington times" --

the fbi is now keeping tabs on him. he has supposedly taken over as the new al qaeda chief. guest: he was the no. 3 chief of operations. that is the position in which there has been a series of successions because we have been able to take off the battlefield the no. 3 position in al qaeda with great regularity. the operations chief cannot spend all had his energy hiding, as number one and two do, and he is not able to hide all day. it remains to see how long he will be in this job because his successors have not had very much longevity. the fact that he lives in the united states is a problem. he might be able to better guide al qaeda operatives in

their attacks, but this is it unprecedented. khalid sheikh mohammed lived in north carolina for awhile, so we have experienced something like this before. host: does that hurt or hinder the search for someone like this? guest: i do not know how it affects it. it perhaps makes him more confident about planning attacks because he is more understanding of the american culture, but it is yet to be seen if he will be more effective. host: will intelligence officials look at when he was in the country and try to glean anything? guest: yes absolutely. people tend to think about intelligence as current offense, but history provides important

material about what it terrorist might do. to talk to folks who may have known him, to understand who he is as a human being, allows us to be more productive about his actions. host: there was an announcement about an arrest of 14 individuals, most of them had been in the united states, or citizens. what do you make of these homegrown -- so-called homegrown terrorists? guest: this is a particular strain of home grown. it is dangerous enough to where it is different from others. these are somalis who have been trained in recruited to go back to fight al shabab in somalia.

they are fighting against what they view to be the ethiopian occupation. however, many of them are being trained in the of data -- al qaeda facilities by and al qaeda leader. sometimes they can be carried against the united states, and oftentimes, they do have knowledge of the united states. if they made that decision, it would be particularly dangerous. host: before this, the case of the russian spies. guest: it appears to be an oddity, more odd than dangerous -- and i do not want to trivialize this -- but it highlights the fact that this is

a dangerous world, countries to perform espionage on other states. from a professional point of view, this doesn't appear to be an efficient use of resources by the russian state, but again, i would be the last one to minimize it. it is still dangerous. this was not a surprise to most of us in the intelligence business. we have been aware of this for some time -- press accounts are pretty rich -- but we had known about these folks for an extended period. host: what does that say overall about the strategy for fighting terrorism? guest: we have had been taking the fight to the enemy since a few days after the 9/11 attacks.

some ask what is different, what has changed? the intelligence community has more resources, more money, but fundamentally, the biggest difference between pre and post- 9/11, we are playing offense. we are making him worry about his survival -- to use a sports metaphor. instead of playing in the goalmouth, making this a penalty kick situation, where the best we can do is stop the shot -- now we are moving downfield and making him worry about his own goal. host: who is in charge of intelligence gathering when it comes to fighting terrorism? guest: particularly, in the

american flavor, it is a team sport. they are all like pulling different positions on a sports team. what you need is a good manager to synchronize and harmonize all that activity so that we leverage each other's capabilities. by law, it is the dni, but most of us who have been in the intelligence community realize that he has more responsibilities than authorities. host: so is the dni useful? guest: absolutely. it has to work. i do not see us going back into the intelligence structure and doing major surgery again. right now, because the

legislation is weak, in the authorities that it gives the dni, but their powers rely a great deal on the powers, the relationships. the most important is the relationship between the dni and president. if everyone understands that that relationship is tight and reflects the president's personal interest, this will work. host: the nomination of james clapper is being considered. are we vulnerable without him? guest: he was confirmed by the senate. he is in the saddle now. we have chatted the last few days and he is going to do a fine job. host: how do you know him?

guest: we go back, he was my senior in the air force. i once characterized him as my mentor. he was the head of the national g a spatial intelligence agency. he was on my advisory board at nsa while he was out of government. we go back a long way. moscow we have lot -- host: we have lots to talk about regarding security, wikileaks, security. let's begin with the first phone call. patrick in west valley, utah. caller: i was wondering if anything has been done in a reference to combing data base systems -- co-mingling

database systems in the subject matter of deterring or stopping terrorism. guest: that is a great question. you use the phrase "co-mingling mingling database systems." when something happens, we often hear about the failure to share. i think you are referring to how much we are willing to share information. frankly, we shared better, certainly than prior to the 9/11 attacks, but there are some fundamental issues here. it is unlawful to use information for purposes other than which the information was originally acquired. so beyond some bureaucratic

inertia, which i believe we have largely overcome, there are policy issues that cannot allow you to dump this into one common data base and have everyone playing in the same tidal pool of information. there are restrictions, they sometimes get in the way of sharing information, but there are good reasons for those restrictions. host: springfield, illinois. john on the republican line. caller: in general, i heard you talk once before on cyber security. you made reference to the fact that you're catholic faith has some bearing about the way that you see an asset. -- see nasa.

guest: intelligence officers are inherent and thinkers. policy makers are generally the doctors. they think about the vision, the generalized principle, and then apply it to a specific situation. that creates an interesting dynamic when the fact guy has to have a conversation with the policy maker. you get into the same room, but you are clearly coming in from different doors. the task of the intelligence officer is to be true to the facts, but at the same time, be relevant to the policy maker and decisions. that is a fairly narrow sweet spot. host: cyber threats? guest: they are real. you do not need to point to one

or another bogeyman in order to be concerned about privacy, security. we built this domain to be efficient. we built it with ease of use being the dominant printable in its design. questions of security and privacy have come later. so if you build this for ease of use, you can imagine why it is so difficult to make sure our information is secure, that the network is not invulnerable, and that the information stays private. host: how many cyber attacks are there, how many are being stopped? guest: it is almost countless, given the nature of the internet. this began under a program designed to limit the number of

nodes coming in. the challenge was how do i move things quickly between trusted nodes? that is similar to the system on the internet. however, very few of them now should be trusted, and that is why we have the security problems we do today. the number of attacks is difficult to comprehend because, frankly, we built it that way. host: would we be able to track these types of threats? guest: it is a constant challenge. i am sure if you would ask my successors, they would say, we have a good number, but we need to do more. look at how quickly your personal communications have changed over the past -- six

months, six years? people charged with security in that domain have to keep pace with all those changes. that is incredibly difficult. host: we are speaking with former cia director michael hamdan. what do you do now? guest: and i am teaching at george mason university, i am teaching with the michael chertoff foundation. host: do you still have access to top-secret information? guest: all former directors maintain their clearances. at one time, director panetta invited all of the former directors in and asks for the use of his predecessor. i tried to stay plugged in. host: how many times have you been to that type of meeting?

guest: i have been to cia a handful of time since i have left government. leon panetta is the director and should have a free land to be so. host: eric on the democratic line. caller: it is an extraordinary surprise to be speaking to a man like you. i wish i had the time to speak to you face to face. i know that is not possible but i think you are in extremely brilliant individual. i wish i could speak to you. my concern is the post expose about the non-military apparatuses around the area. i wonder, the specter of a cyber

attack predicated on these individuals handling so much information may truly be a hindrance to our security. as you know, the internet changes every day and gets more sophisticated. sooner or later, something serious will happen. i wonder if you could have been on the selective drone attacks. i respect you, i do not know you, but i do not think michael chertoff is very fair, especially to minorities, blacks like myself. i wish i could meet you face to face. you are an intelligent man, but we are in on of trouble. host: two issues.

the drug issue, cyber attacks. guest: the issue in the post article with regard to contractors. some interesting things there, nothing new to people in the intelligence committee. if you want me to summarize it briefly, it pointed out inefficiencies. we have not been effective. contractors, in fact, are responsible for contributing to a large number of successes in the community. we could not do our job without them. but you raise a good point. you have to be as confident in them with intelligent as you are in your government work force. we try to be. they go through the same clearance process that we would use for a government employee. on your second issue, the u.s.

government has never confirmed or denied its drone program, and i will not do so this morning, but we have pointed out that a large number of al qaeda leaders have been taken off the battlefield since 2008. i mentioned earlier the difference between pre and post- 9/11 -- taking those people off the battlefield is an incredibly important point. i am disappointed with your views to michael chertoff. i see him as a wonderful public servant and a friend. host: next phone call. cynthia. caller: how are you this morning? my question considers the whole aspect of continuous improvement mechanisms. we have so many security issues.

what have i not come into federal regulations, gnp, everything we are trying to do to make things better, improve this mechanism system? i worked as a medical professional in houston, texas, and it is almost appalling house had the security service -- appalling how the security serves us. why is our national security being breached? they are regulating international trade and intimating -- implementing

rules. host: we will leave it there. guest: your knowledge of these things goes well beyond my own. let me talk about your content of continuous improvement. that is a wonderful phrase. in fact, i think it reflects a reality in the intelligence community. this is hard work. our enemy is a learning enemy. we cannot stand still. we have to adapt, react, and respond. to your question, when you are talking about security, there are balances to be struck. we have gotten quite good at detecting and disrupting the macro al qaeda plot against the united states, iconic the tax

-- a tax that we saw in new york, -- attacks and that we saw in the new york, over christmas day. how much you have to do to disrupt the kind of thing that we had happened in times square -- how much do you want the intelligence committee to squeeze privacy, commerce, were convenient in order to have high confidence you can disrupt that kind of attack? that is a devil of a problem, and one that has to be decided by policy makers after an open dialogue with the generalized population. there is a balance we have to strike here. the intelligence community needs to be guided as to where that balance should be. host: it sounds like you do not believe we are quite there? guest: i think we have to

understand, as good as we try to make intelligence, how good do you have to be to preempt a faisal shazhad-type of attack? at what point do we, as a nation, decide we want our intelligence professionals to go this far but no further, as it begins to push up against commerce, convenience. where is that line? host: the front page of "the new york times" -- a piece looking at private bradley manning. what are the implications of this? guest: it is hard for me to

calculate how bad the damage was. the callousness with which the information was put out there, allegedly by this soldier, is stunning. host: what do you know that others do not know? guest: he believes, by reading these documents, which are sensitive and which are not. the best i can say is he believes the contents of the document determined whether it is sensitive or not, whether it is legitimately classified. those of us to do this for a living now that it is really the content of on that determines whether a document should be caught -- classified. it is the source. he does not know the source. he puts a document up there that suggests the americans knew

ied's would be placed in the spring of 2007. he does not know that an american patrol -- this is purely illustrative -- that an american patrol team intercepted that team. at the time, they chalked it up to bad luck. now the taliban is looking at this report, which he does not see as sensitive because it is old, and they say, it was not locked in that the patrol stumbled across our team in 2007. this information was revealed to our enemy. i can see the conversation going on, where did we have that meeting, whose house was it? he has no ability to gauge,

predict that series of air vents, and he has put people at risk. beyond that, who will come forward now and help the americans? the battle for afghanistan is a battle for the population. now we have told the population -- he has told the population -- do not trust the americans. they cannot keep your secret. host: to do what advocates say we need to do in afghanistan and iraq, do you think it is good for the american people to read what it is really like to be in war, to read those memos put together by soldiers and realize how greedy it is? guest: -- gritty it is?

guest: no question, the war through the eyes of someone on the ground is much grittier than anything that we could possibly imagine. there is a kurd they a best seller that talks about a young man -- current best seller that talk about a young man in the war, and it is war at it's greediest. we do not need a complete account to understand what is really going on. host: next phone call. kentucky. caller: we need to secure the border and get rid of all of the illegals.

if we do that, we could take care of national security. talk aboutet's border security. guest: a good point, but it comes back to my question earlier. how much do you want to squeeze comfort and security? i know there are a good number of americans on either side of the issue. an undeniable fact of sovereignty is control of your borders. we can all agree more needs to be done. what that is is subject to debate. i have some personal debate -- news, but i hope -- views, but i will leave it at that. postcode next phone call.

-- host: next phone call. caller: i spoke to you earlier this year about terrorism. maybe one month later, indonesia got hit by the tsunami. how many terrorists have you seen come from indonesia since the tsunami? there was a u.s. mercy ship that went in to help, and perhaps that could be used as a tool against terrorism? guest: in fact, as we speak, american helicopters are in pakistan trying to deliver aid

to those areas that are going through a once-in-a-century drought. we did the same thing after the earthquake in pakistan. the general pakistani view of the americans improved after that, as we undertook that kind of operation. i agree strongly, you can do an awful lot, even in the nearly- defined area of security, to fully use your resources. host: is there enough volunteerism to this effort? we have seen hillary clinton ask for more people to phone-in aid.

guest: absolutely. sometimes in america we do not get much credit for the help that we give. so much help given through the private sector is not given through the government. that is how we have done it, it makes us agile, but we do not get much credit for it. host: maryland. logan on the independent line. caller: good morning. i always wonder, terrorists who are here, it would seem relatively easy for them to get their hands on explosives, surface to air missiles -- they

seem to be pretty prevalent on the black market. i wonder why they would not just start blowing up airliners to screw with our economy and then do it again six months later? it only takes a couple of them to make a big dent in the airline's -- host: and we understand your comment. guest: you are not the first one to raise that question, me included. but we have continually been concerned that al qaeda might change tactics. you recall what we were doing two years ago around thanksgiving. there was a major hotel in

mumbai that was attacked. that was conducted by a dozen individuals with automatic weapons and sell bonds, and -- cell phones, and it had a great economic and political affect. those types of attacks are difficult to detect and disrupt it. al qaeda seemed fixated on iconic targets. the world trade center, pentagon, multiple airliners simultaneously. the great fear is what you suggest, at these lower threshold the tax that collectively would have great political impact, could be something they went up to four. host: is that a greater threat than what al qaeda is obsessing about, these iconic --

guest: if you look at history, because we have been taking the fight to the enemy, let me characterize where i think they are, if i was there staff, what i would the laying out to them. their ability to conduct a complex, spectacular attacks is not the zero, but has been greatly reduced by the kinds of things that we have been able to do. al qaeda central in the afghanistan, pakistan region has been reduced, so they have had to go to franchisees. we have had made them less capable of carrying out complicated, mass casualties attacks. their attacks will have less percentage of success, will be less spectacular. that is good.

over here, there is a danger that they would be more numerous because they are easy to mount. this is unqualified success, and now we have to worry about these potentially less harmless, more numerous attacks. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. i am jealous of the professional role that you get to have to, with all of the data, and i am proud of what you did. i want to ask a philosophical question coming to the extent that you can answer, how active is the control factor of capitalism used to advance freedom and democracy around the world, does it drive policy, or

does it follow intelligence? i once had a friend named bernie hoffman who working in the shadow bank in washington and said most people walk around with a quiet understanding of freedom, what it takes to protect assets around the world. are there still a off-balance- types of problems like that? guest: and that it difficult for me to talk about because of my knowledge. the intelligence guy is a fact

guy. i cannot divorce my professional life from who i am. i am an american with american values. i believe mankinds natural inclination is toward freedom, economic freedom, political freedom. but i need to filter some of that when i am talking to the policy maker. the greatest service i can give a policy maker is for him to think i am actually adversary in the room -- not that i am advocating the goals. but i am reflecting to the president the adversaries thinking come as accurate as i can. mr. president, let me tell you how they are probably thinking about this. you have to try to put yourself

into the value system of the adversary so that the decision maker, a policymaker, understand what they are up against. host: let's go back to the terror suspects arrested by the fbi. either a neighbor terrorists before they came here and were able to get citizenship, maybe they were already citizens. there are questions about how come these people were not caught under your watch, how were they able to be in this country? guest: we are a free and open society. many people want to come and live here because of those freedoms that i mentioned. the security services of the country are charged with finding, who in that great flow of people, might be enemies.

it is a difficult task. in fact, is it is a difficult task. at what point does dissent become a danger? when does a belief in the same value system become a threat to the generally-agreed a value system? i do not say that we tread lightly, but the american people need to know that the security people doing this are sensitive to those fundamental american values, as we try to the sect, who among us, might be an enemy among us. host: and jenny on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i agree, the intelligence community does a terrific job. i do not know how they do it

sometimes. one of my questions is, on september 10, nsa intercepted a call from usama bin laden to his stepmother. they did not interpreted until september 12. why? if i had a friend to concerns me, could i ask someone in the government to look into this person to see if there is any danger? guest: let me answer your second question first. without turning america into spies of others, i would simply recommend that you identify the appropriate authority and pass on that information to them. with regard to 9/10, there were

no phone calls that i am aware of between usama bin laden and any relatives prior to that. there were some intersections on the 10th of september that were translated which were analyzed. they were non-geographic- specific. nothing in those communications suggested an attack on the american homeland. if we would have translated, analyzed, and reported those conversations prior to the 9/11 attacks -- there were two -- it would have been a 30 -- the 32nd 3rd warning that summer

that there was going to be an imminent attack. host: if sanctions do not work, what is next? guest: it is a difficult problem for the administration. you have un sanctions that are not very strong, but broad, you have the american sanctions which are stronger still, but they are only american sanctions. as that narrows, you have other countries coming in and filling in the spaces, more responsible

international actors. president obama spoke to journalists last week and admitted the iranian state may be so committed to getting a nuclear weapon, but sanctions it may not succeed. my successor, director panetta, responding to a question about that, said that they probably will not work. so that will leave us in a place where they are rushing forward to the step right below have been a nuclear weapon. permanent break up state. going from here to here will be undetectable by intelligence because the distance it is so short. we have to decide whether that state of affairs is acceptable. if not, if we think it will be

inherently destabilizing in the region, we have to look at what is a quickly-narrowing the list of options about what to do about it. host: windchills, north carolina. david on the independent line. caller: i wish some people would be very careful about certain terms they use, like security, protection. the use of the word freedom and capitalism, which i would equate to self-interest. general, are you familiar with the concept of the public duty death? for what is usually involved when a government official best to protect, and the victims' families choose a government agent for failure to protect. the government usually comes back with the defense, a form of

sovereign immunity, that they had no legal duty to protect the individual. there are many cases in history. thousands of cases across the american where americans are misconstruing the fundamental bullish -- between themselves and the relationship of government -- responsibility of government. when you talk about national security, many people may misconstrue that it personally means them. kaska at the end of the day, we are trying to protect americans -- guest: at the end of the day, we are trying to protect americans. i was interviewed before 9/11 and i was asked, you work hard,

but can you guarantee that you can protect america? i said, no, i cannot. even at the top of our game, i cannot promise that nothing bad will happen. this is a determined enemy. we do our best. nothing in life, particularly this, is guaranteed. host: thank you for talking to us this morning. we are going to take a break to get an update on c-span radio. when we come back, we will talk about manufacturing with frank vargo. >> more on the intelligence community. laetitia lawn is being elevated to date to be the national director of the national ge space intelligence agency. this is the first time that a woman has been chosen to lead the agency. c-span will be covering the event.

house members are interrupting their vacations and returning to washington to vote on a jobs bill that passed the senate late last week. it is aimed at keeping state and government workers from being laid off. the vote will be tomorrow. more tension in south korea today, this after north korea fired about 110 rounds of artillery near the disputed border with south korea. this comes shortly after south korea conducted exercises with u.s.. those are some of the latest headlines. >> we cannot go around suspecting, expecting a double dealings, crookery. you cannot run a democracy like this, of any satisfaction, without that base of honor.

>> catch the this interview and others in the c-span video library. it is all free and online. washington, your way. "book tv" has been finding out about the new books coming out this fall. it is an interesting memoir. how did this girl become the first black secretary of state? he is a health expert and is also politically savvy, he is telling us about a major event that came about to give us health care reform. this is an account of what it was like to be on the road with her dad. from what we hear coming in will be -- hear, it will be hot,

hot, hot. host: frank vargo is the international economics affairs vice-president of the national association of manufacturers. increasing exports. it is an initiative that the president laid out, dublin exports in the next five years. how is he doing -- a doubling of exports in the next five years. how is he doing? guest: he is doing ok. it is important that the president actually said a goal. in order to do so, we have to do a lot. the general public need to get stronger export-orientation. for some many decades, the u.s.

has not been that strong and exporter. historically, we were fortunate to grow up as a continental the economy. our companies began to sell across the united states. so many of them did not feel like they had to sell across the world. you take a german, japanese companies, and they have always done their domestic market was too small and they had to export. so we need to do domestic exports. the national association of manufacturers, representing about 90% of manufacturing, went out and asked their members, what would it take to double your export? when we came up with was a program with a lot of different steps, fixing things that the u.s. has not done that well, and

we believe we can double exports. one of the most important things, and many of your viewers will be surprised to hear this -- we need more about what trade agreements. we face so many trade barriers around the world while we are an open market. another thing we need to do is fix export controls. do not let so many high-tech products be exported because we did not want the soviet union to get them. well, the soviet union is gone, but export controls remain. there are other threats, but you would totally change what and how you control. we agree, there are sensitive technologies that must be controlled, stealth technologies, nine visions, -- night vision -- but there are so

many different types of technologies that are restricted that should not be. if i know someone in los angeles and that makes -- los angeles that makes equipment for riot control. we had a customer fill in an order in china, and we could not provide it. no security equipment could be exported to china. well, they had lost the contract to a chinese company. just one of hundreds of examples of obsolete controls. host: can you give us an economic figure of how much it

hurts the company's bottom line not to have bilateral trade agreements? guest: if we did not have bilateral trade agreement with some of these large markets around the world, it could make a $100 billion difference, take us one-third of the way to double exports. host: what would that mean for jobs in the united states? guest: we think it is worth about 2 million jobs. host: on the front page of "the washington post" last week, democrats would be focusing on manufacturing. part of that would be to include a tax on multinational companies that go overseas that avoid taxes. what do you make of that? guest: first of all, the question is imposed properly. it is a tragedy to have this

happen. it will impose a tax of $120 billion on american companies. people do not understand, the united states is the only company that profit corporate -- taxes corporate profits around the world. a french company would have to pay the american and french tax. so the americans have had something called a tax deferral. you defer paying them off until you are repatriated from the united states. this could make it more difficult for companies to operate. this is not at all doors and jobs. -- outsourcing jobs. with heavy marketing, distribution facilities over there, that is what pulls our

exports. by making it more difficult to compete, we are going to lose jobs. host: in the "wall street journal" this morning --

guest: this is a serious problem. when we talk to our companies, especially smaller companies, this is the most serious problem they face. they cannot find the skilled workers. the work force is getting older and older. as they retired, companies are having great difficulty finding younger workers with the skills people do not really have an accurate view of what manufacturing is like today. it is a lot of computer- controlled, machine-controlled tools. in need skilled computer machinist, operators. despite the fact that there are 5 million fewer jobs in manufacturing than in 2000, companies have a hard time finding their skills. that is why in the national association of manufacturing has begun working with community

colleges and other organizations to bring about programs to fund the markers that need. host: vermont. ron on the democratic line. caller: i think the pendulum has swung a little too far. intellectual property is only half owned by the intellectual officers of the company. i know it is true most people have a confidential disclosure agreements. anything you come up with will be owned by the corporation. i would like to see laws changed where intellectual property is really a joint tenet

between the employee and employer. that would give the american worker in manufacturing more say at the table to where manufacturing would take place, or if it goes to china, you would get royalties, and they would be shared among the corporation and employees. guest: all employees benefit from a company's intellectual property. it is patents, copyrights, intellectual property design. the united states needs more intellectual property. we are not the world's low-cost producer. we are the world's producer of high cost, innovative products. we have to protect that.

unfortunately, in other countries around of world, we do not have that protection. in china -- a lot of companies will not export to china. they will export one and find out suddenly there are countries all over. -- copies all over. you are right, we need more intellectual property coverage. this takes us back to our education system. we need the people to manage this. host: some figures on imports and exports. that brings us to a deficit of $42.3 billion. dave on the republican line. caller: i want to talk about manufacturing.

every time i see something on tv, msnbc, fox news, the only thing that i see above the war are trucks. maybe we can send more trucks over there. guest: the rest of the world uses a difference truck standard than us. if we are going to sell more, we have to adopt to the world standard, in order to get the scale economy, so we can get more trucks. host: what is the world standard? guest: it is a working, european standard, really.

standard tells you how you can test the brakes, what kinds of emissions comes from the exhaust. host: last safety on those issues? guest: just different. we test brakes differently, but both are safe. the united states is the only country not on the metric system. this is another reason why i left port -- why our exports are not larger. the rest of the world has their tastes, and we have to meet them. host: give me a sense of the the difference in standards. guest: if you are a german company and you are selling something, and it is in the inches, all my instructions are

in english, i will not translate them to germany -- that does not work. host: remi of the independent line. maryland. caller: i work in baltimore, we ship products all over the country from here. looking at the numbers, as we talk about our exports, at this point in time, what i have noticed in the past 18 months, we have exported more construction and equipment than we ever have. host: let me show you the front page of "the baltimore sun."

what is the situation like for manufacturing in maryland? caller: it is down come as it is all over. my main concern is the equipment sitting idle because of the lack of construction jobs. we have had a major influx of the equipment coming into the market about 13 months ago in florida. all of that concrete the equipment being moved out of jacksonville. now we see major pieces of construction equipment going to the middle east. host: frank vargo, can we get in response? guest: unfortunately, this reflects the very poor condition of housing and construction market. certainly, one of the things

that we look for is for the market to come back. that will take some time. when we look at the exported construction equipment, that is not the only thing. we are a huge exporter of power tools, aircraft, power- generating equipment, and on and on. what we need to do is export more of everything we make. one thing the national association of manufacturers did was compare u.s. manufacturers, how much we produce and export, and compare them with a major manufacturing economy is of the world. out of 15 countries, we ran 15 for the proportion of the manufactured goods that we export. we need to change the policies that are restraining our exports so we can sell more and get

those good, high-paying jobs. jobs in the export industry tend to pay more. host: the average wage of the manufacturer in 2010, $23.17 per hour. in 2006, $20.78. next phone call. caller: i wanted to ask a question. there was something on fox news. someone had called and general motors government motors and said they were going to build a factory in mexico. why would the governor of ohio said the stimulus money to some south american country? guest: general motors is

returning to a much healthier state. we look for american companies to expand employment in the united states, but to sell around the world, they have to expand employment in other countries as well. one thing we have to do is allow foreign countries to let our products in, lower their trade barriers. for most of you, you are probably not aware, but we have a trade surplus in manufactured goods with our free trade partners. for the past two years, there has been a $50 billion surplus. that means we sell to -- more to them than we buy. our problem is with the countries we do not have trade agreements and we have a lot of trade deficits, especially across asia.

in order to create more jobs in the united states, we have to change things so we can sell more of our products out over there. host: george in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: if we need more money, we should be taxing our imports. host: frank vargo? we refer to them as terrorists. those are very low, only about 4%. if we say that we are known to put higher tariffs on everything we import, everybody will start to do the same. the aircraft, locomotives,

chemicals, machine tools -- everything that we are great at making -- those countries would cut those off and we would end up being the big loser. host: next phone call. oregon. caller: you seem to be the only person that i can get through to. the last time we spoke, we about freet the myth trade and how everyone has drank the punch. we need tariff barriers on everything, like we used to have. instead, we are trading with countries like china, japan, korea, and they have protective

tariff barriers. hours average is 2%. there's averages 20, 30%. -- our average is 2%. average is 20%, 30%. guest: your are right, they have high trade barriers. i keep telling people, we have to get those down. that is where our future lies. that is where the jobs are, not in cutting off what we buy, but selling more. host: bob, san francisco. caller: for the past 20 years that i have been aware of the trade deficit, i think the first time i noticed it, it was

around $12 billion. now is around $50 billion. guest: on a monthly basis, perhaps. caller: so for all these years we have had a deficit running several billions of dollars. i have heard people talk the same way that you do -- what we need to do to correct the situation -- it seems that this has been a failed policy. host: what has? caller: international trade. we continue to run the huge deficits, and we cannot get it fixed. the question emerges, why do we have this public policy? we have not been able to fix it for 20 years, so why do we have this policy? who is making the money off of these trade agreements?

guest: the biggest part of the deficit is imported oil. we wish we had enough alternative energy where we did not have to import, but otherwise, where are you going to get the gasoline for your car? we have to pay for that. how are we going to pay for it? we can only pay for it by exporting. you are right. we have to fail that becoming the export powerhouse, but we have all of these backward- looking policies. we have so many restrictions on the financing, it makes it difficult to regulate. in canada, they financed $80 billion worth of exports. they are a much smaller country than the united states, so you

understand the ratio here. export controls really constrict us. when we compare our exports with other countries, the size of our economy, we are an average size in order, but in terms of exporting, we are at the bottom. if other countries would lower their barriers to that technology, you know, for american wind-powered generators, for the very efficient electrical machinery we make, etc., it's absolutely part of it. host: what kind of barriers are in place from other countries? guest: tariffs for the most part. also nontariff barriers, a

different standard that's designed to keep your product out. you know, in the world trade organization, your viewers, i'm sure, have heard of the doha round. what we're trying to do is get a trade agreement on all environmental goods and technologies so everybody's barriers will be eliminated and we'll do very good there. host: around 9:15 a.m. eastern time on "washington journal" taking a look at different energy sectors. today we're looking at the construction business and see how we'll retrofit turns. tuesday the electric car industry. on wednesday we'll take a look at natural gas. thursday, wind technology and friday we'll wrap it up with solar power. round rock, texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i can't understand our policies

has been not to deal with countries that have slave labor, has child labor, countries that pay people minimum wage without getting them any kind of health benefits, stuff like this, stuff that we take for granted. yet, we still deal with these countries and we don't get no -- we still import to these countries but -- and import from these countries and we don't have no restrictions on them. you can use anybody you want, you can pay them anything you want. and that's supposed to equal the field with us, i don't think so. i think that our values have changed. we used to not deal with countries that treated their people bad or worked their people bad. host: ok. we get your point. frank vargo.

guest: it inhibits the importation of child labor, forced labor or slave labor. i actually think that law has been on the books since the 1930's and it's enforced. it is enforced. anytime any information comes in that something big is being maced with forced labor the u.s. government looks into it and prohibits the importation. now, in the last few years there's been greater attention to labor conditions around the world and environmental conditions. and the united states is seeking to use its trade policies to bring about improvements in other countries. host: germantown, maryland, fabian on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, mr. vargo. i have a question. i don't know. you talked a little bit about compactibility of american products out to the -- compared to the rest of the world. is it a government policy that prevents us from deucing --

producing things that are compatibility to the rest of the world or is it a manufacturers' problem? host: frank vargo. guest: well, it's a little bit of both. american standards are set by private standard setting organizations for the most part. it's set by an american association called the electrical manufacturers association. other countries use a lot of u.s. standards, but not all of them. and increasingly the european union has developed its own set of standards and has been very aggressive in exporting those standards, if you will, by training people to use their standards, by bringing people to europe or setting standards offices within those countries. and we have not done that. now, there's also an organization called the international standards

organization, i.s.o., and you're probably used to i.s.o. ratings for film and things like that. and other countries take that much more seriously than we do, so when a standard is developed at the international standards organization it tends not to be an american standard. so here's another area where our export policies have not served us well and we need to change them. host: belvidere, illinois, democrat line. caller: yes. i think if we use our tax money for homeowners had a are still in the earned income stage of their -- that are still in the earned income stage of their market we could use that tax money for home maintenance improvement to put the construction workers that are out of jobs -- because you can't keep building new houses forever. they won't keep pace with existing homes that are already built. now, if you did that in two years' cycles and tie it with a bank loan, even your worse neighborhoods would start to improve.

in the meantime we have a job force that are learning trade of some sort because most home improvement maintenance -- it's called self-perpetuation. it's not an entitlement. it's self-perpetuating, you know. host: frank vargo. guest: well, the housing market certainly needs to recover. we have had some incentives. you talk about a two-year cycle. one thing we would worry about as manufacturers is who's going to pay for that. it is unfortunately true that the more you forgive in various tax revenues the larger your deficit is going to be in the future and that can bring about a great deal of inflation. now, what i look -- when i look at the taxes, one of the most important things is how heavily we're taxing manufacturers and making it difficult for manufacturers to compete around the world and for all the countries in the world,

actually, we have the highest corporate tax rate. and that's just not good for us. host: hilton head, south carolina. david on the republican line. caller: yes, mr. vargo, you say you want to avoid and i can't say i really understand the china problem. the united states, beginning with jefferson, i'm writing a book on the subject so i certainly know what i'm talking about, has the requirement to protect american industry. i sometimes like to say the american president is the president of the american people. nobody in this country is determined to stand up for the americans. the americans haven't caused the problem. they have borne the brunt of the problem. now, the problem lies, the principle antagonist is china without any question. everybody knows that. but no one wants to take any action against china.

china's manipulation of its currency and its trade fares is designed to keep the united states on the defensive. host: david, let me read "the new york times" op-ed. they say the tolerant attitude is probably why retaliating against china with punitive trade barriers, as urged by some in congress, would stark a tit-for-at that time confrontation that would endanger economic recovery. china also is doing other things, increasing pension payments and unemployment checks and providing subsidies for college education and purchases of homes and durable goods, in order to increase domestic consumption and reduce reliance on exports. yet, china cannot be left off the hook. the i.m.f. must monitor china's trade surplus to assess its drag on global demand. if fund's economists are proved right, its executive board should reassess its

conclusions, call a manipulator a manipulator. guest: we all want our trade deficit to come down. said before, when we look at where we have it, we see with our free trade partners we have a surplus. we trade more than we buy. china has an enorm -- we have an enormous deficit. one of which is the currency. if you want to go back and look at the record, you see the national association of manufacturers was the first organization to be allowed to talk about china's currency and the need for china to let its currency move up and approximate market rate. now, it still hasn't been done. we've been very critical of the previous administration and this administration that they have to do more about it. now, as the -- was it "the new york times"? host: yes. guest: you don't want to start a trade war because everybody will lose, especially the american manufacturing worker.

but still you got to get the job done. the united states has not put enough pressure on the international monetary fund, has not gotten its allies to speak up loudly enough. china's currency has got to move up, and until it does we're still going to have a very large trade deficit. china has about $2.5 trillion of money sloshing around. and a lot of people say that's one of the reasons why we had the financial crisis and we don't want another financial crisis, do we? host: an email from a viewer. how much american product made by people making $10 an hour can you sell to people making $1 a day? guest: you know, people say how can you compete with somebody making $1 a day, and the way you compete is because of all of the capital equipment we have. you know, the americans say you can't compete with a chinese worker making $1 a day. and the chinese worker says, how can i compete in front of

somebody standing in front of $1 million worth of automated equipment? in other areas we have a very difficult time competing. so what we need to do is to see the world barriers get down for products we make efficiently so we can sell a lot more of them and hire more americans to make them. host: here is another viewer. if you're saying opening trade barriers would produce two million jobs, where are the other jobs being created, in other countries? guest: no, absolutely. when we export it means we produce products here in the united states and we sell them around the world. and we are really exporting about half of what we ought to be. so, again, we are very pleased with the president's goal, but the task now is doing the metrics, really, what does the goal come down to in dollar size that has to be achieved in the next five years? and would all the different things that we could do be worth? will they add up to what we need to double in the exports?

and we have our proposal. it's on our website at www.nam.org. and the trade section, take a look at it. other manges have different ideas. but if the administration and the congress did what the n.a.m., the national association of manufacturers, recommends we will double exports. host: a viewer who asks, tell us one thing that we make that chinese cannot or not producing? guest: very large commercial aircraft. boeing makes the best in the world. huge power generating equipment. many chemicals that the chinese cannot make. a lot of specialty plastics. pharmaceuticals, medical devices, instrumentation and on and on and on. host: michigan, eugene on the independent line. caller: yes, mr. vargovement i'd like to know what you're going to do about the trade deficit. you know, we can't keep shipping our wealth out of this country to other countries

because manufacturing doesn't want to pay the people to manufacture here. as a result of it it, it seems to me like instead of bringing those people up to our standards you're trying to take the american people down to their standards. host: frank vargo. guest: absolutely no. exactly the opposite. you know, the highest paid manufacturing workers in the united states are those that make the sophisticated product, especially the high technology product and the innovative products that we export around the world and we want to export more of them. you know, trade deficit is a difference between two numbers, right? what we sell and what we buy. just like a household. you can't d go on forever -- you can't go on forever running a big deficit. oh, yeah, put another $600 billion my credit card this year. so what we have to do is increase our income. we don't want to reduce our standard of living, right? we don't want to buy less. we want to sell more. by emphasizing exports, and, believe me, we have so many policies that really inhibit our exports.

we need to get rid of those policies. we need to favor american workers and what they make so we can sell these things around the world. host: let's get a couple more phone calls in. john on the democratic line in anderson, indiana. make it quick, john. caller: back in 1992 when perot said nafta was signed, you hear this chind sucking sound and it would be our jobs leaving this country. i believe he's been proven right. what do you think about that? guest: well, let's look at nafta. you know, in the years right after nafta from 1994 to about 2000 for the first time we gained manufacturing jobs. we gained about 500,000. look it up on the department of labor's website. after 2000 we lost five million jobs. more than five million. but after 2000, if you'll look at the census bureau trade statistics, you'll see our manufacturers goods with nafta did not increase. it's no larger today than it

was in 2000. you know, certainly plants have moved to mexico under nafta but also a lot of plants have expanded and we've sold a lot more to canada and mexico because if the deficit didn't increase, you know, mathematically it would mean that our exports grew as fast as our imports. our problem is not with nafta. it really isn't. our problem is with china and some of the other countries in asia. if we're going to solve our problem, it's important that we identify what the real problem is and we go after that real problem. host: jimmy on the republican line in miami. you're our last phone call for frank vargo. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. vargo. i say that philosophy matters. i hear you advocate that the u.s. should do one thing or another and i hear in -- the premise to a lot of the callers i hear chatters of socialism, maxxism, keynesian, etc., etc.

explain to me what philosophy, if any, guides your organization political and economic policy decisions or what you're advocating for, what's it based on? guest: we advocate that the markets should work. we advocate that there has to be economic freedom. you talk about philosophy, you know, if you look at world history and all of the civilizations that have risen and fallen, political freedom goes hand in hand with economic freedom. so the open market, free market, i think is the best philosophical device that was ever invented. thank you, adam smith. host: frank vargo, national association of manufacturers, thank you for being here. guest: thank you so host: next off, we'll kick off our energy series on "washington journal." we'll turn our attention to the construction of homes and businesses and the different technology out there to save energy. our guest is yvan beliveau, he is with virginia tech and he

researches this issue. we'll be right back. >> it's 9:16 a.m. eastern time and speaking of homes, freddie mac, the government controlled mortgage buyer, is asking for nearly $2 billion in additional federal aid. this after posting a large loss in the second quarter. the government rescued freddie mac and fannie mae nearly two years ago, were given that money, and this new request brings the total amount of government aid to the mortgage companies to nearly $150 billion. an update on the gulf coast oil spill, as b.p. announces that its costs related to the spill have now exceeded $6 billion, the blowout itself may soon have a permanent fix. engineers are expected to spend this week drilling the rest of the relief well, part of the effort to seal the leaking well for good. more casualties in afghanistan today. nato says two u.s. marines have died after an attempted prisoner escape over the weekend in the southern part of the country.

the soldiers were trying to subdue a prisoner who had escaped a room where he was observing prayers. the prisoner got holed of a rifle and opened fire. -- got hold of a rifle and opened fire. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> we can't go around suspecting and expecting double dealings and crookery. you can't run democracy like this. with any kind of satisfaction in absence of that base of honor and justice. >> watch this candid 1982 interview with representative millicent fenwick, outspoken congressman, an inspiration of a character, is part of the events in the past 30 years all free online at the c-span video library. it's washington your way. book tv has been finding about

the new books coming out this fall. >> it's a very interesting memoir. how did this pig-tailed young girl growing up in the 1960's become the first black secretary of state? he's a health care expert and also very politically savvy so he's telling us about a major event in which our legislation came together to give us health care reform. this is an account of what it was like to be on the road with her dad and from what we're hearing it's going to be hot, hot, hot. >> learn more about these and other books coming out in our 2010 fall book preview this weekend. for the latest in nonfiction authors and books, watch "book tv" every weekend. get the whole schedule at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this week we're talking about energy issues here on "washington journal." full week looking at different sectors of the energy industries. and this runs at 9:15 a.m.

eastern time every day this week. today we begin with energy saving construction. and we'll talk about that here in a few minutes. tomorrow, on tuesday's conversation we'll take a look at the electronic car industry. and then on wednesday the natural gas industry here this this country. and -- in this country. and thursday wind technology. offshore wind. some say that could be commercially viable in 10 years. then on friday we'll wrap up the conversation looking at solar power. again, today we turn to the issue of construction and energy saving technology. our guest is ian yvan, he is with -- yvan beliveau, he is with virginia tech here locally in the washington, d.c., area. and you're the director of the meyer school of construction. the christian science monitor. "off the grid." it says some 750,000 american families have achieved energy self-sufficiency.

could the rest of us convert? guest: no. a lot of us could but not the rest of us. host: why not? guest: we have to rely on a more distribution center. the off the grid from an economic perspective would be very expensive. but certainly in rural and small communities off the grid is very viable. host: why is that? guest: oh, if we use the various resources that are there, whether it's -- it could be many things. maybe geothermal, all sorts of things like wind and solar, something a way to get off the grid. host: there is in fact tax credits for those who want to be more energy efficient. i want to put up on the screen for our viewers all different areas where you could get a tax credit. biomass stove, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, insulation, roofs, water heaters, windows and doors. small wind turbines, geothermal heat pumps, solar energy systems. if you go to energystar.gov, you can get a tax credit.

some of them expire at the end of this year. let's talk about some of the technology that's out there. first of all, where should somebody go first to save money in their home? guest: the -- host: what technology? guest: the best technology is to reduce consumption first because if you're going to go off the grid you want to reduce that overall plant needed to make that particular home self-sufficient. if you do things well you can reduce energy consumption relatively easy by 50%. and if you do it well you can reduce it by 75%. when you think about creating that energy imbalance it will be a whole less expensive. host: how do you reduce it 50% to 75%. guest: one of them would be insulation. there's some really great insulation capabilities. there's some great heat pump capabilities. there's -- i think the thing that we have forgotten the most is orientation by simply orienting a house and doing good thinking in a design and the way you site a home or even

a business can make a huge difference. host: how so? guest: well, i'll just take an example. years ago 1986 the technology there was very young in heat pumps and in insulation so things have changed dramatically. but i built a home in blacksburg, virginia, and basically it was simply an orientation issue with about 25% glass area facing south of the home size with some decks that shaded during the summer because of high sun. and them some thermal mass that was built into the structure so we could reduce the overall energy consumption of the house. we instrumented that house and we found that we were reducing heat and cooling by about 75%. now, that isn't including hot water and all of the other ancillary things but we clearly were reducing overall consumption somewhere in the 50% to 60% on that home. host: and what did the electric company think of that? guest: well, they had this idea

that something must be wrong. and so over the period of 18 years that i owned that home they changed out the meter four times. host: because they didn't believe it? guest: they sent a couple of technicians to test the meter. the last time they were changing out i happened to drive in and i asked the technician what he had done. he said, well, we tested tanned it was perfectly ok but they said change it out anyways. host: what's your electric bill? guest: well, i sold that house and moved into another farm and another enterprise i think we'll talk about. the energy bills on that averaged about i'm going to guess around $170 a month but it was a 6,500 square foot home. it had many teenagers. it had a bunch of kids in the pool and a few other things. that was an inexpensive energy bill for that period. host: what about the capital investment that you have to make to put a geothermal pumping system in or solar panels or a wind turbine in your back yard?

these are huge capital investments. how do you -- have you -- were you able to make your money back from the savings on your electric bill? guest: so in this particular case, the only extra pay was some decking, some thermal inertia and the glass. the glass was facing the view so it wasn't a bad thing. in 1986 i spent about $15,000 more. i suspect that i probably saved on average $150 to $180 a month in the months i owned the home. the payback is probably pretty good. it's probably approaching a five-year payback and in 18 years it's a viable thing. host: let's talk specifically about residential solar power and how that works. guest: ok. first off, it's all over the map and i am not an expert on solar power so i can tell you some basic things. in my lifetime i tried to build many homes for myself and each time i studied it. and i tried to figure out how

to do solar energy. each time i found from an economic perspective i wasn't going to go there. so -- but today there are several things that are making it more viable. certainly the cost of energy in certain areas of the country makes solar energy a viable -- not very but certainly viable option. i was speaking to someone recently down in the tennessee area who had their power from the t.b.a. authority. there's a lot of dams and other things which have a sales price of their energy at 8.5 cents per kilo watt. the concept is you can pretty much put a solar collection system, battery, inverters and all other things somewhere between 20 cents and 40 cents per kilowatt. so t.b.a. has a plan to actually give back during peak -- when you don't use all the energy at the pay you 20.5 cents a kilowatt or something like that which means they're

paying a 12 cent premium for you to have the solar plant in your house. that begins to make more sense. but still have a pure economic perspective, without the tax credits, which is a 30% tax credit on that investment, it would be difficult to justify. but by bringing it down to somewhere 13 cents per kilowatt it makes a lot of sense. host: this is the christian science monitor who writes increase by about a third in 2009 with about 40,000 new installations, such a system might cost about $10,000 to purchase. and to install. in the savings on electric utility bills is, say, $80 a month, the investment should pay off in about a decade. does that make sense? guest: that makes sense. i think they're in the ballpark. they're looking at the low numbers. but i think they're in the ballpark.

host: all right. let's turn to viewers and go to birmingham, michigan. john on the independent line. you're the first phone call. go ahead, john. caller: yes, good morning. i am most interested in the energy field. that is what i do for a living in the building business that was existing in michigan before it totally collapsed. but one of the things i have a concern about is you're talking about energy and most of the issues that are involving the average person is their home. and the energy that they use in their home, 40% of all the energy that we consume in the country, i understand, is from buildings, including our home. so we have insulation that is very inadequate with fiberglass being the standard that's used in the home industry. what is your view on converting homes to foam and making the coffee cup-type technology come to play, and that includes the

i.c.f. technology that i'm sure you're aware of? guest: ok. i'm going to basically say in my current home, my bed and breakfast, all of the walls of the new part of the house are icenin, styrofoam, the spray foam insulations all have different characteristics. some are closed cell, some are open cell. they prevent a huge array of requests questions -- questions. and some of them have the ability to reinforce the entire structure. they typically have a resistance to heat exchange are five to r-6.5 inch. if you spray in four to five inches of that you have a very good insulating. about the the other thing it does is decrease the air moving through the building. and if you use a closed cell in a high humid area you also reduce any potential for water my fwrating through and

condensing within that foam. there's some fantastic opportunities and the prices have come down dramatically. and is a great option. i think should be considered by any new homeowner but also by someone who's trying to retrofit their home. host: to use this new type of foam? guest: they should at least consider it. i'm not saying blanket but consider it. there are new thoughts that you can spray against rafters in an existing house against the underside and seal off that infiltration. that's proven to have a bonacontention across the country depending on areas. i think it's a very viable option but should be studied and considered. host: the "christian science monitor" says the cleanest and cheapest energy is the energy not generated at all and weatherizing a home is the best thinking for the environment and the wallet. according to energystar.gov you can get a credit as well.

guest: that's correct. how much how much does it cost to insulate a home? guest: i just had a price done on my bed and breakfast -- my wife's bed and breakfast, and for the original existing part of the house to do the entire attic was about $2,500, $2,600. i think that would save $100 to $125 a month. host: the energy department has the average annual energy bill per household and on average americans are spending about $688 on heating and about $257 on cooling. and water hereto costs about $245 and the washer and drier $107 and your refrigerator on average is costing about $87. what do you make of those numbers? guest: depends on the house, depends on the site, can he pends on where you are. those numbers can go -- depends on where you are.

those numbers can go up depending on the colder region. it only fits one house and one location. host: go to columbus, georgia. bob, republican line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i've been a conservationist since about the sixth grade. i'm not sure about the environmentalists. it seems like conservation is the part that makes good sense. you were just talking about since lating, double-pane windows, situating houses, planting trees in places so you get the shade. these are all things that i think we can all agree on. what bothers me is when we get in the area where government taxes, pay one of the participants to do something that's deemed to be in the public good but takes the money from somebody else.

and in this era where we have short budgets and big deficits that are going to not be paid by us but going to be paid by our grandchildren, then that concerns me. host: bob, so you think giving a tax credit up to 30% for consumers is short sided, that you're adding to the deficit? bob, is that right? caller: yes. host: ok. now, what about the argument, bob, that the government is making this initial investment into these different types of green technologies and then -- so that the private investors follow and that's how you'll get job creation and create new types of jobs in this country? caller: i think that's a wonderful idea, but if you look at solar panels and how that works out, you'll find that almost all of the money is going overseas to china, the biggest producer of solar panels. so instead of encouraging our local american domestic solar

panel industry, we're actually paying to promote china's solar panel energy. host: ok. yvan beliveau, i know you're not a solar power expert but from what you've seen in this industry, the construction of homes and buildings trying to be more energy efficient and the research and development in new technologies, are you seeing job growth? guest: oh, absolutely. a lot of people are putting their business model into solar, geothermal. now i will say we started with solar. solar is probably the most marginal of the potential energies. but having said that -- and i don't know the government exact how they do tax credits and all those things as well as i might, but the tax credit of 30% does jump-start a good industry. and when we think about people in mass producing solar energy

like t.b.a. what they say, why they're willing to pay 20.5 cents per kilowatts, they don't have to put in other plants to have the peak demand when you're meeting all the air conditioning in the region so the solar energy is very high. it has a great opportunity to buy out even at a very high rate. it solves their problem of peak demand issues and so from a grid distribution problem it's a great solution. the other thing is the tax credits have always been around. they exist for gas and oil. they exist for just about everybody. these have always been used to try to incentivize growth and change. and so this i see is just one of those things. host: ok. let's about on to david, democratic line in new york. david. caller: hello. i live in oswageo and we have for -- oswego and we have for power we call them national

grid, we call them national greed, because we pay 20.5 cents per kilowatt. we have hydroelectric plants. they are trying to do everything to close down the hydroelectric plants. i'm an engineer by trade. i took and i bought a wood boiler, a high-efficiency one. i built it special. i had special chem knees put on it. -- chimneys on it. i made it so it runs a greenhouse, it heats my swimming pool, it heats my -- all the hot water. i have unlimited. i can never run out. and it runs year round. now new york also has another little deal if you buy a windmill they do everything in their power to keep you from having it. but national greed does even better. what they do is they make it so you have to buy some kind of switching gear which they can change anytime they want which costs thousands and thousands of dollars. so you can't put it on line.

but every time -- they got another beautiful thing. see, this is the problem with all this energy self-sufficiency and i found out real quick is that every time i cut my elect trick bill they raise the delivery charge -- electric bill they raise the delivery charge so it's another scam that they just charged. my electric bill dropped the first month about $240 that i got it done and it took sometime. guess what, my electric bill went up $300 because they charged me delivery for not using it. host: let me ask you what you said from "the christian science monitor" says the small winds market grew 15% in 2009 despite the recession. and it says the five kilowatt turbines needed to power an average home range from 30 to 140 feet tall cost about $30,000. turbines that produce less than one kilowatt can cost less than $10,000. what's your reaction to hearing

david's comments? guest: obviously what's happening is you call it greed, i call it politics. whatever it is, it makes it difficult for people that make those decisions. now, i know about oswego. i grew up in quebec and in northern vermont. so in your region there are great opportunities there to save energy. certainly insulation but also geothermal would be great option for you. host: what is that? guest: trying to look at the average temperature of the ground is beneath you and using that to heat and cool your home. host: and why is that or how is that possible for a residential property? guest: there are many ways of getting that energy. i'm going to name three. host: ok. guest: one of them is drill wells. that's the most expensive. the second one is to put it in a pond. that's the second most expensive. and the third one is to take a spring and just take the water directly which normally comes out at the temperature of the

ground. and that is the least expensive. from my analysis and what i'm hearing, certainly in the region of southwest virginia, which probably expands fairly broadly, it's economically viable to probably do three of them with probably a five or six-year recovery on the wells, probably a three-year recovery on a pond. as long as it's big enough and deep enough. and probably a two-year recovery if you have a spring. or maybe even less. maybe a one-year recovery. host: so how much of a capital investment are retalking about those three? guest: for a five-ton heat pump taking that from a spring with piping and everything else it's probably go to cost somewhere around $6,000. but that's for new insulation. a retrofit is going to cost a little bit more. but you can use it interchangeably but there's lots of opportunities there. host: that's the least expensive? guest: that's the least expensive. host: a well? guest: a well will probably be a six-year recovery because you

have to drill a well. they're $10 a foot. you will probably have to drill to five of them. you are talking about -- three to five of them. host: and you can't do that obviously in an urban population, can you? guest: if you have a quarter acre there are opportunities to do that. host: how so? guest: all you need is the well and just drill it. as long as you are able to rotate your closed loop cycle and it tends to work very well. host: let's go to scott in orlando, florida. good morning, scott. you're on the air, sir. caller: yes. two or three years ago they were always talking about hydrogen and i was reading an article about a professor at m.i.t. who set up a system in conjunction with solar that was the catalyst to produce hydrogen. and since then i haven't heard anything about it. i just wondered if he knew -- if your guest knew anything

more about -- if there had been other developments on that? host: professor beliveau? guest: i am somewhat knowing about the m.i.t. research. this is especially good for shipping, transport and storage. how that works out has not been developed at a high level. that's the most i could possibly comment on that. host: all right. we'll go to westchester, new york. gale, republican line. caller: i wonder if you could discuss the annual course for maintenance for the panels and plus other required equipment and plus how weather wear and tear affects these units? guest: ok. not being an expert -- host: on solar. guest: solar would be the most marginal in my view, geothermal being the most plausible, one of the most plausible, besides doing good construction.

solar panels typically have an -- are expected to have a 30-year life if you buy good ones. if you buy the batteries and inverters and the maintenance of those certainly there's been a huge challenge with some of the inverters failing and they are a lot of money. there's been a response that now they have a 10-year warrant on those so that they are far more robust. again, those -- when we talk about solar, to me it's a great market. it's going to evolve. i think the tax credits are a great way to help them along. i think there are lots of ways to spend your money. host: it's a -- it would have a marginal impact, is what you're saying, too, on your electric bill? guest: yes. if you're doing everything you can, including geothermal, you reduced your energy budget by 75% to 80%. you insulated, you've done

geothermal, you've done a great job doing all this. now, your solar cost is reduced dramatically because you're only having to do maybe a one or two kilowatt system. host: what about putting new machinery, new dishwasher, new stove, do they reduce your overall electric bill? guest: i am going to try to stay out of that one. host: i think that's a no? guest: if you're using an electric dryer, that's energy star, it is using pure resistant coils in it, it's energy savings is marginal. you may want to put a gas water hereto or solar that will be used for drying or a gas dryer. using it off is a pure resistant capability. host: and you say marginal. what's a percentage? guest: oh, goodness. now, refrigerators, certainly the refrigeration technology has changed dramatically. but the robustness of the

refrigerator has declined. you could buy a refrigerator years ago you would burn so much energy but you expect it to last 25 years. now you would expect it to last six to 10 years. host: ok. baltimore, philip, democratic line. good morning. caller: yes, sir. for the last five years i've been researching and attempting to put up solar panels on my high school. we're like the highest point in baltimore city so we get almost 150 degrees of sunlight every day. now, i've gone through every -- i have contacts and i noticed that on the west coast and in europe and in the pacific rim everybody is actually moving forward with solar panels but for here some reason on this side of the mississippi everybody is -- everybody is talking the talk but nobody wants to walk the walk, right? i hear government, state government all the time talking about, we want to move in solar energy but in actuarily they say, well, you know, we're just

trying to do this. you can't -- only corporation or government agency to ever respond is -- everybody tass been talking the talk but not walking the walk. are there any programs for schools touality lies solar energy because -- touality lies solar energy because being -- to utilize solar energy because being in baltimore city we are on top. guest: high and low doesn't make much of a difference. it's if you are shaded and can get direct sun onto the panels. that's how you get good energy is direct light coming onto the panel. that will be the only criteria. it's about your shading efficiency. baltimore you are 50% sunshine for potential hours of daylight. i think there is a real possibility. the problem you have is that the tax credits are for individuals.

they're not for an institution like the school system. now, maybe there is something there. there are some business tax credits. i do not know about how a school system would work. and so -- but also the issue is that the cost of energy in europe is twice what it is on the east coast of the united states. and it's almost twice on the west coast. that's why solar energy is becoming so viable. they have hypo tension days of sunlight -- high potential days of sunlight. if you go to southern southern california it's 90%. in burlington, vermont, it's 60%. so thinking about that, putting a solar system in burlingtolk, vermont, you'll get -- burlington, vermont, you'll get less energy if you did in baltimore or in blacksburg or in southern california. host: joe in humble, iowa. go ahead. caller: yeah. in 2001 i bought a house, went

through it. we've added about two foot of insulation into the attic. before i did that my heating bill -- the heating bill on that house was some over $300 a month just for gas. what i got them doing -- my expense was right around $350 at that time. the cost of doing it was less than what i paid for gas during the month of january. as a result, like last january, my electric and heating bill was $142 for a 2,800 square foot house. so i think without doing anything major i made a great change. now, lately i was out in las vegas and i was wondering why they're paying some $300 and some to pay for a house. what surprised me all the heating, cooling forced air conducts was totally

uninsulated so any effort that was made to cool thatous or heat it was -- that house or heat was directed at the attic rather than the house. guest: that's a great question. i didn't get where he is located. host: he's in iowa. guest: as a caution, you shouldn't put too much insulation because you can cause a microclimates in that insulation. that is just a concern when i heard what you said. certainly that investment paid back almost immediately. when you think about the insulation in las vegas, that is what we call h.m.h. syndrome. there are so many better ways of doing that. and the insulation that would be against the rafters and close the entire attic which would put the air conditioning system into the space which would reduce the attic insulation and made the whole thing more efficient, there's just a huge array of things that we should be doing by the

-- because it's the right thing to do and it will save ultimate energy. host: and email here from a viewer that says, why is there so little attention paid to geothermal energy? it's safe, economical, clean, cost competitive, limitless and the technology is on the shelf today. guest: whoever that was i agree. the heat pumps are there. all of the things that we describe, the ponds, the spring or the wells, everybody -- and there's so many good contractors. the key is to get a good contractor. and it's just a great opportunity. and the cost per kilowatt savings is usually anywhere -- not anywhere, but certainly for a vast percentage of the american population would be in the eight cents a kilowatt range which means you're paying no more than you would buy if you bought it off the grid. your investment will typically be recovered in two to six years. host: and this email also refers to an m.i.t. study that

it's the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal, an energy resource that's bg largely ignored. why is it ignored? guest: i think it's confusing. now we're talking about the whole industry. the information you get is so confusing that sometimes you can't make a decision. you kind of get bound by all the conflicting stuff that's thrown at you. and so you really have to get a good installer. you really have to look at their reputation. and hopefully we can spread that because it's such an opportunity for the united states to reduce energy if they can do that. host: st. charles, illinois. st usks on the republican line. caller: good morning. very find discussion. i live in a geodistrict dome home and -- geodome home and the cost is 20% to 30% less than most homes. and right off the energy

savings is in the same range because of the limited amount of surface. i wonder why that idea is not pushed. i think it's one of the most beautiful homes i ever had. guest: you know, you must be somewhat my age and i think we're kind of looking at that evolution, that thinking that went on in the 1960's and 1970's when we were on a trajectory to try to do energy self-sufficiency which went away. but i built or consulted on many underground homes which was like another way of doing something. from a market perspective, those declined and there are several of them built in the vermont area. i actually worked with a couple of owners back in that time period. you consider it beautiful. es that that's not necessarily the norm -- that's not necessarily the norm. that's the challenge it always had. host: michigan, democratic line. caller: yes, good morning. i do know a bit of sole a. my son-in-law owns a -- solar.

my son-in-law owns a company in albuquerque, new mexico. and it's been the usual thing that nobody knows what the heck solar trackers are. perhaps the guest does. but he sells all over the world . host: pamela, how many people -- how many people does he employ? caller: he has about 30 people he employs. he bought a 90,000 square foot building. he has installations from lows alamos to colorado. he has installations on federal land all over. nobody knows about that. host: what is that? guest: it allows the solar array, the collection system to track the height of the sun. you can increase the overall energy absorbed in that same panel throughout the day. that's what a solar tracker

does. you can increase the efficiency by some amount. i'm guessing between 25% to 30%. i just think about albuquerque having skied there and spent some time there. the sun there absolutely is powerful. and so by tracking that little bit, it would make a significant difference to the ultimate total cost of the system as well as the ultimate kilowatt generated from that system. host: newfoundland, pennsylvania, george, independent line. caller: hi. i have -- i only saw it on tv one time. it's using the title tides of rivers to generate power instead of solar or winds -- wind through turbines. would that be feasible for a power source? guest: i think the most -- and, again, this is not a study area of mine but in portugal off the coast of portugal there are lots of great experiments on

tidal generation and they have come up with some very interesting designs. i've also visited the bay of fundy. that's where my ancestors came from. and quite frankly when you see 30, 40-foot tidal changes you wonder why not. i'm going to suggest it's probably cost and the fact that there is some environmental issues they have to deal with. but i am not the expert on that one. host: doug on the republican line in garrett, ohio. caller: yes, hello. thank you for taking my call. my question is, when you suck -- host: ok. i am going to move on. democratic line. we are talking about construction of buildings. go ahead. carlos. caller: yes, an email, i think you missed a point. it was referenced not to residential. it was in reference to commercial use and to replace

coal-fired plants. host: ok. thanks for that. guest: that's a great comment. and there are lots of geothermal systems. there's an austrian system that blends in with caseons if you want to do that system which makes geothermal even more vinyl. -- more viable. even for building clusters, geothermal should have an economic advantage. we just went through an analysis on that for a building we were looking at at virginia tech in blacksburg. again, the economics were, again, so fuzzy because the lack of ways to analyze it across bounries that i think it's difficult for an institution to make that kind of decision at this time but i think there are great opportunities for businesses. it's really a great way to go. but it's also limited a little bit to some of the areas of the country. i think if you're talking about the northern regions,

geothermal, most of the time makes a lot of sense. it meaks a great deal of sense of where we are in blacksburg, virginia. but i don't know what its true economics would be, like, in florida or a few other places. might have a very different response. host: we have an email that says, can you provide any websites? guest: well, i went to the wikipedia economics of geothermal and the economics of solar. and surprisingly they had some pretty good graphs and i thought that they did a pretty good job of explaining it in a way that was quite comprehendable, understandable. host: ok. another phone call here. lewis in the elizabethtown. caller: yes. i put 100 feet of black plastic in my attic and i don't have to use my hot water heater from

about may 15 to november 15 and it comes out as hot as 115 degrees. guest: i love the area. what you spoke to is how much energy is up in that attic. now, my response would be insulate that attic up against the rafters and then put that pipe under 100 feet on -- underneath a tpwhrass container and -- glass container and use a solar hot water heater. really, solar hot water heaters, if they package it correctly, it is almost a slam dunk. it's a great way to save some energy. host: our topic this morning for today's "washington journal," looking at energy issues is self-sufficiency. and it happens to be the front cover story for "christian science monitor" this week. some 750,000 american families have achieved energy self-sufficiency. arizona, nick on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, guys.

thanks for taking my call. obviously being out here in arizona, our energy bills are astronomical, to say the least. you kind of brought up a point with the guy from vegas in the way we build our houses for air conditioning, and what not. how could i possibly make my house -- i'm getting ready to build again. how can i make my house more efficient on the next one by changing the standard we do our air conditioning units out here, and, also, how would i take advantage of a geothermal unit with how hard the ground is? and obviously i haven't invested in solar yet, but i did read -- sorry. three-part question here. i did read that they are coming out with new panels that are magnifying the sunlight by making use of the heat. we get 360 days of sunlight out here, but i read something

where the efficiency of panels are getting ready to grow leaps and bounds because of that. can you comment on all three of those things. guest: i don't know if i remember all three but i'll give it a go here. we have homes designed for new york to arizona and las vegas and that's just a big mistake. everything about building in arizona and las vegas ought to be about siding and/or yen take. rejecting the sun -- and orientation. rejectinging the sun. accepting the sun. and your insulation question. please, go look at someone who does some spray foam insulation. you can come up with a far better solution. i'm hoping you have good contractors in that area. as far as geothermal, the challenge with geothermal in arizona is i guess your groundwater is quite a bit down which means your efficiency would be way down. so you'll need a lot more well length. so it's going to cost a lot more to do geothermal unless you got a creek or a pond or something