elections. john mcardle joins us. wenhold.thedave later, a conversation on u.s. energy policy. this is "washington journal." ♪ ♪ host: a first-time candidate the defeats scott mcinnis. the race was too close to call and tell about four o'clock a.m. this morning. mike bennett defeated romanoff.

the georgia republican primary runoff for governor is still undecided this morning. we will talk about that and the other primary results on today's "washington journal." the house yesterday approved $26 billion in state aid before leaving again for august break. we want to get your thoughts this morning on congress and campaign 2010. the phone numbers are on your screen. here is the front page of "the denver post." that is the front page of "the denver post." the results broke down like this. in the republican primary, buck defeated norton. maes beat mcinnis 50% to 49%.

mike bennett beat andrew romanoff 54% to 45%. we want to get your thoughts this morning on camping 2010 results, as well as what we saw from congress yesterday. they approved $26 billion in state aid, and another $10 billion to avoid teacher layoffs. we can show you that to vote in just a little bit. also from "the washington post" this morning -- we want to hear from you and what you think the results mean for the general election. that is "the washington post" this morning. also, the breakdown of the $26

billion jobs bill -- in "the washington post" this morning. the vote was 247 to 161. three democrats voted against the bill. 24 lawmakers were absent for the vote yesterday. new york, jim oon the line for democrats this morning. caller: thank you. government, this country, we're not going forward. we're either going back or we are going right. we are not going forward. this might sound terribly liberal -- i do not think it is.

many of the european countries seem to be going forward with their trade policies. it seems like we're almost getting it all wrong as far as repealing the tax cuts -- we cannot even get that. it was reported on tmz yesterday that kim kardashian bought $1 million worth of cars for her family last year. the wealthiest people in this country do not need a tax break. it amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. the middle class and the lower class, we need a tax break. the middle-class and lower class people should not be worried about the tax breaks for the wealthy. thank you. host: there's an article this morning in "the new york times" on a new study about the tax breaks.

it looks at a lapse of tax cuts for the rich. a report circulated yesterday on capitol hill. it said the president vowed to cuts for about 90% of american household.

host: it is a fight that is likely to come up when lawmakers return from august recess. johnnie, what are your thoughts this morning? caller: it shows me that the republicans, c-span, and fox -- c-span is a kind of part of fox. people are stupid. you think people are stupid. they are deliberately trying to tear down this economy. they're trying to keep people from getting jobs. they're doing everything they can to hurt middle america and the lower class. people can see this. people are not stupid.

as long as people are reluctant -- people are not clear to vote for them. host: we are going to talk about the primary results a little bit more. we will talk about it this morning. at 7:45 a.m., john mcardle will join us and give us his analysis. ."re is "the washington post the breakdown of the stimulus that has been put out by this administration. it also includes what president bush did as well. they showed that the $26 billion state aid package passed tuesday s to about over $1 trillion in spending and tax measures to stimulate the economy so far. you can see the breakdown of the stimulus bill that was passed in 2009.

infrastructure got a $147 billion. tax cuts got $190 billion. extending state aid, which was what passed yesterday, $26 billion. hire act, about $17 billion. former president bush, under his administration, passed about $170 billion in tax cuts. atlantic city on the line for independents, good morning. the >caller: i think that peopln the middle of the country -- the advantages of being --

[inaudible] they want to make sure that people are doing [inaudible] host: we're having a little trouble hearing you. we will go on to the democratic line in washington, d.c. caller: i'm very concerned that the democrats are going to lose this fall simply because the republicans are energized. i hope that's not the case. we're going to have a lot of gridlock. nothing is going to get done. even though a lot is not getting done now, it will be even more so if they win. host: benjamin on the line for republicans in mississippi. benjamin, you're on the air. what are your thoughts on

congress or campaign 2010? caller: i just want to let you know that mississippi is probably the poorest state in the nation. tea party.for the two-part hey, there are some things that we all need to talk about. host: we're going to leave it there, and remind you and others to turn your television down when you're on air. here is the headline in "the new york times" about the state aid package getting past. -- passed.

host: the stimulus money was being released immediately. mr. sanford joins several other governors who initially expressed hesitation, but later relented. woodbridge, va., johnnie on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have to let the democrats know that they're doing a lousy job of letting people know what the republicans are doing. the republicans are stopping the banks and other lending institutions from lending. they do not want any job to be filled. i do not see why the democrats cannot bring that out in the people.

go after these people. harry reid -- talk like cram puff. these people are very vicious. they do not want the banks or any lending institution to give a dime to anybody. small business has got a problem because every time they want to raise the minimum wage, there the first one to holler. they're going to run us out of business. it does not make sense. host: here is "the new york times" headline. it means mortgage rates are likely to remain at record lows for some time. that is "the new york times" this morning with their headline on that.

"the financial times" has this headline. that is "the financial times" this morning. also, other headlines about congress. here is "the wall street journal" this morning. we want to show you a little bit from yesterday's floor speech by charlie rangel, and we can come back and talk about that as well. >> all of my life has been, from the beginning, a public service. that is all i have ever done. been in the army, then a state legislator, then a federal prosecutor. if it is the judgment of people here, for whatever reason, that i resign, then, heck, have the

ethics committee expedite this. if this is an emergency, and i think it is, to help our local and state governments out, what about me? if i were you, i might want me to go away, too. i am not going away. i'm here. host: that was charlie rangel yesterday on the floor giving an unexpected speech. if you want to see the whole 30- minute speech, go to our video library, c-span.org. you can see a link at the top. you can watch the entire speech. here is "the wall street journal" on the speech this morning. his own lawyers and closest friends advised him not to give in. on wednesday, he will throw a birthday party in manhattan.

house speaker nancy pelosi said he should keep his comments away from the house floor. she wrote in a statement that the committee is the proper arena for ethics matters to be discussed. the article also concludes -- , on thes, missouri line for democrats. caller: the majority of the people of missouri want the health care measure the president is proposing. the vote that we had this last

week on the health care bill -- i am an educated voter, and it was stated on the voting ballots in such a negative way, using almost a double negative to make a statement. the average voter may have voted yes, thinking they were voting for the measure, when actually it was stated in the opposite way. if they wanted the measure to pass, they needed to vote no. the average voter may not have realized that. just for the people of missouri, i just want the average voter around the country ,o know that in missouri even though it did not pass, we really wanted that measure. the ballot did not give us the opportunity to make the right

choice. yota --n update ontario on to here is "the washington post" -- here is "the new york times" this morning. that is front page of "the new york times" this morning. houston, texas, on the line for republicans. caller: i want to mckee, on the last lady who just called. essentially, she is singing, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? basically, the people of missouri are so stupid that they did not realize they were voting against obamacare? give me a break. these people are leeches.

they feel the government is the absolute solution to all their problems. they do not understand that every public sector job held in the government is created by the private sector employee taxes. these people have no understanding about the basic economic working. host: your connection was not that great. we will have to move on to heath on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. it is 17 minutes after the hour and no mention has been made of the passing, fatally, of senator ted stevens. it is a shame. when mr. kennedy died, it was front-page news. everybody had to eulogize

senator kennedy, and there's been no respect for senator ted stevens. host: i was just about to get there with those headlines. a lot happening yesterday in the news on capitol hill and in politics, so that's why we brought in the phone lines. that includes the passing of ted stevens. here is the headline of "the new york times" this morning. creating the trans alaska pipeline, which made the state risk, and protecting the state's fisheries from exploitation. that is "the new york times" this morning. they also note that he was heavily criticized for funneling billions of dollars to his state. the watchdog group and mr. stevens regularly got alaska

more per capita than any other state, often through a earmarks. it says he was the emperor of earmarks and that he accumulated projects worth $3.4 billion, which is a record amount. that is the headline in "the new york times" this morning. front page of "the washington post" -- "former senator dies in crash." the survivors include sean o'keefe. that is the front page of "the washington post." the headline in "usa today" this morning --

we will go on to the big bear lake, calif., on the line for independents. caller: thank you very much. in southern california, they have a lot of processing regarding the money that the mayor and some of the other people who are made politicians are making in that city. over $1 million, the highest in the nation. i would like to congratulate the mexican americans for getting involved in starting this investigation and continuing to protests. at one time, i was really against the mexicans coming over and taking the jobs. the more i see of them, they are more involved in the politics than the so-called regular americans. i want to ask them to stay organized and keep up the good work.

on the other hand, a person asked, why aren't the banks lend any money? i ask that they read the book "the big short" by michael lewis, and you will see a lot of the reasons politicians are doing the things the way they are. and one of the reasons they're not giving any money is so the banks can continue to own the property. without the property, then the prices go down, the value of the property goes down, and then they can resell it and make a profit. the other reason the prices are so high -- the politicians want the prices of homes to go up so that they can put more tax on them and make more money for the state that way. and then he goes on to explain a lot of the other details. it is quite fun reading the

book. there's some humor in it, and taking a subject that's in the news today. host: we sat down with the author, as well, and if you go to c-span.org and plugged in his name, you can find our interview. an update on the connecticut senate race and the governor race. the results of those two races. mcmahon won the nomination over simmons, and now faces blumenthal in the fall. tom foley won the republican nomination. san francisco, don on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. i hope you're getting me ok. host: yes, we can hear you. caller: sorry about the plane

that went down. i'm always sorry about plans that go down. thank you for your service, elected official who went down in the plane. i called to talk about the republican-democratic stranglehold on government. i just wanted to say one quick thing about the missouri vote. politicians and people who write the bills do the language so that people misunderstand. they do misrepresent themselves as best they can. they call that legalese. legalese is supposed to be easily understandable. it is not. anyhow, the reason i called in today was to wake up the american voters that the republicans and democrats,

together, do not really care about the americans. they care about getting reelected. they care about getting money in their campaign fund. that is it. we need to do away with the electoral college. it will take a revolution. i'm not talking violence, but people will have to sit down in front of the obama administration and in front -- in front of the white house and get rid of the electoral college so that people with other thoughts have a chance. host: we will go to new orleans on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: there are so many nuts running for office. mcmahon is from the wwe. as far as ted stevens, mom was

wondering if it is a deal like the guy from enron -- right before the end of his trial, he mysteriously died. these billionaires have so much money that they can die on paper and in the news and just go away somewhere and hide. host: in the gulf oil spill, the front page of "financial times" this morning that the bp oil spill will be heard in new orleans. host: o'fallon, missouri, cindy

on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i was very active in getting proposition c to the ballot. when it was passed, it was because people did understand i t. i have it in front of me. it's a grand total of 46 words. can i read it? host: give us the most salient point. caller: they wrote this into the bill because they knew the secretary of state might try to twist the language. they broke this, and this is what was passed and voted on. "shall the statute be amended to deny the government authority to penalize the defendant for refusing to purchase private health insurance, or in french on the rights to offer or accept direct payments for lawful

health services. shall the statue be amended, too?" host: ok. caller: it was very straightforward. shall be amended to deny -- yes or no? host: you say you were heavily involved in u.n. to the capital. what did you do? -- and you went to the capital. what did you do? host: originally they wanted to make this an amendment to the state constitution. because of the way the legislative process goes, they were not able to do that, so they made it a piece of legislation. host: why did you get involved? caller: because i do not think

the federal government has any business telling us that we must buy a particular product. if they can force us to buy this particular product of health- care, then down the line they could force us to buy a particular kind of vehicle or food. it is a slippery slope in that regard. i hate to use that phrase because people do not like it. i do not think the federal government has any business telling citizens what they can and cannot purchase. host: we are talking about congress and camping 2010. yesterday the house approved $26 billion in state aid, and the vote was around 247-161, i believe. yes, 247-161. two republicans joined democrats to vote for it and three democrats voted against it. 25 lawmakers were absent. "the wall street journal" this

morning op-ed headline, "stimulus pushers pusher? -- "stimulus pushers." host: monroe, mich., michael on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning, gretta.

you have all the economic people on there, but no one has mentioned -- they all keep saying that jobs are going overseas and all this stuff. there's a thing the united states enacted after world war ii. the rust belt, where i'm from, the -- why they do not do that nowadays, they're lying to the american people. it's what we need for education. it is what we need for business and transport. it will save energy. it's so simple and it is already there. no one will talk about it. host: albuquerque, new mexico, lesley on the line for republicans. caller: in either the most liberal republican or the most conservative democrat.

first, i just want to say that it is easy to criticize the president, but there would not have been one person who could have come into this job and resolved so many problems. what i'm not hearing right now c-span.org in -- i am in a position dealing with aging citizens. my observation is the age group from 67 to 84 has probably been the most affected by the last three years of economics. that is the group that had retired. they have their money in lehman and merrill lynch accounts.

they're lucky if they lost half. every day on the phone i am talking to people in their eighties who are frantically trying to downscale, in figuring out how they're going to survive and what they're going to do. i was born in 1958. apparently, that was the very height of the baby boom. there were more people born in this country in 1958. my mother is 23 years older than me. i have just spent the entire summer transitioning her to new mexico. host: what is your point this morning? caller: all of the money we're spending is creating debt. it is going to affect our age group, adults in their '40's and 50's. who knows if we'll have a social security benefits?

now we will supplementing our parents. this is a very serious issue. host: illinois, roger on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. i hope you give me a chance to express three points. this last caller -- the stock market is a gamble. parents used to teach their children that you do not gamble anymore than you can afford to lose. there were years when 25 percent and profits were made, but nobody talks about that. in regards to the younger generation that's coming up, they should take a stand right now in force candidates running for office to state that they will vote for term limits or age limits. if they do that, they have a good chance in the future. the third point i would like to make is the fact -- you know,

all these politicians during the election year say they cannot vote for taxes. in the state of illinois, where i'm from, all the state representatives said they will not vote for a tax increase, which we desperately needed to pay our debt, because they will not get elected. that is not representing the people. that just shows you. you know, right now, four people working are supporting 10 people who are either on welfare benefits, retirement, or social security. with the debt that we are charging right now to the u.s., they do not understand that 20 years from now, when all these boomer generation retirees -- you will have two people supporting 15 people. host: where do you get that figure? caller: it is easy to calculate.

take the birth rate compared to 20 years ago and divide that by the number of children being born today, on average, and also, if you look at 20 years ago, there were 30 percent of the people being supported by welfare or social security. the people paying taxes was 57% 25 years ago. today, over 60% of the people do not pay taxes. that is easy to calculate. host: we will leave it there. front page of "the chicago tribune" has a story about desert ray rogers -- desiree rogers, former white house social secretary.

johnston city, ill., good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say -- money. it's sad to think million americans are angry because they need money to survive. i'm 21. there are tons of other individuals my age who are not -- they do not care as much as i do about the fact that this is a government by the people for the people. my generation, all ages, we need to get involved. we need to think about what is going on around us and not what is going on in our homes. host: phoenix, ariz. on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been calling for three months now. i have three points that i hope you'll let me get out.

the one on the economy -- for the middle class people. the government should give mortgages to those who can qualify under $250,000. give them a mortgage at 0.1% interest, like they do the banks. on taxes, they should take what percentage of our taxes go to the military and pull that out and do a military added tax, and just have that separate. the third thing is -- thank you for letting me talk. host: do you remember the third thing? caller: i am so excited now that i forgot. it will be another three months

to remember. oh, i know what the third thing is, the most important thing. our politicians should not pass any rules that they do not allow everybody -- we subsidize all of our politicians with their insurance and everything. they should only go with what the average american citizen gets. host: beverly, you do not have to rate three months. this is the front page of "the washington post" this morning. a look at former senator ted stevens and his career in the ascendant. he gave a speech when he was leaving the senate. we want to show a little bit of what he had to say at that time. >> my mission in life is not completed. i believe god will give me more opportunities to be of service

to alaska and to our nation. i look forward with a glad heart and with confidence. i told a member of the press yesterday that i do not have a rear view mirror. i only look forward. i still see the day when i can remove the cloud that currently surrounds me. that is it, mr. president. i close by asking that god bless alaska, god bless the united states, and god bless the senate and every member of this body. i yield to the floor for the last time. >> the majority leader is recognized. [applause] host: former senator ted stevens, republican of alaska, born in 1923 and passing away

yesterday. chicago, mark on the line for democrats. we're talking about congress and camping 2010. caller: good morning. i am a little angry at people. people who write different comments -- people have to understand. when you protest something, it is not just the day or the week that it happens. healthcare has been out of control. education has been at the bottom of the totem pole in this country. here is the issue. you do not stop pro -- you do not start protesting something when it happens. president obama was elected as a generational, transformative candidate. the issue of health care, education, wars -- he was

elected by over 50% of this country to run these operations. tea party people act like they just got to america. the people protesting education cuts earlier in the year -- my point is, if you're going to start protesting, if you're going to start opposition to something, do not start that when you are being affected. start the opposition long before when your children are smaller and you're raising your children. when you get to that point, things are cleared up. the reason the president is doing what he is doing, he has seen generation after generation of this country be affected by education, health care costs, joblessness, and jobs being shipped overseas.

that's why he went after corp. and things like that. host: david, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to comment on a few things. i worked my heart out to get president obama elected. it is so interesting how the republican party has -- they have selective amnesia. this country was in a disaster, an economic disaster. the type of change that he is trying to affect takes time. i remember one of my professors telling me that whenever you try to affect change, whether it is in your personal life or your professional life, if you try to change something, there will always be a resistance to change within an organization, family unit, or within a country. that level of change has morphed itself into this so-called tea

party, and they train people to vote against their own interest when it is very clear that health care costs are astronomical. the american future is only going to be secured by educating our young, by having policies that are positive for the country. host: david, we're going to take a short break. when we come back, we will continue this conversation. john mcardle of cq politics will be with us. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> senator, not a bad desk. daniel webster is used to use it. >> harry truman he did this movie. at the time, harry truman was seen as a senator from the pentagon as missing in kansas city -- looking at him as with the political machine back home. "q&a." night on c-span's >> based on review of hundreds of hours, they are not conspiratorial.

they really do not know what is calling on. >> this week marks the anniversary of the 1974 resignation from president nixon. almost 40 years later, watergate still resonates in american history. look back on the c-span video library, all free. it is history your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: john mcardle covers house and senate races for cq politics. let me show "the denver post" front page. what happened here? guest: it was down to the wire, people thought, that andrew romanoff would give michael bennett a tough run. both were trying to position themselves as the washington outsider. michael bennett ran advertisements for months that

he had only been there for less than a year and he was not really part of the culture. it was assumed for the first tenants of the democratic primary that michael bennett would have a fairly easy job. andrew romanoff stuff to the outsider message. he hit bennett for his special interest money that he had taken. the race only close in the past few weeks. people were wondering if bennett would be the next incumbent senator to fall in the primary after pennsylvania and utah. then it ended up winning by a larger margin. host: headlines are noting that president obama had backed michael bennett. some of the people president obama had backed until this point had not dared as well as michael bennett. is this a win for the white house? guest: shows how establishment and money can still go a long way. andrew romanoff spent eight

years in the state house. michael bennett, this was his first run for political office. he was still introducing himself to a lot of the voters in colorado. he was pushing for a larger turnout, figuring that the more people that voted, it was less of the party establishment that voted. ended up getting over 300,000 votes in this primary. yes, i think it was a win for the white house. bill clinton endorsed andrew romanoff in this race. i think 46 out of 60 something counties was all mail-in. many people had already voted before that robo-call went out.

i think the balance went out on july 19 to yesterday. andrew romanoff ended up mortgaging his house in the last couple of weeks of the campaign to get enough money to keep his advertisements on the air. you have to have your message going for that entire time for this format. by the time clinton's call went out, a quarter of a million votes were already in. host: michael bennett will now face buck. there is michael bennett with his daughter. he was not wearing a tie last night. michael bennett wanted to look like he was not part of the washington establishment, or is this part of his personality? guest: i did a couple of stories from colorado at the end of july. if it is an act that he is

putting on, i think he is doing it very well. he is never senator bennett. he is always michael. he does not like to wear a tie. when i first met him on capitol hill, i remember him ripping off his tie. that is kind of his schtick. wear cowboyett's boots. host: what does the general election look like? guest: it will be a tough race. a few polls have -- public policy voting out of colorado -- they did a poll over the weekend that showed michael bennett was up by three, but

there was a 3.1 margin of error. she had johnthe nra se-- mccain go out and campaigned with her last week. the chairman went out and did a joint fund raiser with her. that is what got a lot of the tea party people riled up, and was the reason buck's campaign surged. he was contemplating getting out of the race last year. his money has dried up. the reports were that he was planning to get out. he stepped in it. as she came to be seen as this establishment candidate, the tea

party rallied behind buck. he admitted that he was not one of the originators of tea party movement. they turned to him because they did not like the establishment candidate. he started gaining momentum. she ended up skipping the state convention. she was worried about among the hard-core party activists that she would get embarrassed and, in second place. she got on the ballot by petition. host: given what you just said, how is she doing money-wise? guest: establishment support goes a long way. she had out raised him. host: how is she sitting? hal is buck -- how is buck sitting?

guest: the thing about michael bennett was that he spent $4 million -- no, it was over $5 million -- his money was his key advantage going into the paul. he may not be well known, but he will have the money to compete. he just had to blow through $5 million in the primary campaign. he still has several million dollars in the bank, and more money will come in now that it is over. i saw tim cain downstairs. he is headed out to do they unity rally tomorrow. buck is going to need the money. the republican establishment has already rallied around him. host: let's talk about the governor race, the republican primary, and colorado. we learned this morning that maes won 50% to 49%.

-- how wasnver post puts t" he able to pull this out? guest: capitalize on some big stories that came out about mcinnis -- about scott mcinnis, that he plagiarized this policy paper. that was a big story in colorado. everybody wanted to talk to scott mcinnis. the problem for republicans here is that the independent canada got into this race. he will definitely pull from maes' voters. he's a hard-core conservative in colorado. that is only good news for the

mayor. host: how are they doing money- wise? guest: i do not know what the tally is. i know that the mayor had the money and continues to have the money. host: we're talking about yesterday's primaries in four states. al on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: i want to make a couple of comments about tea party. first, they are getting an extremely bad reputation from political environment. the tea party members have experienced the effects of all of this. financially, in the stock market, they have lost tremendous amounts of dollars. the values of their homes -- they have lost tremendous

amounts of dollars. we have witnessed our politicians vote on bills -- we are seeing this lack of confidence. this is what the american people are seeing. you have the politicals say the tea party ones are the bad ones for recognizing what has happened. the disconnect is from the politics to the people. i believe this is not just a democratic problem. this is not a republican problem. this is a government problem. the financial disaster that fell among the american people, if you want to put blame somewhere -- it is never looked at as a government problem. host: how did the tea party

do guest:: in colorado, they did well with buck. in georgia, there were primary runoffs yesterday. in the seventh district to replace the retiring congressman, there was a tea party candidate running against odall, he had the establishment support. the tea party candidate did not do well in that election. in the ninth district, graves, who was elected in a special and went to ay runoff in june that he won, and then he had to do the general election primary in july -- he ended up winning last night.

he built his election on the tea party. he got endorsements from the club for growth, which is seen as a champion of the tea party movement. he ended up winning handily last night, i think by about 10 points. he will be the next congressman, or he will earn a full term in the ninth district. he was running against nathan deal, who i still believe is the head in the governor's race. that one may go to a recount. the interesting thing about him, i think he was in third place at the time that he left congress. he was not even expected to make the runoff. in the primary, he came in second to karen handel, who was

endorsed by palin. host: do we know when they will make a decision? guest: i think they have to wait for all the provisionals, the overseas ballots, and then whoever is behind can ask for a recount. host: michael on the line for democrats, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just finished working the connecticut primary. i've been a 38-year registered democrat. they pull me in as a moderator. we really did not know what was going on yesterday morning. we started to have a fiasco in the morning because the tabulators were not even available. we are supposed to open the polling place at 6:00 a.m. we started to have some

problems. it was a very interesting race, i must say. i was supporting i'm happy that when -- what i've wanted to understand is the tea party -- they're people just like me, democrats, republicans, independents, black, white, hispanic -- and they don't just stay with one candidate, and if that candidate does not make it, they try to figure out the next move. the strategy is to try to keep government by the people, for the people. one more point. in 2006, the people responsible for the fiscal dilemma we have now were democrats. i voted for them.

they got in. from 2006 until 2010, we have had control of the house and senate with democrats. i'm getting tired of people voting for george bush -- talking about george bush in the eight years -- i did not vote for him. but we have to start being honest. nancy pelosi got on the podium, and that was the control until 2010. host: if spending is a big issue, with the stink of linda mcmahon spending so much? -- 40 think of that? the ap reports that she said on a morning show that she is ready to spend whatever it takes -- up to $50 million of her own money. caller: here is the problem.

you are right. as the tea party supports these candidates, my candidate did not have a lot of money. i had to make phone calls for him. guest: who? caller: rob merkel, who is fantastic, a great guy. i am sorry that he lost. there was another candidate under him who challenged him. i want to return to the money thing. thank you for answering that. i kept saying, what you have to have so much money to be in campaign? i endorse the end -- understand when she spent so much on her campaign, but surrendered to that after a while.

they're all raising money, all spending. the person who won is a millionaire, and was able to have the money to put up the ads. host: ok. guest: a couple of points on his call. one interesting story about her spending. i heard from the campaign operatives, the people who go door-to-door, on a regular campaign you are lucky to have a blackberry to go door-to-door to attract voters, but i understand some of hers had ipads going door-to-door. there is a lot of money. $23 million in a primary is a lot -- $50 million or more in the general election is amazing. it put her something like the fourth biggest spender of all time in the senate race. he said he gets sick of hearing george bush's name come up -- i think you'll continue to get

sick because i think democrats will continue to mention george bush in the coming months. host: why? do they find traction in that? guest: some polling have seen in the last few weeks. one message is that the financial mess was handed over from the bush years. it still strikes a nerve. there were both republican and democratic polls. host: linda mcmahon faces richard blumenthal. how does he fare? guest: it will be a close race. how can you look when you're looking at $25 million more. he is well-known, and does not have the baggage that she does.

in the republican primary, a candidate she faced with the strongest on the baggage message. she was the ceo of the wws, an ad of her kicking a gentleman in the groin repeatedly. from what i know about the wws, there is a lot more out there. you may not see richard blumenthal use this in his ads, but you'll see the connecticut democrat party and others come in and talk about the violence. the story about the drug use, steroid use in the wws. it will be a nasty fight. she will have the money to compete. there were two interesting statistics -- democrats are very

happy that linda got 49%. they said more republicans voted against them for her. it was a three-way race, but they take comfort in that. going back to the colorado race, as of this morning there were 60,000 more republicans who voted in the primary than in the democratic primary. they say it is a sign that the colorado republicans are more excited. -- there were 60,000 more republicans. there will come back again, and have that many more voters in the fall. host: on the republican line, illinois. caller: i have three quick points. about the tea party -- when republicans were in the majority there were several moderate republicans. they squashed the conservative

voice. they could not get their voice through because of party leadership. but after they got beat in 2006 and 2008, now you see the conservative movement coming back. the last eight years when george bush was president, if bush was driving, the democrats were in the passenger seat sleeping. why weren't they the party of no if they disliked his policy? the republicans are doing their job now, trying to stop bad policy. if the democrats had such a problem with george bush, they should have stopped his policy. the democratic party needs to rethink their party like the tea party members like myself -- i'm a black american from illinois. trying to retake the

republican party. guest: that is interesting -- about trying to retake the party. you had some democrats and liberal democrats trying to retake their party in the arkansas primary earlier this year. many labor groups championed the lieutenant governor out there against blanche lincoln. the establishment rallied around blanche lincoln and she won by the skin of her teeth. it is happening on both sides out there. people are angry. when candidates come and to roll call and cq and we talk to them, we often ask how people are feeling. angry is the response -- on both sides. host: the new look of the connecticut governor race where the former u.s. ambassador to ireland won the republican nomination, and will face

malloy. lamont ran in 2006 on the anger about foreign policies, running against the bush strategy in tea partiers. now he lost. guest: he could not recreate the magic this time around. it was a surprising win. it will be a tough race in the fall. host: baltimore, md., brian. caller: i have a couple of points. i hope that you give me a chance. first, i want to tell you that i enjoy your show. i always like to hear what other people think. i am a 25-year-old guy, a young

dude. i am in finance, and everything to do with politics -- it always revolved around one thing -- that is money. i have my own shop. i educate people about money. summon the people do not know anything about money. i blame that on the lack of education. host: we will talk about money in a little bit. many say this will be one of the most expensive midterm elections. how much does it cost to run for house or senate seat? guest: it depends where you are running, whether in philadelphia or new york city, or rural georgia. listen, wendy's financial disclosure reports come in --

you see house candidate races $5,000 -- $500,000 in the quarter. a couple of million dollars on a house seat. they used to be what you spent on the senate seat. some upcoming primaries in florida -- some big money being spent. alan greyson has raised a ton of money. he has garnered support from around the country. he is seen as a progressive champion. do you remember the don't get sick, and if you get sick, die quickly that fired up republicans' tax hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into candidates running against him. but he raised just as much that quarter. it will be interesting. host: the florida senate race

too. the democratic primary there. who is that? guest: we have a billionaire real-estate investor running against meek. his pockets are limitless and what he is willing to spend. that will be an expensive race. the republican primary until charlie crist dropped out was very expensive. the general election, no matter whether meek or greene, against charlie crist and marco rubio will be expensive. host: and the match up? guest: meek usually gets a hold on this one. charlie crist comes out ahead

for now. critics think his numbers will fall as we get closer. people like to say they will vote in the pink, but when they get to the ballot box, that conviction dissipates. the right-wing charlie crist dropped out of the republican primary and ran as an independent. the democrats were excited by that. crist has look for support in democratic circles. there is a big fund-raiser for democrats here in washington, d.c., who are holding a fund raiser for charlie crist. he will go to florida democratic circles. he may pull some pullkendrick meek. i think this still leans republican, and rubio's camp thinks the numbers will fall his way in the end. host: let's go to california

where there are some interesting races there. good morning, bob. caller: you know what? all these things that i hear -- i called to comment on the tea party. first of all, i have four points -- and i want to ask a question. what is a moderator? host: he is referring to the caller from connecticut. guest: both sides get to have officials at the polling booth to make sure they're watching what is going on. caller: if you want to vote for john jones -- is that the deal? guest: no, they're not to push

one side or the other, but just to ensure their parties' interests. they are there to prevent the other side from doing that. caller: you do not get the point. in the california we have people who cannot understand the language, or do not see well. they want to vote for john jones for the president. the republican and democrats supervise to see that they vote for john jones. host: do you understand what he is getting at? guest: yes, he is concerned they are unduly influencing the election. that is always a concern. you can report election fraud. every election there are plenty of reports of that. host: greenville, north carolina. caller: the caller from illinois did not understand why the

democrats are not being the party of no. but during that time, any time democrats disagreed they were branded as unpatriotic, the war effort and all else going on. host: good morning, tom. caller: there is a life lesson here when it comes to what has happened to the democratic party. after two years of president obama, the best they have is to blame bush. demonize anyone who disagrees. they are the party of it inaction. all they know how to do is take money from the people. that does not create jobs. host: yesterday the house approve the state aid bill for states, $26 billion. the you think that spending and

that of the stimulus becomes an issue in the general election? guest: in previous cycles the idea of the do-nothing congress -- democrats did not want to be seen as that. they passed big bills, and now have to go out and defend them. this one yesterday they think will be especially good on the campaign trail. who does not like to find teachers? for their base, yes. the members will go up during this recess and pitch some of these bills that have passed. but then you also have big ones to defend -- health care, cap and trade. host: houston, texas, on the independent line. caller: i think that political campaign ads on tv are silly. have any studies been done?

does anyone actually watch them? are they effective? guest: everyone hates the negative campaigning, but their work. you see these over and over. the message begins to stick. these people would not spend this money if it did not work. some are very silly. repeatedly kicking the man in the groin --you will see more of that coming up. the campaign ad in the primary in arizona -- coming up in two weeks. one of his ads that worked well was hitting jd hayworth on an infomercial he did. how to get free money from the government without paying it back.

hayworth had been tried to run to the right of john mccain. that ad that john mccain rand, he made sure to use this infomercial -- it was very effective. it got a lot of buzz and articles written about it. the latest from john mccain is an ad that hits hayworth for his ties to the former jack abramoff who was disgraced. host: and where does the polling stand? guest: it was getting close for a while. i think that john mccain will have an easy night. there is also a house primary to watch in the eighth district of arizona.

it is a targeted seat for republicans this fall. it is a district that republicans plan on falling back to. we have a the tea party guide their named jesse kelly against a former state governor. kelly has been in the race longer. that one will be close. it is august 24. host: richmond, va., on the republican line. caller: i was a big fan of ken bucks. even though there is a mess in the colorado gop race, doesn't

the presence helped to block it? you have been energized tea party that drove buck to victory. i saw some video. there is a real passion for buck among the conservative base in colorado. he will bring out people -- they will definitely vote for buck. guest: you make a great point. as maybe some of the establishment support rallies around ken buck -- the tea party did not like norton because the establishment rallied around her. but this may draw out the the tea party folks if he embraces the national party. host: has sarah palin or other

high-profile republicans weighed in on the race? guest: jim demint who is an incumbent from south carolina has weighed in. he is a champion of the tea party movement. he and mitch mcconnell have gone head-to-head. you remember the kentucky race, the republican primary there. he was one of the key people ofbuck last spring. he still has those two party credentials. -- tea party credentials. buck has run a grass-roots campaign, and hopes as voters will still be there in the fall. host: memphis, tennessee. caller: all this rhetoric about

funding -- this is a bunch of baloney. when ronald reagan was elected, [unintelligible] why did it take ronald reagan and them 12 years to get us back? they want this man to do within six months -- you tell me why? host: it sounds like criticism. guest: give the guy more time to get everything back on track, is what he is saying. these days people want everything to happen now and the age of instant news. and my job you have to get the story up on the internet. you do not write for the paper anymore. it is an immediate news cycle. but translates into many facets

of the economy. people one of the economy to turn around now. host: over the last couple of days it has been the white house versus the left. is that going to play out in the primaries coming up and in a general election? guest: it goes back to our talk about the enthusiasm gap. republicans hope that anger between the white house and left continues. progressive, liberal -- whatever you call them, activists, will stay home. i think it goes back to the conversation. all you will hear more of george bush -- he can still get the democratic base energized. we will see. host: the minnesota governor race -- yesterday in that primary dayton won the

democratic primary. palenti does not seek reelection. guest: i think that pawlenti not seeking reelection is the interesting thing there. he is setting up his presidential run -- many people assume so. we have seen posturing for 2012 plan to many of these races around the country. mike had to be endorsing, sarah palin endorsing in many of these races. in the georgia governor race sarah palin endorsed handell and new to gingrich endorsed deal. there were these proxy fights. >> we still do not know the outcome. he leads by a couple of thousand votes? guest: waiting for the provisional ballots.

the interesting thing in minnesota is pawlenti setting himself up. host: back to minnesota concerning dayton. he resigned from the senate, but has not decided to run for governor? guest: many say that you may hate the political bug will you were here, but you miss it when you're gone. many former members talk about it. he is back and made a statement in that race. host: he is spending a lot of his own money. now to texas, james. caller: it is the time of year with the -- the negative campaigns drive me crazy. i have been a democrat for a long time, i think, because that is the way i was brought up. i believe all will switch sides

because i like the tea party. one thing that discuss me -- tell me if i'm right -- some of the negative campaigns and things politicians will say, it seems to me, if i were to make comments like that, i could be sued couldlibel or send a. are there different laws that apply to politicians and campaigns? guest: no, you see politicians get sued in civil courts and complaints made to the federal election committee every election. no, these people are under the same laws as the rest of us. it happens every year. in turn to think of one from this sector. it does not come to mind. you see the federal election commission take up these complaints all the time. host: bob, republican line. caller: i called earlier.

i want to know -- a couple of commons -- i want to know what a moderator is? host: we just discussed that. caller: no, no one ever told me for the moderator is. some guy told me i'm a political person. host: are you referring to the call we had at the beginning? caller: the election and missouri, or somewhere in the middle of the country. host: i think it was conn. guest: i would love to get the other caller back on the phone. host: in many cases, what is a moderator? guest: both parties on both sides have different people at the precincts to watch. to make sure there's nothing going on. i wish i could give you the actual definition. hopefully, the other caller will phone back. host: we have to leave it there. we will have you back on to talk

about campaign 2010. could you give us the take away from yesterday's results? guest: in the democratic and colorado race, the bennett race is the one to watch. the power of incumbency and money, for guy never on the ballot before against a former state house speaker -- it was key to bennett winning. we saw the power of the tea party movement in the ken buck win. he was left for dead last fall. we will see if he can rally both sides. host: will you be updating drop the day on the georgia primary governor runoff race there? guest: i will not because i do -- my specialty is the senate and house. but we will watch that.

especially with nathan deal, i'm always interested in what they're doing. host: thank you. next we will turn our conversation to proposed changes to lobbyist registration with our guest. first, an update. >> an update on the aid workers killed last week in afghanistan -- the u.s. embassy spokesman embassykabul says the remains of four are being flown back to the u.s. the families of two other american victims asked that they be buried in afghanistan where they have lived for many years. as for the war in that country, "usa today" says afghan troops have hit the two would of 40,000 goal, three months ahead of schedule. the size and quality of afghan forces will be a central part of the white house review in december.

today at the white house the president focuses on iraq in a meeting with his national security team and the security commander over in iraq by videoconference. next, the president signs a security enhancement act. those are some of the latest headlines. >> book tv has been finding out about the new books coming out this fall. >> is an interesting and more. how did this young girl growing up in the 1950's become the first black secretary of state? she is a health-care expert and politically savvy -- he is. this is an account of what was like to be on the road with her dad. from what we're hearing, it will

be hot, hot, hot. >> learn more about these this weekend. for the latest, watch "book tv" every weekend. "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is the head of the american league of lobbyists, here to talk about proposed changes. the seven -- the lobbyist call bluff on the town-shall exemption. -- on the daschle exemption. there's a quotation from him who says to politico -- i provide analysis cannot access. i offer strategic advice on public policy, including analysis -- why is that a problem?

guest: i have always believed that transparency and accountability is a good thing. if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you are registered like a duck. people have gone to the white house 39 times a year, but do not register as lobbyists. to me, that is obfuscating the rules. most lobbyists are following the rules. for someone to determine not register is a problem for me. host: by not registering, these individuals do not have to disclose the specific clients they advise, issues they're working on, or how much firms make from their advice -- politico. what is the current law right now? guest: great point. to currently register, you need

20% of your time spent as contacting members of congress. in need one or more contacts, and need to spend $3,000 or more in the quarter. so, a lot of people are saying i am only working 19% or 15%. so, when i go to washington for a meeting, does the 15 minutes i'm in the meeting, or the hour that i am driving? we believe that threshold needs to be lowered. we do not want to capture the mom and pops, but want to make sure that people are following the rules. as the government looks to regulate lobbyists more, we're one of the most heavily regulated industries in america we have to file six times perh year timesow much we get paid, who pays us, what issues we're working on, what agencies we

visited, how much we donated. these are private companies. host: your league says that is good? guest: more transparency and regulation. if it captures those who are going under the radar, absolutely. host: what changes would you like to see? guest: we're working with watchdog groups. you don't think we would be working together, but i feel so strongly because i'm proud of being a lobbyist. i represent some great people. i don't think there is anything wrong with a registry. a couple of years ago, roll call said 20% de-registered. you cannot tell me they return to arkansas and became farmers. they are just not registering any more.

host: why wouldn't daschle want to be a lobbyist? guest: it is a good question, and would have to ask him. there's nothing wrong with it. if you are representing your people ethically and effectively, there's no problem. host: are other benefits to not registering for daschle and his company? guest: he does not have to file the paper work like the rest of us do. host: are their financial benefits? guest: i don't know about that. whenever you call yourself -- worst of it in your contract and retainers. it is probably not a financial benefit. it is probably more about not jumping through the same hoops as the registered lobbyists do. host: there are republicans as well. house members who have lived who do not register but who are working for law firms.

guest: yes, the rainmakers. you cannot tell me that they're not picking up the phone in making a call. that they will send in an assistant and take the meeting. host: you are proposing at the summit foundation to eliminate the 20% rule and allow the threshold to $5,000 in expenses or $2,500 per quarter in income. guest: that is the son might -- sunlight's decision. the definition of a lobbyist needs to be re-evaluated. 10% downking at 15%, which will capture the people sitting there, but not those coming into town like the court reporters, for their flying

days. what is a lobbyist? it is a great question. this is why it is so complicated. the lda states -- i will give a couple of examples. let me read this so that i get a correct. if a lobbyist is retained, and does not -- and worse more than 25%, but does not get paid more than $3,000, and does not make any context -- it does not constitute as lobbying, even if it work 50 percent something but if they make more than $3,000 per quarter from and work less than 20%, they do not have to register. what most people do not understand -- there is a misperception -- our job is to

educate and inform people. people think they are backroom deals. our job is to go into the office, tell the store. we cannot lie, because if we do, we lose credibility. in this town your reputation is the coin of the round. our job is to educate and inform. haveately, the legislatureors to make the decisions. important is that lobbyists never vote on the floor. i love how legislators pass the buck every now and then concerning evil lobbyists. in 18 years, i have never voted on the floor. host: what about campaign contributions? guest: campaign reform is critical. i have met with people -- the public financing side, because of believe that is the seminal issue. if we are able to address the campaign issue, the lobbying

issue can stand on its own. the information will never change. you always need someone up in the washington protecting your interest. the average american is ready to put to thousand dollars or $3,000 into electing their politicians. i am trying to figure out how the system can change. host: so, you do not foresee any changes to the way it works now? guest: i would love to see changes. legislators do not want to spend 20% of their time fund-raising. we get hit up all the time, then demonized. i would rather be at home with my son on wednesday night instead of going to three fund- raisers. host: you say that you get him up all the time. how does it work? guest: it is usually an e-mail campaign or faxes. i get about 15 or 28 solicitations per day. host: from house and senate

members? they ask you to show up at a fund-raiser the night? guest: yes. grip and grin. hi, congressman, thanks for having me, hall is the campaign going? the check is already sent. it is not a quid pro quo -- is not a hey, by the way, i'm here, and i want you to vote for this. that is not the way it happens. showing support for someone who believes in your philosophy, or your clients philosophies. host: we're talking about hold.ing with david wen caller: thank you for c-span. i went to speak to the guest in regards to help democracy has changed, to where lobbyists have taken over washington. how much does it all number the

spinning private citizens spend on the campaigns? there are 39 lobbyist for every house member or senator. revolving door o can have asee how we democracy that americans can thrive in when you have so many special interests there represent major corporations instead of those small interests of the average private citizen. guest: it is a great question. first of all, i believe every american should be a lobbyist. you should be your own ad begin. the government is doing something to you or for you every day. but if you cannot be here, you hire someone to be here for you.

it is really interesting that people say special-interest because every interest is special. people always call them special interest groups if they do not agree, but a public interest if they do agree. lobbying is some important that it was put into the first amendment, the right to petition government. it is all-important, a part of democracy -- but the american people need to take charge on accountability. i always hear that the lobbyists are doing this or that. no, the lobbyists do not come here without a client or cause. host: by do some clients or causes have unfair advantages over others? corporations over small, middle class groups? should there be a cap on how much you can not be for one

cause? guest: no, because if you do that, it smacks of almost fascism. america was built on capitalism. we built a better mousetrap. there are some things in the stimulus package i did not agree with. companies are not too big to fail. if they do, someone else comes to pick up the pieces. for example, i represent a number of small non-profits. back to the question, members of congress have about five dozen bills before them. they cannot be experts on these bills. for my non-profits, the come here and have to get their voice heard. they do not know how to lobby or the political process. they hire someone who does. that is where the value of a lobbyist comes in. host: john from alexandria, virginia. caller: i have been lobbying for four years, and dave speaks the truth. i have my own small logging

company. there's a general misperception of lobbyists and lobbying. there many loopholes. i like dave to address this. large law firms and public relations firms, and all sorts of other consultants do not have to register. i think for exposing that, that is a loophole in the law. so, dave, perhaps you can explain that? guest: yes. lobbying was a $3.50 billion industry last year, a raise over 2008 -- much of it had to do with healthcare. things like grass roots law is not can afford, neither is pr. those are probably billions of dollars more, even more than direct lobbying such as when i go up to capitol hill and meet on your behalf. that is an issue that needs to be addressed. you look at some of these -- ad buys with lots of money spent

there -- yet there's no accountability there as to who it is run by. transparency is good. sunlight is good. host: these public relations firms are spending money or gathering it on behalf of the cause, for certain legislation, pooling money -- and you say that is lobbying? guest: yes, you see these full- page ads and that is a formal logging. i'm trying to get it in front of a legislator so that they can of least glance at that. the court-reporting issue, or the tanker share -- that is still try to influence legislation. host: is there more money in that band in direct lobbying? guest: i do not know because there is no accountability and that part of it, but on the direct and, we are very accountable. you can search, to a direct

lobbyist makes, but not on the public-relations or grass-roots firm. host: the republican line. caller: sir, you project a lobbyist to be some who just gives information. i would certainly think that you could hire an auditorium and have all the legislation -- legislators come. and you give a speech on what particular thing you are lobbying for. i'm just wondering how a lobbyist shows on his expense report. we have a friend in the congress. one day he opened his garage and there was a case of scotch in there. someone he had spoken to no doubt a lobbyist had asked him what kind of scotch -- or what his favorite liquor was.

he mentioned a brand of scotch. about one week later, that case was there. only he knew who delivered it. i find that offensive. i also find it offensive when a particular senator believes the last day of the senate to go formed a lobbying firm. it leaves a really bad taste in your mouth. guest: i am a miller lite fan myself. your example is back in the day before other logging restrictions are put in place. for example, right now you cannot go up and by a member or staff member a cup of coffee. you cannot take them to lunch. before other lobbying restrictions are put in place. people are in violation if they do that. host: there is a gift ban.

guest: you can bring a baseball bat -- but not the case of whiskey. host: these laws were put into place when? guest: 2007. before that there were other loss -- $50 or $100 cap per year. but taking a staff member of to lunch, i honestly think -- if i can buy your ethics for lunch downtown, there's a bigger problem in washington. but the lobbying committee excepted the new rules without pause. host: how have things changed since then? guest: we spend more time and a small office, smaller than this room. sometimes there will be two or three lobbying groups squeezed into a house office. it has not changed that much. your job is to deliver information, provide education on an issue. the staffers need to make

decisions, then take it to their bosses. there are 5000 bills introduced -- they cannot be experts. the healthcare bill was only one of those 5000. host: is their staffs that reduced? guest: yes and no. yes, it is reduced because you do not get a chance to meet the staffers. we said that we would go out to lunch once per year -- began to trust lobbyists and understand who you really are. nowadays it is more hit and run. you have to go in and immediately establish the relationship and get your message out within a few minutes. host: ivy, the independent line. caller: your just addressing the question i was calling about. it seems much of the legislation is addressing lobbyists and legislators. i was cares about the law concerning lobbyists and money spent, even time with the

staffers. ultimately, they are the ones who really do the work that writes the law. then a congressman or senator will base their decision on what staffers say. the staffers have the revolving door that takes them into industry or logging. they're back in the swing of things and get rehired to work on someone's campaign or in their office. in essence, is a they're both a revolving door, and what is the legislation that governs lobbying of staffers? guest: there are rules if staff at a certain level comes out of a committee or a senior staffer, that they cannot lobby for a specific time line. members of congress and the senate have the same type of revolving door. a member of congress has put up that they want to increase that time line. for the logging committee that is great -- it is fewer

lobbyists out there. but when you limit the ability of people to do work, i'm not sure that is a fair assessment. i agree they should not be working immediately on issues they have just been on the hill on. but the staffers are key. i love being a lobbyist and working with that. as a former congressional staffer, i understand how busy they are. they need the information quickly. that is why lobbyists are hired. we know how to get across the message so that they can take it to their boss. host: these staffers have expertise, areas they focus on. they become immersed in that. why shouldn't they be able to lobby on an issue they know a lot about? guest: you are exactly right. if you become an engineer at toyota, you will not then go out and become a cook. you will become an engineer at

honda, or someplace else. you will use the skills you know. i once asked a congressman who was retired, now a lobbyist. i asked him why he is doing. he says dave, i grew up in arkansas. i came to washington, was on the agricultural committee for 20 years. i do not know anything else. people hire me for my expertise in agriculture. host: lincoln, on the republican line from indianapolis. caller: my family has been part of the national federation for the blind for the past few years now. basically, we have lobbyists could go to congress and say what we need we needpets in our lives. hybrid anding the

electric cars because we cannot hear them. many people including me have almost gotten hit by them. we are petrified of them. we have been trying to get them to put some sort of thing to make them make noise. host: go ahead. guest: this is a great question. this is exactly what people need lobbyists. they need to have their story told. i work on closed captioning, to get it on television. it took about six years to get it passed. you think it would be easy, but it was not. the 30 million deaf and hard of hearing that excess. the girl scouts, mothers against drunk drivers, telecommunications people -- everyone has a lobbyist here because there are so many competing voices here. your job is to be about to get a

great message management, work for that, and help with this hybrid issue. i know that congress is looking at it. it will take time. it does not mean no all the time -- it just means no right now. keep working on it. host: earlier this month "the washington post" had a story about revenue. a jump in the first half of this year. eight out of the 10 most successful shops brought in more revenue during the first half of 2010 than during the same time last year. the financial-services overhaul legislation and climate change generated more than $28 million in revenue.

to come, -- washington. caller: i was wondering about the citizens united case, and was wondering what the average return on lobbying dollars is. guest: let me answer the first part first. the u.s. chamber spent $134 million last year on lobbying. i don't think they got that amount of return. -- would hundred $44 million. they won some issues, and lost some. nothing is guaranteed when you spend on logging. with the citizens united case, i see it both ways. in your stand the freedom of speech aspect. personally, i'm not sure corp. has the same rights as an individual. i do not think there will be a flood of money as everyone thinks.

the companies are beholden to the stockholders. spend what they can get an immediate return on. from our point of view, lobbying is up over the past year. people understand the value of advocacy. if they are not here, they understand that they could be left out in the cold. for example, one of my clients is in the telecommunications space. they are fighting the goliaths and they are the davids. we make sure that members of congress know this issue is out there and that mom and pops could be devastated. they did not realize it before we took the voice to them. more people understand the value of logging. host: tom, on the republican line. caller: with the load of bills

in associate research, it is not possible to be expert in everything -- do they rely on obvious to understand the technical matter and make recommendations to their boss? guest: they absolutely do. it is amazing. you could have scientists come in, and the talk about the specific widgets or technology. there will pitch their thing to the staffers. the staff will look at the lobbyists and ask us to break this down. how will this affect my boss, the district? the lobbyist can cut through the minutia. we're kind of like the interpreter between the client and member of congress, and needs. the lobbyist can work both sides. host: have you ever written a bill for a staffer, for congress? guest: i have reviewed many bills.

the staffers will come to you when they do not know the subject. they will ask if this means this -- is this what we're going ford for for the intent? host: you hear that lobbyists are riding the language and the bills, and staffers included. guest: i do hear about that. i have no firsthand knowledge of it. host: do you think it is a breed? guest: bottom line, no bill goes without all parties' approval. even if both lobbyist is just to drop something -- it still has to go through multiple drafts. there are multiple safeguards. you do not want that type -- as a lobbyist, first of all, you don't that type of image.

you want to get things done, but not in a shady way. host: texas. caller: i wonder if you could answer a question for me. do you think that lobbyists get greater access than individuals do? and if that is true, what kind of things can we do to gain greater access for individuals? i know a friend in california has tried for years to even get a phone call with speaker nancy pelosi. he has never been successful. . .

numbers and you're putting your message in a way that the staffer and pelosi is going to hear you. host: do lobbyists have to play one side and not the other, do they lobby democrats or republicans? is there a back slash versus supporting a democrat and supporting a republican? guest: absolutely. there is backlash.

this is where knowledge of the political game comes into play. i have friends on both sliles. and i work with both sliles. there are some firms, if you look back in the 1990's, that were only republican firms. and now all of a sudden when the democrats took control, they don't have any power anymore. over 18 years i've learned to make sure you provide -- you provide information information on both sides, make friends on both sliles. sometimes if you're trying to introduce a bill you need to make sure you have this senator, this senator, you know they don't get along, you get a senator that does. it's knowing the game. host: washington, d.c., independent line. caller: i was wondering about the grassroots side what you have been talking about. a gentleman called in and said how is it that a lobbyist versus a citizen is getting access? i would say to say it's much

easier for a citizen to get access because frankly that's the person that's going to vote for that legislator going forward. and i have to agree with what dave said. grassroots is the key. you know, frankly, we all have a responsibility as citizens to make sure we get the process. if you get up this morning and rode public transportation to work or actually have a job to go to, you ought to thank a lobbyist for that. guest: one of the way to meet those legislators is going to town halls too. that's another area where you can go there and get that one-on-one time. and go to the district offices. you don't have to be here in washington. meet with the staffers. if it's something they're interested in they'll ask you back when the legislator is back. host: dennis, republican line.

go ahead. caller: basically my comment is i have found that working in washington, d.c., is an absolute maze to sort of negotiate your way around downtown there. and in fact, the lobbyists that i've been in contact with in the past have made that process that much easier. and frankly we would not have been better prepared when we went to the hill to talk as we would have not been if we had gone to a lobbyist. frankly, i don't really see -- i see they provide a much-needed service. and you want to get your message across, certainly you have to do the grassroots, you have to do other things. you wouldn't go mountain climbing without a goid. washington, d.c., is a bigger mountain to climb.

host: jeff, independent line. jeff. caller: good morning. this is jeff. host: you're on the air, sir. caller: i wanted to -- there's been a lot of comment about the role of the lobbyist in providing information. i'm interested in dave's comments about what role a lobbyist would play in providing -- contributing to the political campaigns of the members that they work with because that seems to be an area that draws a lot of criticism from lobbyists. and i'm interested in if he sees any need to change the regulations in connection with that. guest: as we mentioned before earlier in the show, i think there's a real opportunity for campaign finance reform. if you ask most lobbyists they're interested in campaign finance reform as well as the legislators. the problem is how to get it done and nobody's come up with a great solution for that campaign

finance reform. is it dealing with -- if you're asking for an earmark, is it having the members of congress not solicit a lobbyist? it's very simple to fix the problem. but unfortunately these members of congress in the last segment shows how much money they need to raise. if many of congress is going after an earmark they shouldn't be soliciting those lobbyists in those industry. they should solicit a senate rule. they should stop sending the faxes. host: go ahead. guest: the problem is the lobbyist under the supreme court has submitted that a donation is political free speech. you can't ban a lobbyist from donating to somebody because they're a classified person as a lobbyist. you can't have the members of congress stop soliciting them. host: we have a tweet here from a viewer. maybe the solution is to write laws that are simpler to understand so we don't need a lobbyist/interpreter with an agenda. guest: that would be great. the laws are so complex that,

you know, the difference between a shall and a may is enormous. so i agree that common sense would make it easier and -- but once again, i think every american should be a lobbyist. i don't think getting rid of a lobbyist is a solution. i think members of congress are accountable is a solution to you. host: do you get to see legislation before it goes before a committee, before it goes to a markup? guest: a lot of members of congress will send you a draft just to say are we going to get opposition from you because what they want to do is clear the decks before they go into a hearing or a markup. host: so you get to review the legislation, you send back your notes and say, this -- guest: we usually have a meeting with them and say what's your intent here because our clients are -- your constituents may have a problem with this. and we want them to look gd. we want them to succeed. host: when you say clear the

decks what does that mean? guest: no opposition in the way. when they go for a markup, they want to know when they go in a markup or a hearing they're not going to get outward opposition. so what they're doing is they're saying, can you review this, make sure this is in line with your -- you may totally disagree and they want that information too because, say you have at&t and verizon on one side and my folks on the other, they want to know where the opposition is. host: is that appropriate? guest: i think it is because if you don't they're going to be fighting toth and nail all the way through this -- tooth and nail all the way through this. they have to get that information. if they don't float you a draft, i mean, sometimes a draft is -- come back and here it is. even though you say i want a shall and not a may, it doesn't mean you will get it. that's what our folks want. host: how long does it take for a bill that you want to be passed to get through the legislative process? guest: there are no guarantees. that's the one thing about, you

know, legislation. there are no guarantees. i mean, the closed captioning bill i was talking about. 30 million deaf and hard of hearing americans. it should be a no-brainer. it took six years for access. sometimes they come to you and say, can you pass this in two weeks? well, if i could do that i would be paid a whole lot more. but, no, that's not the case. host: blacksburg, virginia, james, democratic line. go ahead. oh, james i think i hit the wrong button. jane, are you there? caller: yes. commenting on the situation where i wrote to my representatives. it was in the ninth congressional district in virginia, rick boucher and jim webb and received a letter from a lobbyist named trent bowserman. and then i found out that he worked both for rick boucher at one point and then worked for jim webb.

the issue is the contamination coming out of the ammunition plant. i don't understand where why they have a lobbyist writing an email. i wonder if that's legal. guest: i can't speak to the specifics, of course. was he a staff member for webb now or -- caller: no. he has been a paid staffer for boucher. i think it's hill and noleton or something. -- nolton or something. host: ok. guest: that's kind of unusual, very unusual, actually. maybe boucher, i'm just speculating here, maybe boucher said i'm not quite familiar with this, can you answer this? you should have gotten an answer from your member of congress. host: carol, independent line. caller: yes. mr. wenhold, you continually say

that the american people have a voice in the government. the experience with regard to the health care bill and everything deny that. i understand that the authors of that bill were with united health care. at the same time they were authoring this bill, there was something in the neighborhood of 64,000 health care for pharmaceutical lobbyists milling around washington. and in spite of the 2 1/2 million people that assaulted washington with their voices to put an end to this travesty, we were completely ignored. host: david we nembingshold. guest: i think this --

host: david wenhold. guest: i think your voices were heard but maybe others were heard louder. or maybe the legislate -- legislators have an agenda. the health care bill may not have been a great thing for you regardless. and you look at the party vote, it was almost party line. so it's very difficult to say that you don't have a voice. you absolutely have a voice. that's the whole point of the first amendment. the fight is not over. you need to continue to contact your legislators and make sure they hear you. host: we hear from a viewer who describes shall means you will do it. may means you have an option not to. democratic line, go ahead. caller: thank god for c-span. i just wanted to ask mr. wenhold

just two things. how many lobbyists approximately are to each congressperson, if you know? host: we heard 39-1, i believe, was the figure one caller put out there. do you know? guest: it's not per congressman. math was never my strong point. there are 13,000 federally registered lobbyists here in washington. host: and more outside? guest: there are probably 50,000 more around the states. host: that are coming to washington, d.c. or lobbying the state government? guest: lobbying the states. host: independent line, billy, go ahead. caller: thank you for my call. now, i personally think one of the worst things that ever happened in this country to have lobbyists and people up there running through the halls casting money around in dollars does things in washington. the average citizen gets no

response also you marched on washington and created a big disturbance. host: david, go through a day of lobbying, what does it entail? guest: well, a day of lobbying is completely different every day which is what i love about it. you usually have five, six, seven meetings scheduled for your clients. a lot of conference calls, a lot of phone calls and emails from staffers talking about your various legislation. i think to the speaker's point is that you hire lobbyists here because you can't be here every day. that's the point. you know, it's an expertise thing that you're hiring. i'm a pretty smart guy. if i had an appendicitis i wouldn't go digging around. i would go to a specialist. let them know this issue is continually out there. it's not all the time. if you go -- right now in august, staffers are pretty

casual. the members are out. not a great time to lobby. not a bad time, either, if you want to lobby the staff. if you have an issue coming up in november, they're really not going to pay attention. host: president of the american lobbyists. appreciate it. guest: thank you. appreciate it. host: well continue our series this week looking at energy issues. first a news update from c-span radio. >> it's 9:15 a.m. eastern time. the trade deficit in june jumped nearly 20% compared to may to nearly $50 billion. that's the highest level since october of 2008. this as imports of consumer goods hit a record high. the wider deficit comes as a surprise to economists who had forecast a smaller trade gap in light of the lower global oil prices. federal investigators say weather is one factor they'll examine as they investigate the cause of monday's plane crash in alaska that killed former

senator ted stevens and four others. the four survivors, including former nasa administer, shawn o'keefe and his son, is now being treated in an anchorage hospital. weather is putting -- a strengthen tropical depression is approaching the area near the well. a tropical storm area has been sent out for much of the gulf coast area. the storm will be named danielle. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites. and find out content anytime through c-span's video library. and we take c-span on the road with our bus and local content

vehicle. it's washington your way. the c-span networks now available in more than 100 million homes created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: "washington journal" summer series continues this week with a look at energy issues. on monday we looked at ways to construct energy saving homes. yesterday we took a look at the electric car industry. on thursday wind technology is the topic and on friday we'll wrap up with our -- wrap up this series of the conversation about solar power. today we'll look at the natural gas and utility industry. our guest is nick stavropolous and he is the chief operating officer and executive vice president for national grid which is a company, i just want to make that distinction, so people don't think we're talking about the national grid across the country. guest: exactly. host: what does your company do? guest: we're primarily an

electric and gas company and based in london but 50% of our business is in the u.s. and 50% in the u.k. and mostly in electric and gas distribution. host: how many people do you employ in the united states? and most of your work is the northern part of the country, correct? guest: that's correct. we have 18,000 people in the united states that help us provide service to about 3 1/2 million gas customers. another 3.3 million electric customers in new york state, rhode island, new hampshire and massachusetts. host: we were talking about the heat wave coming through this week. are you concerned at all about blackouts in that region guest: well, i'm not concerned about blackouts because we've really invested significantly in our networks. but we're always very careful when we have these extended

periods of hot weather because all of our equipment is stressed, it's running at peak capacity and we can't have any slipups. host: and we're talking about natural gas as part of this utility equation today. but are you supplementing other renewable type energy in order to make sure that the grid stays alive during this heat wave? guest: when weather is this warm we're looking for electricity from all sources. so whether it be from hydro solar, wind, nuclear, we'll take it wherever we can get it. host: let's go and focus specifically on natural gas. how do you distribute natural gas? guest: well, in the country we have two million miles of underground pipeline serving 70 million homes and businesses with natural gas. it primarily comes from the gulf coast of the united states, the rockies, western canada, eastern canada. 98% of the natural gas we

distribute across the country to these 70 million customers, 90% comes from north america. we're really a domestic fuel. host: there are hope from proponents that that would increase, that there would be more natural gas supplied or produced in this country. what would that mean for the utility side of that equation for your company? guest: yeah. you know, so in the last few years there's been tremendous new gas finds in the shale gas regions of the country. for that part of the country, the pennsylvania, southern new york area are rich in new shale gas fields. that's going to be terrific in the long run for our customers because the natural gas supplies are much closer to the markets where it's being used. so that should make for a more cost-effective long-term supply of natural gas. host: why is natural gas considered by some the bridge energy source? guest: well, we think it's the

bridge to a carbon neutral future. so you think about lots been discussed about reducing our carbon footprint by 20% by 2050. people talk about natural gas as the bridge. i like to think about if it's a bridge it's a really long bridge because it's a domestic supply source, it is the most -- least -- has the least environmental impact of all of fossil fuels today and can be used for so many things that i think that this bridge is really long. host: if you look at u.s. electric, coal makes up about 49%. natural gas 20%. nuclear, 19%. hydroelectric 7%. and other sources about 15%. if there is more production of natural gas in this country, where do you see that 20% going as far as electricity source? guest: sure.

so i think it's fair to say that in the next 10 years new generation is going to come from natural gas, so i think that most of the new power plants that have been built recently in this country have been fired by natural gas, but we're seeing more wind, more solar, which we encourage a full diverse foid array of -- diversified array of supply for the country. we think it's good for the country. we need to help those companies that use coal, to use carbon capture and sequestration technology. we have to look at renewable gas supplies as well. that are potentially available and coming on the market. host: what does it mean for natural gas growth for the natural distribution sector which is your area if there's more natural gas used rather than coal or nuclear or these other types of resources? guest: well, we think that the natural gas industry across the

country has a real opportunity to produce new jobs for this country. last year alone the natural gas companies spent $11 billion in new capital to replace and extend -- host: these are the distributors? guest: the distributors and the pipeline companies, too, expand the distribution network to supply more gas to more customers. so that's expected to continue for the foreseeable future. so there's real jobs. engineering jobs. construction jobs. it's great from a tax base for the local communities where we build this infrastructure. so a real opportunity to contribute to jobs, to contribute to reducing our reliance on imported fuels. and also at the same time helping to reduce our carbon footprint. host: you go go to the american gas association website -- if you go to the american gas

association website they have a breakdown of the bill. it's about 67%, the cost of the bill, is 67% the supply of the natural gas. guest: right. host: 22% for the local delivery system. 6% for taxes and 5% for income utility. and we'll put that up on the screen for our viewers. there it is. can you explain, 67%, the supply of natural gas, what does that mean? guest: so the 67% of the customers' bill is for the cost of the local gas distribution companies to acquire the molecules from the producers and to ship those natural gas molecules from the producing region of the country to where they're being consumed. so it's a dollar for dollar pass-through. almost every gas utility in the country, whatever they pay for that gas supply they pass through dollar for dollar to the customer so there's no markup in the bill.

host: even though that price fluctuates? guest: right. there is a mechanism built in with the billing structure. we established a price based upon our estimate of what we think it's going to cost for some future period, and we keep track of any undercharges or overcharges and we collect that in future periods. host: ok. so if you lose money one month or one year, i guess, and you go back and collect that later on? guest: that's correct. host: and have you ever returned money to customers? guest: oh, absolutely. with interest. host: how often have you done that? guest: every state is different in how they allow them to pass through these costs. i think it's probably fair to say that we probably passed through overcollections as much as we tried to collect undercollections as well. host: again, 67% of the supply for the gas. 22% for the delivery.

6% for taxes and 5% for income utility, where do you make your profit? guest: it's really in that 22% of the bill. that's where our profit margin is. we've really been proud as an industry. many of our a.g.a. member customers have gone years without an increase in distribution prices. in massachusetts, we just filed for our first distribution price increase in 17 years. 17 years is a long time. host: nick stavropolous is our guest. we're talking about natural gas in the utility industry part of our energy series this week. first phone call, mike on the democratic line in illinois. go ahead. caller: yeah. hello. i had an idea. last year i worked in wyoming in the natural gas field. wyoming is a unique area where you have some of the largest natural gas places and the wind there is un.

-- to the least populated area in the country. i think wyoming in these areas -- there's enough wind there to power half the country, it looks like. guest: you're absolutely right. the wind power industry really tries to look at where the best places are for wind power. so where do we have consistent supply of wind? and you mentioned a particular

region that is away from population so the challenge then becomes to build the transmission infrastructure to get the electricity from where it's generated for both wind turbines and get them to the regions of the country that use those -- use that electricity. so that's an expensive proposition. and the challenges to try to get the wind closer to the producer regions are possible. host: is this something that your company is investing in, wind technology? and when you look at it, do you look at onshore wind or offshore wind? which do you think is more commercially viable? guest: so one of the things that we're really passionate about at national grid is renewable energy, and we actually have contracted with the largest offshore wind farm in the country, kate wind. that has been under consideration for construction for almost 10 years.

and so we have signed a contract with kate wind for cape wind to build those offshore -- that wind farm and touality lies that to serve -- to utilize that to serve our customers in massachusetts. we're also on our own building five meg aawatts of solar power -- megawatts of solar power to move the market to see if people will embrace the whole idea of solar power on a larger scale. host: if you factor in more renewable resources into your infrastructure, what does that do to the breakdown of u.s. electricity sources if most of it is coming from coal and the second natural resource is natural gas. something has to give here. one goes up. one goes down. which is it? guest: i think we're probably talking about as a society

needing more electric generation over the next 30, 40 years, not less. even though we want to invest first of all in energy conservation. we'd like all of our existing customers to use less energy than they do today. so that's the first place we should all begin. but working with renewable sources, wind, solar, nuclear we think needs to be part of the occasion and clean coal as well. host: you don't see the equation changing? guest: i think the mix will change. we'll see more renewable sources. we have to solve the storage problem because solar only works best when the sun's out. wind only works best when the wind's blowing. when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not out it may be when you and i really want to use our electricity so we need to solve that problem. host: but we're talking about the natural gas and the utility

industry. antoine on the republican line from d.c. go ahead. caller: i have few questions about natural gas. i saw a documentary and it just seems that natural gas has a few questionable acts of how they get the natural gas out the earth. i guess a couple questions are -- are there ways to get the natural gas out of the earth with a tracking technique making a mixture of cocktails and shooting down in the ground and getting the natural gas out -- host: go ahead with your second question. caller: ok. my second question is, is there a way where natural gas would be feasible to where it just cancels out oil? host: and let me just clarify for you and our viewers, our guest is on the distribution end

and not a producer of the resource, but do you want to take a stab at it? guest: thanks again for your question. i think what you're referring to were concerns about shale gas development and the ability to extract gas from sleet and hail resources -- shale resources has really come on with horizontal directional drilling technology. it's a technology that wasn't there before. so most of our supply comes from conventional methods of extracting gas. and we've been using that as an industry for quite sometime. i think what we're seeing is in a very concentrated fashion in the shale gas areas. and as an industry we need to be completely transparent. we need to make sure that we have well-funded regulators that provide appropriate regulation,

environmental regulations to all of the producers that extract shale gas to make sure that we do it in a way that's not going to harm the environment. and i think that that is very much doable. particularly at the price range you said we're talking about here today. host: this is a picture of the gas -- natural gas pipeline network across the country. we found it on the energy department's website. if you take a look at that, how many regulations are there from the -- on the federal and state level for safety pipeline? guest: the primary source of regulation starts at the federal level, and there is a set of blanket regulations that all gas -- natural gas distribution and interstate transmission companies need to adhere to. and then every state has local officials who are responsible

for implementing those federal regulations, making sure that companies comply with those extensive set of regulations. in addition, each state has over and above the federal requirements has particular state requirements -- particular requirements for their state that the state regulators impose. our industry starts with safety. every -- i think every executive of every company spends a portion of their day thinking about, you know, how can we make our infrastructure even safer than it is today. host: next phone call, charlotte, north carolina, bob, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. antoine kind of stole my thunder of the natural gas. i was wondering if you could talk about the benefits of generation of natural gas, combining heat and power, that

looks like a way we can get, you know, 50% more of the energy out of natural gas. host: and for the rest of us, can you explain what he's talking about? guest: co-generation would be using natural gas to the best example is using natural gas to generate electricity in a turbine. and taking the electricity that was generated and putting it in the network. but also capturing the waste heat that comes off of that turbine and using it to heat water or create steam that would be used to generate more electricity or an industrial process. so we've been doing co-generation for quite sometime. i think bob alluded to combined heat and power. and what we're seeing is the companies that manufacture heating and air conditioning equipment are really starting to figure out how to take heat and

power together and bring that to a residential setting. so we actually at national grid have several installations at some customer locations, residential customer locations where we provide the heat for their home. but we also generate part of their electricity with this equipment. it's a little pricey right now. need some government support in the short run. but it's something that holds a great deal of promise in the future. host: what are you looking for? guest: we think that natural gas renewable of natural gas, for example, we need to make sure that we have that on a level playing field with renewable electric opportunities. so there are government support for wind. there's government support for solar. it would be terrific if we could see similar government support for renewable gas resources and technologies like combined heat and power. but the department of energy is devoting a lot of resources in

this area, and we're very encouraged by secretary chu's leadership and we think that we're going to see some emerging technologies that are very promising down the road. host: sord money at -- sord money at d.o.d. foe -- so r&d money at d.o.d. focuses on it? guest: it is combined heat and power technology, storage for wind and solar, so cost-effective ways to store that energy when it's generated to be able to use it when our customers want it. host: email here from a viewer who says the u.s. is said to have the largest storage of natural gas that's piped to about every quadrant of the country to include current gas stations.

guest: so honda, the natural gas honda civic is the cleanest car in the world. as an industry we're working with general motors and the other o.e.m.'s in detroit to manufacture a dedicated natural gas vehicle for the united states market. g.m. announced that they were going to be producing a natural gas pickup truck and van for you starting in the next year. so i think we're going to see a lot of emergeans in that area. host: is that something that your company, national grid, would you enter into that market? guest: we actually have 17 natural gas fueling stations in the market right now. we provide natural gas refueling services to the transit bus fleet, to street cleaners, trash

trucks and we're really targeting the medium to heavy-duty vehicle market. we really think that that's a place where natural gas can play a very big role. host: next phone call comes from angela in maryland on the democratic line. good morning, angela. caller: hi, good morning. yeah, i just have a comment. the documentary called "gas land" is by josh fox. if you go to ondemand hbo documentary, i suggest everyone watch it. it's the biggest -- it will give you night mayors. -- nightmares. i would like everyone that watches c-span to take a look at the documentary and email your congressman and senators and keep a watch on that industry if that's the industry that's coming up. host: have you watched this documentary? guest: i have. and angela makes a good point that there are some things portrayed there that would give

anyone concern. we think that it's really important that the producing community, the interstate pipeline community, the trade industry, we all need to be as transparent as possible. we need to make sure that the public has all the information they need to make factual e valuations of the technologies that are ute liesed to extract gas in the shale gas regions. host: are you meeting with the producers that you get the natural gas from and talking to them about this? guest: we do absolutely. and we encourage the folks that we procure the supplies from to make sure that they have in place the best available control technologies to make sure that the environmental impacts of the extraction process that they use are the least benign to the environment and to the communities in and around those producing regions. host: let's go to jeff on the

republican line from danville, ohio. good morning. caller: yes. you were explaining how you charge. how come the distributors are out here it's as much as $1 a difference in the price they charge and the cheapest -- to get it here? guest: well, every part of the country's a little bit different. i'm guessing that it has to do with the supply mix of your individual distributor. depending upon where they've contracted for the supply. host: what do you mean by that, the supply mix? guest: well, i'm speculating a little bit here to jim's question. host: sure. guest: in each region of the country that -- where the supply is obtained may be different. so, for example, in my part of the country in the northeast part of the country we actually buy a lot of our winter supply

during the summer and we inject it into underground storage calf rens and utilize it on the coldest day of the year. the coldest months of the year, up to 30% is gas we bought in the summer, injected it into reservoirs and use it had in the winder. in different parts of the country you're going to have a different supply mix. host: how does your london -- you're a london-based company. how does natural gas consumption differ than the u.s.? guest: the biggest winters in the u.k. is nowhere severe than the winters we have here. the other thing that's difference is almost every home and business in the u.k. uses natural gas. to heat their home or heat their business. in the u.s. for most of the country that's true but in the northeast united states there's still a lot of opportunity for natural gas to dess place

heating oil. there's a lot of heating oil still left in northeast states. host: next phone call is here in upstate new york. independent line. go ahead. caller: hello. please to talk to nick. i'm a financial analyst and i've recently done an evaluation of a facility that uses fossil fuel for brief periods of time and we looked to converting to electric power and ran across the big power with the demand charge and the demand charge made this entire conversion to electric power uneconomical. the beauty of this manufacturing process is that they would be able to offshift it to the late hours of the night when there is very little demand. but the economics is the demand factor actually favors outsourcing a lot of the extra capacity. i'm wondering if you're looking

at any time phasing on demand charges or anything else. guest: jim, thank you. that really brings to the table the whole question about smart grid, smart meter. and we're a huge advocate of smart meter technology. it would give customers like jim real-time access to what it costs. we have one in sire cues, new york and to worcester, massachusetts. it is to add technology to our electric distribution network as well as put smart technology into homes and businesses so we could price the electricity on a real-time basis and customers like jim would be very much encouraged to move their demand to lower prices -- lower price

points during the day. host: and how would that work? would there be a meter in somebody's home and they could read it instantaneously as it's happening? guest: exactly. there are technologies available where you could use a zigby technology and tie it into every electric appliance and the appliance lets the smart part of the meter know that it's being used, when it's being used. it allows the meter -- it allows the customer to choose to shut off certain applications during the higher price points during the day. it actually in some situations if the customer would allow the electric distribution utility to have control over some of the end use applications we can actually do that for them. host: was there money in the stimulus bill -- i know there is money for upgrading the smart grid, but was there specific money for what you're talking about?

guest: there was pretty significant money in the jobs bill that was passed, in the stimulus bill that was passed last year, yes. host: republican line. good morning. caller: yes, hi, good morning. thanks for c-span. wikipedia says a true liquefication and our gasification, there's a break even point of about $35 a barrel. you know, it's ironic that we can't convert. the defense department when gas was $4 a gallon that they successfully used the b-2 borme and created aviation fuel through liquefication, so why can't we take natural gas and liquefy it for regular use and diesel use? guest: liquefied natural gas, l.n.g., is methane cooled to 260 degrees below zero.

when you do that it contracts by 600 times so you can store 600 times more b.t.u.'s in a particular location than you can at temperatures like it is today here in washington. the advantage of that is for vehicle use. you're able to store more supply onboard. so there are many parts of the country that are using l.n.g. for over-the-road tractor-trailer applications. i think you're going to see much more in the way of usage of compressed natural gas for medium to heavy-duty vehicles. i think the number is something like 40% of the transit buses in the country currently operate on natural gas. host: next phone call, long island, new york, anthony, democratic line. caller: hey, everybody. thank you very much for allowing me to speak. i have two questions that i hope to merge into one.

on "60 minutes" there was a gentleman who was a nasa scientist that developed, it was like a little box. i think he used natural gas with it. he was able to power homes. i haven't heard much about it. there was a movie called "the smartest man in the room" and enron used -- it was in southern california. bush would not touch the topic at the time. so my question is ultimately, when you see the malfeasance at the highest levels of our government, how is it that we're ever going to rise above better technologies when you see there are special interests that come first? most importantly, this technology that the scientists had developed on 60 minutes, you said you would need like 10 football fields worth of solar panels to produce this energy that the tiny box that he held in his hand would produce.

as i stated before, when you see the malfeasance in the highest elected officials, how can we expect true honesty or change or anything that's good for the people? guest: you're from long island and i hope you are a national grid customer. i think he is talking to the boom box which is a fuel cell that's been developed. we've been as an industry trying to develop an economic fuel cell where you essentially put natural gas in one end, put it through a transforming process, break it up into components and use hydrogen to generate electricity. the technology is there. it's used by nasa to power all of the space vehicles from the apollo launch through the space shuttle today. it's just a matter of cost. and i think that as the "60

minutes" story that anthony referred to that perhaps technology that's being developed by the balloon box company that will make this fuel cell technology more cost-effective. we're not quite there yet. not quite there yet. host: what is -- i read on the american gas association website that companies on their own, utility companies on their own, natural gas distributors, are pulling together money for r&d, for research and development into new technologies. what technologies, is it one technology you're looking at and how much money are you dedicating towards it? guest: well, we're not dedicating anywhere near the amount we need to, and i think a lot of that has to do with the fractured way that each company is regulated at the state level. and the funding for the r&d technologies needs to be approved at the state level. we used to have a national sort

of checkoff formula where we used to collect a very small on an annual basis something like 50 cents from each customer and pull that money into an r&d program. the money that we do have we do concentrate it. we have something called the gas technology institute that's based in chicago, and we try to fund technologies that are end use technologies so ways customers can -- help develop new technologies to allow our customers to use natural gas energy even more efficiently, and also develop technologies that will help us operate our systems safer and a more reliable fashion. and what we are investing, though, gretta, is that we are significantly wrapping up our investment in energy efficiency funding for our customers. so two years ago as an industry we invested almost half a billion dollars to help our

customers use natural gas more efficiently. and in 2009 last year it was almost $1 billion. i would expect it to be significant legal more in 2010. host: next phone call comes from clifton park, new york, claude. go ahead, claude. caller: yes. i was wondering in new york we have the highest prices of natural gas and electric, and i can't understand that the electric is going through astronomical in comparison to natural gas. i mean, we have an abundance of natural gas, and i can't understand why we always have blackouts in this area. guest: ok. so from a price perspective, claude, one of the problems that we have -- challenges that we

have in the northeast united states is that we don't have local access to fuel supplies, right? so we don't produce coal. we don't produce natural gas. there hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in quite sometime. so the cost to transport those supplies to our part of the country really drives up the price. and so that's a big fact in customers' bills. new york state does have shale gas supplies, and the elected officials and regulators in new york state are carefully studying the shale gas technology to determine what permitting process they want to employ and what restrictions they're going to place on producers. but we do think that in the long

run if the state government in new york will allow drilling for natural gas supplies that are indigenous to the state of new york that's going to have an immediate and positive impact on customers' bills. host: what do you think the percentage would be? have you done any research, any studies on how much that could reduce a customer's bill? guest: i think it's really going to depend upon what sort of cost implications we're going to see from the regulations that are going to be imposed on the producers. so probably a little early to tell. host: on the transportation costs of getting these resources to you so that you can turn around and give it to the customers, is that your largest cost for run of theeg -- running these companies? guest: it's buying the natural gas supply itself. the next biggest would be the transportation cost of getting it from the producing region to

the regions where we use them. host: why does that fluctuate? does it fluctuate -- does it -- is it related to distance or does it fluctuate? guest: it's distance. it's purely distance. think about it as a cap -- a taxi cab ride. you're sort of paying by the mile because you're using more and more of the investment that the pipeline company made to deliver that supply. host: and you turn around and pass that cost onto the customer? guest: we do. host: next call, susan on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i think as long as you have a smart grid is probably the least objectionable of fossil fuels but it's still a fossil fuel and it's been around for a long, long time. and i can't understand why it would be subsidized in any way.

renewable because the new technologies needs that subsidized, that's understandable. host: let me talk about susan's comments there because the a.g.a. says the average american home uses 32% less natural gas than in 1980. why is that? guest: first of all, we think that we've been able to educate our customers on the value of utilizing their energy as efficiently as possible. in addition, most of the natural gas companies across the country have had energy efficiency programs. so at national grid we've had mart grids in place for almost 20 years. and they have won local and national awards for helping customers reduce energy consumption. another factor is the natural efficiency pickup that we get by taking an old furnace or boiler -- if you take a boiler, natural

gas-fired boiler that was put in 30 years ago, it may have an efficiency factor of around 70%. if you were to replace that it would probably be 92%, 93% efficient. it's almost a 20% pickup in efficiency just by replacing an old boiler with a new one. after that, better windows, better insulation, some more information around how much it does cost to heat your home or business, and we're seeing overall our 70 million customers across the country use about 1% less energy next year than they have in the previous year. guest: do natural gas distributors get -- host: do natural gas distributors get tax credits? guest: we don't get tax credits but window from time to time receive incentives for investment. so we have opportunities around

tax depreciation to invest in our networks in an accelerated basis. we're able to apply additional tax depreciation to offset the cost of that investment. host: norfolk, virginia, democratic line. caller: can it be used to form derivative products, like pesticides and fertilizers, and if not how is that a bridge to new resource? guest: so natural gas is a feed stock for many industries. and it's used in the creation of fertilizers. it's used in many of the petrochemical and used to have industry for most of our industrial base in the country. so it's a very adaptable and flexible fuel. host: oregon, tammy, democratic

line. caller: yes. i have two-part question. first one is the owners of national grid, is it a public or private company? and then, the gas lines themselves, are those national or foreign owned? and then last but not least, the negative environmental impact of the extraction process called fracturing, do you know anything about that? i'll take your comments. host: the last part you have addressed but why don't you take the first two. guest: national grid, we're a publicly traded company. we're in the fortune 500. i think we're like 350 on the fortune 500, something in that range. we're owned by shareholders across the world. host: and the second largest in the country? guest: we're the second largest energy distributor in the united states. host: and the question about foreign owned. i think she was talking about producers. where do you get your gas supply from?