recent article on partisan politics in washington. later, a look at the viability of wind energy with a virginia tech researcher. this is "washington journal." ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, august 12, 2010. president obama is in town today. the senate is also in town for one day with a special session. they are interrupting their august recess to have a brief session to pass a $600 million border security bill. we will talk about that later. our question this morning is your expectation for public officials. there is lots to think about this week with the death of senator stevens and the death

of dan rostenkowski and the trial of the also the charlie rangel story and maxine waters story. we will talking to a reporter from all would " vanity fair" who has a piece this issue on how broken is washington. we will ask you, do we expect to much of our public officials. let me just part of before we get to your calls with a pole that reflects broad public opinion about washington right now. the new "wall street journal" /nbc poll. a gram of voter mood turns brimmer. -- grim voter mood turns

grimmer. democrats on the slightly more popular but also near an all- time low. the question is really what your expectations are of who you elect or appointed to serve in washington. do we expect too much of them? the piece is just governing today is particularly challenged with a 24-hour nature of political blogs and twitter, constant media scrutiny and the political divisions in our country. i guess we would like to hear from you whether or not your expectations are too high or whether you are not getting what

you expect of public officials. it will be interesting to hear what you say. first we will start with david drucker who will fill us in on the one-day session in the united states senate. guest: good to be here. host: we are hearing that the border bill is likely to pass today because it is going to be considered under unanimous consent. what is the bill all about and why are they feeling the need to come back today for it? guest: first of all, the united states senate in its entirety is not returning. chuck schumer, one of the sponsors, democrat from the year, and ben cardin, democrat from maryland, will convene the senate today themselves, just the two of them. no other senators are returning to washington. senate rules allow this to function this way. ben cardin will sit in the chair and chuck schumer will operate from of the floor.

and by unanimous consent agreement reached by the leadership of both sides, they will pass the revised border security bill, which is to focus on ensuring that employers cannot violate the rules but increases fines on employers who violate the rules in certain regards. they are going to pass it very easily. also finding unanimous consent -- everything in the senate operates on unanimous consent basis. if there is an objection things don't function. and they will have a resolution honoring the late senator ted stevens who died in a plane crash. it will be very quiet on the hill. host: let me go back to the particular of the border security bill. it is paid for, how?

guest: by levering -- levying fines on employers to break the rules. host: also concerning h1b visas? guest: that i am not sure. host: there's an editorial that says part of the way to pay for it is to increase the fees for h1b visa hirings in the united states. in their opinion they feel it is punitive but i am not sure you have any more information about that. guest: i don't have any more information about that. what i do understand is the bill is paid for and right before they adjourned for recess, it passed by unanimous consent, which is very rare occurrence in the senate these days. host: that is what we will be talking about today. we will be asking whether we expect to much of public officials. as a reporter i would not ask about that but it will be interesting to hear expectations about elected officials. thank you for starting us off

with an explanation on what was happening on the border bill. let us get to telephone calls. our question, what our expectations of those we elect to office and what cannot respect to much. let us begin with a call from craig on independent line. caller: first of all, i appreciate you taking my call. i grew up a long time ago and my teachers told me that we get the government that we deserve. so, we have aren't this government through our own lack of education, research, and checks and balances that the voters and sure. and due to the fact that we have backed off on educating ourselves and keeping track of what is going on, we have gotten the the government we have

today. had we spend more time making sure that our government was doing what it was supposed to be doing, what it was hired to do, and stop listening to these political pundits and talking heads, i think we would have a better government. it is a reflection of us, the voter. host: republican from raleigh, north carolina. welcome to the conversation. caller: the wheat place to much blame or get to the credit to politicians? i think they receive too much blame and credit because they did not really influence what happens, especially in the economy. under clinton we had the internet, the bowl and bust of that and -- the boom and bust of that and jobs created would be

avenue in google and bill clinton did not create jobs, free enterprise created jobs. i think they get too much credit and blame for what happens in our economy. host: the expectation level of "the new york times" this morning. it profiles linda douglass. we have had her on this program a few times since the start of the administration.

i guess that theme is the question of whether or not our expectations are too high. we want to hear what you think. st. louis, missouri. democrats line. good morning. caller: hello. i think in a way it is kind of our own fault. we do expect to much. host: we are listening. caller: i think we expect too much. the more polarized we get as an electorate the last compromising we are, and we think that we don't want our politicians to compromise. so, when they do, we are discussed with them but if they don't, nothing gets done. we don't want them to compromise, so they don't, and so nothing gets done and so we

get upset and so we did not see anything happening. it kind of our own fault. we can't blame them for doing what we want them to do and when nothing happens, we get upset when nothing gets done. host: thank you. bentley is up next. he is calling us from mount airy, north carolina. he is off the line. let us move to atlanta. this is mark, republican line. caller: how are you doing? i feel like both parties really let us down. tuesday, we had two republicans running for the governor and my person lost. i feel like once we get their way -- they tell us all the stuff and they don't say what they are going to do. there is too much lying. i believe the church has to much

influence on the republican party, in a way. dodd said do not judge it and stuff -- god said do not judge and they get on about abortion and stuff. and also people taking a pill to stop getting pregnant, and god said go out a multiplied and that is just as bad but we should not judge anybody because all of us is sen. i just feel there is too much judgment of people and we are all in the same boat. the politicians go up there and they start receiving the money is. we ought to pay them more and not allow -- and these people going and having them pour money into election candidates. and i do not like that we did not allow other parties or people. you have to come up with 10,000 to $50,000. i feel like we lost our founding country, we lost it somewhere

along the way and it is not getting better, it is getting worse. host: thanks, mark. next is a telephone call from tennessee. andrew, democrats line. caller: i voted for senator corker in tennessee and i voted for president obama. president obama claims to be wanting bipartisanship but i seem to be more bipartisan than he is. he also said that the health care bill would be out in the open -- i say some of it has, but there have been some parts that have not. i like to end by saying that i highly doubt i will vote this year. thank you for c-span. host: thank you from tennessee. the front page of "the new york times" this morning has a photograph of last night's celebration for charlie rangel's

80th birthday in new york. governor paterson, attorney general andrew cuomo, candidate. inside -- a party and a display of bravado. i like to read to you how this piece opens up. david dinkins turned to a heckler -- who said you are going to the party for a crook -- david dinkins put his middle finger of to the man for all to see. there is some photographs of charlie rangel talking last night, the company by his wife and daughter. he invoked his service in korea and with more and the picking

and suggested he is not going to quit. the next telephone call is from alexandria, virginia. sylvia, democrats line. caller: i think we have a tendency to put our politicians on pedestals. we have done this to george washington, we have done this for abraham lincoln. and we cannot help it. that is the way we are. when we first elect somebody, we are truly enthusiastic. we put them on a pedestal and we slowly gets -- these are human beings. yes, i voted for president obama. i think -- i believe he is doing a good job. i know that a lot of people do not. one of the reasons why i love watching c-span is you hear so much from across the country how people are feeling and sometimes

i am very surprised about who calls in and how they say what they say. yes, we have a tendency to do that. i do think we expect to much. but on the other hand, you have to expect too much because that is how we start analyzing what people are doing and where corruption is. with that, i will say goodbye. host: next is a call from philadelphia. however, republican line -- howie when a republican line. caller: the more we expect of our liberties are destroyed by the fourth amendment. i am fed up with the government millions. fdr and wagner act -- june 23, 1947 are great republican congress passed taft hartley act

-- i am just sick of both parties. after the 1982 election democratic party taken over both parties -- yes, and getting back to president truman and everybody's hero, august 25, 1950, president truman seized control of the railroads and ordered the army to control that. november 2, 1951, president truman signed an at finding marijuana dealers and users thousands of dollars in jail time. april 8, 1952, president truman seized our steel mills. i am sick of these democrats. host: howie from philadelphia. hearing from some of our regular twitter -- twitter participants. next is a call from baltimore. barron, independent line. caller: good morning to everybody. i just wanted to say that there

was a new poll that came out about this congress in general. very low approval ratings for congress. i think democrats, i think they were like 33% -- host: i think it is lower than that. 24% have positive feelings about the republican party and, let's see, if i could find the democrats results in here -- in the president gets 47% approval, 48% disapproval, and effective -- if i can find more details. some of the lowest stage is for congress to sense some pollsters have been monitoring it. caller: that says something. nobody is happy with anybody. what no other caller was saying -- nobody wants to compromise.

our country has not gotten so great because people did not compromise. you have to compromise. i am an independent, but these democrats and republicans, you have to compromise way more than they are. i don't understand why there is so much fighting about simple stuff. you are always going to fight about the new kind -- controversial items. but simple things -- they are making it really divisive. host: you don't like what you see as a stalemate in washington? caller: no, no, complete stalemate. i do not agree with everything obama said the a lot of the initiatives he has, it is common sense stuff. the healthy start initiative to get kids to eat more healthier, trying to change stuff about the

public schools. you know, the common sense things not treated like common sense. especially, going into the election season. so we are definitely not getting anything done. everybody is just sick and tired of it. i think maybe we will have a third party. ross perot can't open the doors years back but i think the time is right. host: more details are arriving in our newspapers about really horrific details of the plane crash that killed senator stevens and others. but along with the details of the rescue and recovery effort, just more explanation about how all of these people and up on the airplane together. here is the "the new york times" story on this. william mardley and katherine -- are the writers of this.

zack on the democrats' line. caller: for work, texas. -- fort worth, texas. the divisiveness i think comes from the system of elections and the way these people were about nothing except keeping their jobs. it seems to me that all of the divisiveness -- you can say it is about a particular item in a bill. what it gets back to in every instance -- i wish people would look at this and pay close attention to its. these people are only concerned with keeping their jobs. that is the problem. we've got to have some way in to

hold these people more accountable. they know they've got a bird's nest on the ground with those jobs, and they do not want to give them up at any cost. look at the way mccain flip- flops every election so he can maintain his position as a senator. it happens on both sides. i am not picking on mccain because he is a republican. they are all that way. thank you, susan. host: davenport. lawrence on the democrats' line. caller: i don't know if we expect too much. we just expect our public officials to just do their jobs they were elected to do. they go to washington nowadays in -- the republican party as the party of no. it would be nice if they take a stand or go one way or the other as far as the up and down vote.

they just go there and want to defeat our president. yes, people expect a lot of president obama. but that is like a ceo taking over the company and corp. and the majority of the employees all of the seven rebel against the new ceo and stop working or don't want to do the work to take the company in the right direction. that is what i see happening in washington. there are so worried about the defeating this president instead of doing the people's job, doing what people elected him to go to washington to do. to work for us, to help the middle-class that has suffered so much. i get frustrated when i see the jobs bill getting voted down.

the bill getting voted down for small businesses. it is frustrating. all i would expect from our elected officials is to just do the job that people elected them to do, sending them to washington, instead of bickering, voting no on everything. everything is so negative. it has to be one way or the other, cut and dried -- cut and dry. a compromise can be a good thing -- if you think about the people who sent you there and think about their needs and what is best for the country instead of worrying about what party is going to prevail in november or in 2012. so, i just hope and pray that people vote their conscience, vote their interests, and see if we can turn this country around and let us get it together. thank you critical michael. host: thank you for making it, from davenport. grolier would line that just two members of the senate will be

back today -- earlier, we heard from david drucker that just two members of the senate will be coming back. earlier in the week the house had a one-day session. this morning, and look at who showed up to the house session on monday.

the story goes on to detail what several members did. if you are interested, it is at politico.com. countryside, a lawyer. we are asking this morning, do we expect too much of public officials. philip, independent line. caller: good morning. we are expecting exactly what we are due from congress and they are not doing the job. what is going on between the republicans and democrats is nothing but a smokescreen. wakeup. investing their money in corporate accounts and overseas through hedge funds like capital one. maybe they ought to try working for minimum wage and see how it goes. thank you, susan. host: this tweet. the next comment is from warwick, new york. democrats line. caller: i just want to make a

couple of comments but i want to put a plug in for u.s. congressional director you can order from c-span. if everybody listening to this program calls them -- it is very inexpensive. and then you got at your fingertips the names, addresses, email, telephone numbers of every congressman and senator. the callers called in and said there is no compromise. the democrats' compromise on every single bill. we lost the public option because of compromise, which really annoyed me. these guys want to keep their jobs. that is where we have the power. you bought them out. campaign against them if there is a congressman or senator in your state that you find is not doing the job. their job hangs on the balance every two years and every six

years and if you don't get out there and vote, i would like to know how many people calling and actually vote on the local elections as well as the federal. and please, get this c-span directorate. you will live by it. and the other thing is, they say, you can't blame bush anymore -- longer where the republicans. it was them could turn over the glass-steagall act and that is where the whole implosion of the mortgage and banking. why would you -- say, if you don't watch c-span and call your -- you all know this stuff. thank god for c-span. host: thank you for the endorsements. the congressional directory, if you are interested you could go to c-span.org and find out about it or call the office if you are not an internet. the information is pretty widely available on the internet but we have all in a booklet form for

those of you who are not so internet savvy and did not find this of going on-line a lot to look for an observation about congress, you can have it readily available. of the next telephone call is from lake forest, and illinois. judy, republic of mind. what do you think of this question about what the expectations are for public officials? caller: good morning. i think it is a purposeful question. but i also think that it should be a compound question. the second part of the question should be, regarding the media. we are in a media culture where somebody like bright part -- breitbart snippets c-span, i have turned on it and i saw the demagoguery of organizations whose sole purpose to modernize poor whites and minorities to vote.

breitbart put out the pimp and whore video -- the organization espoused by dr. king and ran it. keep in mind, it was only innuendo. the keywords were allegedly. yet congress defunded in the organization and no one in the media has had the, i guess, year strength to examine what he was able to pull on him. the same guy with the surely sherrod video. as far as congress, term-limits. it will force people to work across the aisle for their short-term legatees. it would get more things accomplished. but the media does not get a pass. i grew up on c-span. normally when i would turn on the channel, mr. lamb would be

present. i have not seen him in several months. but i got to tell you -- i will not -- unless you earn it. you are working off your reputation now. you allow people to get that round table and say anything and many of your hosts are not -- don't have the knowledge to challenge it. they simply let anything go. secondly, as a c-span viewer, i want c-span to find a neutral publication. i did not know how you guys got in bed with rupert murdoch and "the wall street -- "the wall street journal." i would suggest -- host: do not, i listened to the criticism. but i am surrounded by newspapers here but not in bed with "the wall street journal." that part i am not going to -- the other criticism and added to

listen to. i know your regular viewer and i appreciate it. later on this morning we will talk to -- a day in the life of the president. disintegrating media -- we will talk to him about that later on this morning. and we will ask you a related question, do we expect too much of public officials. next is a call from evansville, indiana. good morning. independent-minded caller: good morning. i think the question is a joke. host: it is meant to be a little provocative. caller: i know, but it is -- we did not expect any more or less

of our officials that we expect of ourselves. the majority of americans, at least. we expect honesty. we expect integrity. we expect them to follow the constitution and to do what is best for our country. i have become very amused to hear all of the politicians go on about all the political pundits. it appears to me that when they say they want to serve the country, it is a big joke. they are there only to serve themselves. we need some good statesman back. it has been so long. and all i want to say is if they only do what is best for america and not for themselves -- and i pray for all of americans and i pray for america. thank you. host: thank you for your call.

maverick on twitter has a variation on the theme. next is a call from bloomington, indiana. john is on the republican line. caller: good morning. i think most people are really just getting away from what the question is really asking because most people are adjusting, i think this is what is wrong with the show, but it is really asking are we expecting too much of public officials. honestly, i don't think we are. i think -- host: next is montrose, virginia. boyd, democrats line. caller: actually i expected a lot more cooperation from the republicans this year. it is just pitiful way they

fight obama at every move. the other thing is we will never have good people in congress because it is all about the money. why in the world would someone spend millions of dollars just to get a job that pays a little over $100,000. it tells you right there it is not to serve the people. it is more about lining their pockets. because they know once they are there they can make the money back they spent to get elected. the whole system is just corrupt. it is just critical. i really don't know what the answer is. the media does not help, either. they present these, what do you call it, these polls. the polls can be manipulated. the polls that the media

present help make people make up their minds. that is the worst thing that could ever happen as far as election officials, to a congress or anywhere else. those polls, they need to go. because they will make people think one way or another and they can be manipulated by the way the questions are asked. just like the question you are asking today. still ridiculous. thank you for listening to me and lifting event. host: thank you, sir. also back to twitter. c-span junkie -- he or she writes. back to telephone calls. lacrosse, wisconsin. jim on independent line. you are on the air. caller: i don't think we expect to much. we don't expect any more from them that my kids expect from me as a father, my wife expects of

me as a husband. it anymore than i expected for the owner of the company i work for. we just expect people to do the right thing. they get up there, and the norm seems to be corrupt and all of the under the table wheeling and dealing. once they get up there, it does not seem like they have a concept of reality anymore. one caller -- host: go ahead. caller: i did lost my train of thought. host: ok. caller: i am driving and i got interrupted. host: thank you. it is a state -- space-age on the road. on the line is an old colleague from the newspaper business -- "chicago sun-times" earlier on and later with "the tribune."

was here in washington as a bureau chief. now riding on a free-lance basis for a number of publications. we are asking people these questions, do we expect to much of public officials. there are two stories i wanted to bring in the loop on. first of all, we talked to you recently because you were sitting on in the blagojevich trial and now the jury claims it is added impasse. what can you tell us of what are your thoughts? guest: we are not 100% sure. that short of talking about -- not sure if we are talking about some of the counts or all of the counts. the judge was going to go back and try to see what actually was going on and then report back. i am not surprised at all. in fact, -- people saying all that evidence is overwhelming and it will just take a couple of dates.

there are 24 counts and many are conspiracy base. and when you heard the judge read the law to the jury for about 50 minutes or 55 minutes, one realizes how complicated some of these accounts can be and in some cases one has to ask for three or four questions to yourself, the jury does, and has to answer them in the affirmative to find one or two defendants -- he and his brother -- guilty on that particular count. and they don't have the advantage of having transcripts of everything that they heard before them. the quickly asked for transcripts of the government's 3.5 our closing arguments and rebuttals and the judge said, no, i am sorry, i wanna give it to you. that is not evidence. from the get go they clearly were, i think probably felt a little overwhelmed. host: let us move on to the other, and that is the news

that dan rostenkowski, a politician you followed for a long time, rose to the height as chairman of the house ways and means committee and always described as powerful and then ended up spending a year-and-a- half in federal prison after pleading guilty on corruption charges. what will the long view of mr. rostenkowski be? guest: interesting to what extent the corruption, which played out in the mid-1990s at a point where one might argue that he perhaps had overstayed his welcome, had been more than three decades in the house, it is possible that that is something that will be forever linked. but for sure, just in the illinois context, he has to be one of the five or attend most effective legislators ever to come out of illinois, whether just a illinois legislators or congressional legislators. we will see what the legislature is a barack obama. he surely will be on that list.

but if fascinating guy who says his great-grandmother -- his grandmother as a fiver six year- old fled to the top of a church steeple at her polish catholic church in the northwest side of chicago and watched the great chicago fire. and his dad was a chicago alderman, was defeated for alderman, and then great mayor of america richard j. daley as a payback slated the sun. and back then mayor decided to was going to run for congress in chicago. as a 20-something rostenkowski ran and won. in the context of today, one might look back -- and you don't want to mythologize -- you might

look back and maybe say here is a guy who got a whole lot of things done. not -- he used to take the entire ways and means committee on weekend retreats, just the committee, so they could get to know one another together, they can listen to experts in various fields, including economics and finance, because he thought that committee was sort of -- if your membership on it was even more significant than your party affiliation. so there was a certain camaraderie that grow there, probably more than anybody other than ronald reagan, he is responsible for the reagan tax cuts of the 1980's, which was a significant achievement. and when it came certainly to his legacy in chicago, whether it was getting billions of dollars for various projects or important tax breaks for projects, he was a significant force. you could go to the top of any

high rise in downtown chicago and look at his legacy. it was really interesting when one sees the trouble, the ethical trouble, when one of his longtime ways -- that is long time ways and means committee acolytes, charlie rangel, is in these days, it is hard to say whether both of them were negatively impacted by simply staying a bit too long and not really been as sensitive as they might to changing mores. host: we have been talking to folks about what are now we have too high expectations for public officials. we are doing this a bit provocative plea in a month we are reflecting on mr. rostenkowski's career, ted stevens, also have the two ethics cases and house of representatives with charlie rangel, and also maxine waters. i have two callers who have been waiting. i want to take their calls and i would like to close with your

thoughts now that you are a columnist, that you can share them with us, when leaving the public expects to much of whether public officials are not delivering enough. we will be right back. let us go to a call from atlanta. janice, democrats line. the tv volume is up to high. hit the mute and go ahead. caller: i don't think we expect enough from our politicians. they come before us with all this glory about what the air going to do. once they get there, it is more important to support their party instead of the people. here in georgia does governor that is about to be bolted out, in the beginning -- this governor that is about to being voted out, in the beginning of the last election he bought a bunch of land in florida. all through his term he thought for water rights from georgia, alabama, and florida. this area is full of farmers and

all of this kind of stuff, is getting tons of money from the government's in subsidies. everybody is talking about taking some less from the government but they are not revealing how much they are taking from the government. if they can get a way to reveal just how many tax breaks,, any farm subsidies, all the money that day themselves are taking from the government in sales -- which is spending too much money. host: brenda, you are going to be the last on the topic. alabama. go ahead. caller: i feel like the republicans especially, march in lockstep. there is no individual thought. no personal integrity. just total party line and nobody has the strength to stand out and agree with something just because the other side came up with it. the republicans don't offer

anything to counter or suggest another way of doing things or how to go about doing things. it is a constant conflict. i suppose it happens of the democratic side, too, but more so in the republican debt -- the fact that everything that comes about and never look long term. it is just that we need to stay in office and therefore we must vote in party line and if you step outside would throw you out. it happened in this area with a state legislator that supported a democrat in the last election so they throw off the ballot so she is running as an independent. it seems to me you may not have an individual right to choose what you want to jews as a republican. you just get thrown out. it's a lettuce go back to jim. -- host: let us go back to jim. we have a thunderstorm right

now. i do not know if you can hear it. like ghosts of congress passed. guest: but god are upset with this talk. host: just hope the lights still go out. the question to you. do we expect much from public officials? guest: not at all. i do think particularly the media climate is we know much, much more than we ever did about what is going on. a lot of this closure. a lot of this is in voluntarily. people are clicking -- kicking and screaming. but i think you go back to american history probably most of our politicians -- probably a lot more -- more corruption. but what does come out -- it causes a lot of debate like the blagojevich trial where there are hundreds of hours of wiretaps that i do think show a guide that is exceedingly excessive in his blatant,

explicit talk of a quid pro quo, almost none of which came to the question. but there is talk about a donor giving him money and in return some government aid would be given to this campaign contributor. that, susan, is breaking the law, according to the u.s. supreme court. one hears a lot that has one scratching once had about -- come on, is it unlawful for and should we not expect a big union or a big corporation or individual that gives a lot of money to a candidate to get a certain amount of access? are we shocked that a contributor gets the okay to send the resume of a niece in it to somebody whom he or she is giving money to to maybe get that needs a summer job. the sort of stuff that plays out every day. my problem with the blagojevich tapes is that there is nothing

policy oriented about any of this. there is no higher aim. it is all about personal self aggrandizement, and that gets me back to what was rather a dramatic statement covered by all of the national media when blagojevich was indicted and u.s. attorney -- both in washington knows from his prosecution of scooter libby -- he talked about a blank and would be rolling in his grave if he knew about this. -- talk about abraham lincoln would be rolling in his grave. as i sat in the trough of wonder how much honest abe would be rolling in grave because there was no more aggressive proponent of patronage than abraham lincoln. no more aggressive proponent of getting your enemies out and in fact, but the time of his first inaugural day, he had between the election and inauguration he had gotten rid of one half, 50%,

of the federal bureaucracy. but what was the point? i think historians will tell you, he had a higher in the. he wanted to save the union -- and slavery, and his mind, having strong and supportive progress party group was the way to get about it. there was nothing like that at least in the face of it on the blagojevich case, the charlie rangel case, the maxine waters case. it is all about personal aggrandizement. so long windedly, coming back to say, yes, when we elect these folks they should be held to a higher level of trust. and too many become, i think, a little bit infatuated. which was the case i think what dan rostenkowski and later years and mr. rangel becoming a little too infatuated with pal.

you know the dynamic. and it ultimately have a sense of personal entitlement and they forget the real reasons they came to washington to begin with. host: thank you so much for adding a historical context. jim warren joining us from chicago, as he is writing now for "the new york times" and the chicago news cooperative as a columnist. we will close with a tweet and wrap up. thanks so much for an interesting conversation. we will be right back. i next discussion is with marion blakey, a former member of the administration herself and now president and ceo of the aerospace industries association and she will give us her perspective on what the secretary of defense is trying to do with cutting and realigning the military and his announcements recently. we will it be right back -- we

will be right back. >> here you are, senator. daniel webster used to use it. >> daniel webster is here? >> harry truman in 1939 saying he he did this movie, really despise it. at the time, harry truman was seen as a senator from but prendergast machine. i always wonder if he did not think at that point at least that the movie was looking at him and his relationship with the political machine back home. >> senate historian donald ritchie on washington movies and his new book, "the u.s. congress: a very short introduction." sunday at 8:00 p.m.. this weekend on book tv, columbia university provost of

the state of education in the united states and the affects o on after words -- our view of war as adults is shaped by how we view war at maturity. and then how to deal with iran. and our 2010 fall book preview. for a look at the programs visit book tv.org. >> mr. president, just before christmas in 1968, i was appointed to succeed unless the's first senator -- first senior senator, bob bartlett. next month will mark the 40th year that i have had the honor and privilege to serve here in this great chamber. >> would almost 900 appearances over 24 years, look at the life and legacy of former alaska senator ted stevens on line at the c-span video library. news conferences, call ins,

committee hearings and from the senate floor, free on your computer. any time, washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on the screen right now, the first guest at the table, marion blakey, president and ceo of aerospace association. your reaction to the announcement from secretary gates on his realignment of the pentagon. i just want to put on the screen broadly but the secretary wants to do. let us take a look of that -- trimming by 10% the budget for contractors to support the defense department. if we could get the graphic on the screen. freeze the number of employees working for secretary gates' office. cut at least 50 general and flag officer positions over the next two years. and 150 senior civilian executive positions over two years.

big headlines that came out was his aim overall to cut $100 billion over the next five years. and one big-ticket way to do that was elimination of joint forces command, which is headquartered in southern virginia, which has about 6100 military, civilian, contractor positions. in a big sense, what is your position on what he is announcing? guest: i think it shows how serious he is about addressing the nation's overall problem, of course, which is our budget deficit. and the fact that defense spending has to be taken into account. at the same time, he knows we have to continue to be effective in two wars. we have tremendous threats from elsewhere. and we have a need to modernize the equipment that our forces are using to continue to be able to maintain our national security. to be more efficient and more

productive is what he is seeking to do. 2% of 3% additional each year is going to be needed in the defense budget so we have to figure out how to bring down the cost. host: reaction, of course, was swift. this was courtesy of the newspaper in that region here, which was a press conference held by the governor and regional members of congress. let us show a little bit of that. >> we all stand here united and strong opposition to the announcement made by secretary gates today about the decision to close join forces command. this is a very bad decision, in my opinion. not only for va but a united -- the united states military. we are in a 2-front war. with other nations -- china, korea, with military buildups. and i don't think we can afford to be going through a process outside of brac to dramatically

reduce the forces here in the united states of america. host: i ask your reaction, not so much in your current position but yearlong tenure working at executive level. what secretary gates is trying to do, and media reaction from local members of congress and the governor of the state that would be most and have been any time, of course, the economy is in a bad state and jobs over all are a basic concern. what did you think about the challenge he is taking on? guest: the challenge of closing federal facilities is always a major one because it impacts the work force, the economy, at the state and local level. i certainly have seen that through my career in government. at the same time, we have to make some of those hard decisions. we have to step up and realize that everything in government that is is not necessary for what we need in the future. when you look at the ability of

the military to address things on a joint bases across the services, that has much improved over time. so, the decisions of whether this is the right way to go or not, that's got to be left to the dod, white house, and charges. there will be tough choices that will have to be made. host: we want to talk about military spending and the titular secretary gates' ' announcement about the budget of the defense department. let us put the numbers on the screen. explain to our audience who you represent. host: the aerospace industries association is the oldest trade organization representing defense and aerospace companies. some, 300. we provide everything from support for missiles and space, nasa, right across the

commercial world. the new 787 dream liner from boeing, and of course the equipment we are using in the military because the board. everything from c-17, to the joint strike fighter. host: how would your members be affected if secretary gates were successful and what he wants to do? guest: i think our members recognize that the customer, of course, is the department of defense. we need to provide what they want. we also need to respond in a time when the restrictions on the overall general budget are very real. our own companies at doing a great deal to reduce overhead, to become more lean, and i in the appreciate the fact that the secretary is doing this in discussion with the industry itself, in discussion with thoughtful people outside. it is very striking that kind of dialogue dod has set up in this effort in contrast to years

past. at times, it had very unintended consequences. the "peace dividend" in the past has that done damaging things for our ability to respond. i think it is a much more considered discussion and we as an industry went to be good partners and responsible to be more efficient, to be more productive. we have to. host: can you explain a little bit more about how you assembled those discussions and how they took place? guest: well, he gave a speech at the eisenhower library, which i thought was a great location, to talk about the importance of taking very seriously the need to reduce costs while maintaining national security. .

particularly the work force supporting management in various ways and levels at the pentagon. we do expect there is going to be a drawdown in that regard. i think from the standpoint of our companies, i will be watching it carefully because there are places where that kind of loss of expertise of people -- yes, they are contractors but they represent a tremendous asset. it could be a real loss. other places where it is a necessary part of reducing overhead. you don't want, for example, to reduce the people, the contractors, who are supporting the actual logistics in the field, of getting the material to the war fighter.

you want to be very careful about having the right kind of people who can guarantee that everything is up and running when it needs to be. are there administrative areas where you can drop the overall number of what we call fte's, over all member of people who are there from various contractors? undoubtedly that is what the secretary is looking to do. host: window among our viewers we have many -- we know among our viewers we have many current and former military members and those who work in the defense industry. we invite you to join in the discussion this morning about restructuring the defense department and reining in costs, which is the goal the secretary is trying to do here. we would like to hear what you think about it. particularly questions about the aerospace aspects of this. we very much appreciate your questions for her as well. let us begin with a call from lakewood, new jersey. peter on the republican line date -- of the republican line.

caller: i am a veteran. a couple of things out like your comments about. first of all, we used euphemisms too long and change the name from award apartments to defense department. to make people feel guilty about cutting the budget. in light of what we have done the past several years, being in two wars simultaneously, for example, i think we should change it back to what it is, of the war department, number one. number two, i would say that how can individuals really engage in any of the conversations about what is going on when only representatives of groups speak, even on c-span? i have not seen an average citizen invited from the streets, for example, to speak on issues. obviously people will rise to the level where they can appear on tv and radio and speak for a group have a mind set that is

not necessarily going to be reflective of all of the individuals. that is why i like hearing people calling in individually and in giving them an opportunity to speak. but in any case, i think they can't maintain budget cuts and employment simultaneously. aside think what we need to do is be more efficient and effective with the monies that we have. and i think as a taxpayer i would be more of willing to pay more taxes for more services and things more consistent with my point of view. i would like to hear your comments about that. host: thank you. guest: to go to your initial point, the war department became the defense department, i did not think we should be squeamish and all acknowledge in what we are in our wars, fighting effectively on two fronts and there are other conflicts in front of us. but the word defense is also pretty important because when

you realize on 9/11 that the defense department has had to step up on homeland security in multiple ways. one of the new commands that has been established is cyber security. that permeates everything we do. it is defense, believe me. so the kind of requirements they have for our national security really the range much more broadly than they used to be. i did not know what one word always catches that. i am glad this is a call-in show because it gives individuals a chance to talk from their own experience and also what they believe we need to do for the country. i certainly appreciate your point about being willing to provide more resources and better services, but all of us, whether it is on the industry side or government side, have got to look to find ways to be as efficient and productive as we possibly can to justify any more resources. at the outset, i think the

secretary is right saying we've got to do more with no more. and that is what he is seeking to do. host: "the new york daily news" reports virginia senator mark warner said no rational basis for eliminating the north of command. -- norfolk command. jim webb called the move "a step back toward" that could "be harmful to the capabilities of the finest military in the world." any comments on any of those. guest: those are two people who know from the standpoint of a sharp focus on national security, a great deal about the issues. i've got a lot of respect for both the senators involved. i do think it is very difficult whenever you are talking about a reduction in infrastructure or employment that affects a particular area very hard. and that is, of course, what the joint forces command will do

in virginia. you would have a significant loss. one thing you've got to bear in mind is that the secretary is seeking to strengthen our ability to have the finest equipment for our armed forces. shipbuilding, for example. it is in norfolk, and if we are able to do more bare it may well have an offsetting effect. i cannot say exactly where he wants to take the resources he is seeking to garner, but remember, a lot of this is a reallocation so we can modernize and make sure we are supporting the men and women out there. that does not necessarily mean in the long run there is a net loss. host: an endorsement from "the washington post."

predictably has announced that reduced the produced a chorus of opposition from the virginia delegation. the savings may be recycled through golden and navy ships at the shipyard. we're with you about the announcement. the next telephone call is from california. rachel, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am totally behind cutting back anywhere the government can stop the access we have in this government. if we had kept the budget the same sense of the 1990's we would not have a budget deficit

that we have today. i think the problem with our government is that we have to many corporations in positions of power, so if they get the funding into that area and there is nobody at the watch making sure that we are spending within our means and the government. i can give you an example. this might be a little off topic -- when obama ran, all of this promises, i have not even seen him until his campaign promises. he he said he would label gmo foods. within a couple of months monsanto tried to cut the bill -- on the top of it, food and safety act, but it really was going to get rid of organic farmers.

we were able to stop the bill and going through and shortly afterward obama creates a subdivision of the ft a call the food and safety and put him on santa lobbyist in charge. we need to clean the government so that all of the self-serving corporations are out. i am glad to see they are starting to do some cutting back. host: thank you. any comments? guest: i certainly do not know the monsanto situation. but i will say this that this administration is very strict in terms of its requirements of hiring people who are lobbyists and fall into the category. what you describe is certainly something the administration has not been doing, to our observation, as a generalized matter. you have to remember, there are no corporations or industry in

government itself. government looks to industry to supply equipment and services because that is really where you have the capabilities to do that. certainly everything that the men and women in uniform are using is supplied by the private sector. virtually everything. and the thing that is the way it should be. it's got to be responsive to what government needs and wants. after all, the defense department is the customer. and we seek to provide what they need. host: admiral mike mullen -- taking the warning the government that is the biggest threat to u.s. national security, beyond even al qaeda and taliban. in this piece on august 11, they write --

comments? guest: i think everybody knows that the deficit is a growing worry. it is a drag on our economy and something that we all have to address. now, i will also say that when you look at what is driving government spending and driving the deficit, a tremendous amount of that is the growth in the domestic entitlements. we have to also be honest enough as a society to recognize that and decide if we are willing to continue that trend at that pace. host: but next call is from richmond, virginia. john calling us on the independent line. you are on the air. guest: i think this is going to make a lot of people angry because the general public sees a lot of contradictions in the way the government spends the money and the way the government makes cuts. they are going to see a lot of

corporations getting these bailouts. they got these bailouts in the past. they will see the government's unwillingness to make cuts in other areas. so, they are going to see this clash of values of where the money gets cut and where the money goes, and it is going to be interesting because i think that freddie mac just asked for a bailout, another bailout. so -- for example, freddie mac getting another bailout, and at the same time we are making cuts in defense, they will see the contradictions and it will make people angry, especially with november elections coming up. so, who gets cut? who decides what is going to get cut and what we are going to keep and what we will spend money on it is all going to come out and it is going to make people angry. especially when we start cutting soldiers jobs and soldiers' families jobs, and at the same time we are bailing out

freddie mac, if that is what happens. so, how are we going to deal with those contradictions? guest: john, and nobody ever said government was consistent. i think that is something we all recognize. but you are raising some very serious points. i would want to say specifically about the aerospace and defense industry, that you never hear those words in connection with bailout. there has been no bailout in the area of aerospace and defense companies. in fact, we have been a remarkable strength in this economy. you have to remember that the aerospace and defense area is one where we are providing a tremendous trade surplus. $56 billion. that is jobs in the united states that we are ensuring. that $56 billion last year in surplus, the largest in any manufacturing area. so we are trying very hard to

ensure that, again, we are productive and efficient, but we are not asking for any government bailout or hand out. i think also you have to remember that what we are trying collectively with the secretary of defense to do is, again, to ensure that the jobs of soldiers, the benefits to their families, are not cut. a lot of the effort to reach orients here in terms of the use of resources within the defense department budget is to ensure that the men and women in uniform are adequately provided for. and that is a growing cost. we all recognize it. but it is an important one that has to be met. host: marion blakey has had a long career in the public sector before moving on to her position at the aerospace industry association. she has held six presidential appointments, four that required senate confirmation. from 1992-1993 as the head of the national highway traffic safety administration.

and also five-year term as the administrator of the federal aviation administration, faa. we are talking about defense spending and priorities. the next telephone call is from missouri. judy is on the republican line. you are on the air. caller: thank you for being here. i appreciate the topic this morning. i am a veteran. i served in the 1980's, in the cold war. this was when bric was going on, and, boy, political fights. i am a republican and i am madder than heck at these republicans out here. it does not hurt to streamline the military. a lot of this is going to be about politicians. i noticed the article is in the newspapers and the politicians will be up in arms with all of the job cuts that going to happen if they cannot make the airplanes or what ever. it is going to cut into revenues

coming into their state. but i am telling you, she is right about the budget. streamline the military -- there will be more military wives to get a job, or husbands. we spend way too much money on things we don't need it anymore. i mean, some of these airplanes should be obsolete. st. louis, missouri, i mean, they had a fit when we cut into the c-17, what ever it was, and then people were having fits about that. if you have been in the military you know -- you don't need them anymore. and they don't. i tell you what, probably secretary gates is one of the most trusted defense secretaries -- yes, secretary, right, of defense -- that we have had it for ever. i think americans trust him. he is not going to whittle it down to nothing. and i believe he is going to do

it and efficient job for the department and the military and i think it will help the civilian side of the united states. host: thank you for your call, judy. guest: judy, again, just a start off, thank you for your service as a veteran because i think we all recognize that it gives you quite a perspective on what is going on right now. i also agree with you. i think the american public does feel comfortable and trust bob gates as our secretary and believe he is trying to do the right thing. certainly those of us in the industry feel that way, working very closely with the defense department. there are things we need to tackle that don't go to just slashing in various areas. mentioning the c-17, very interesting example. one of the things we need to do is to pull back on all of the government unique requirements that we have from the pentagon when they are trying to buy equipment. c-17 -- one of the last buys on

those -- and remember, it is a heavy cargo lifted, a work force. 180 are out there working very hard in both the afghan and iraq conflicts and elsewhere. but when they went to buy a small additional number, and 180 already produced and flying, 62,000 pages of cost data is what the pentagon required to make that additional purchase. you know all of the people who produced that kind of paper work and all of the people reviewed that kind of paperwork were really doing a lot of make work and all of that. those are the kinds of requirements that we need to really back off of and we really need to look at what is important in the procurement system and acquisition system, streamline its, and really modernize. i think that is also a part of what we are looking for secretary gates to do, to get it right in the first place when

the perching -- purchased in, " the requirements day and then not pile on a lot of additional government specific requirements. a lot of this can be done under commercial contracts in a very efficient way. there is a lot that can be done that does not go to eliminating people and necessarily eliminating equipment. host: are always very vocal twitter audience. many reacting to your comments earlier about the aerospace industry not seeking a bailout. a thematic representation -- what percentage of income from the company's is derived from government spending? guest: it depends on which companies. as i explained at the beginning, we represent the aerospace industry, which really does cover all those commercial aircraft flying today and assets like the international space station, space shuttles, it said

representative. remember, this is a very broad industry. one of the reasons we have been stable. i would not say in this economy and the industries are booming. but we have been stable and have been a real support for the economy, is we do have a multiplicity of the sectors, commercial, defense, the intelligence community, etc., that we are providing assets for. satellites, when it comes to earth observation. we are the industry where a lot of that comes from. having said that, i would also say we work on a relatively modest profit margin. when you look at the standard and poor's 500 index and you look at the company's there, our margins have always been substantially below that of average industries. the standard and poor's 500 is a good management. profit margins in the military arena are certainly below.

host: lincoln, georgia. margie, democrat line. caller: i of wondering how they are going to cut costs when the csis and the global fund meeting was talking about the $800 billion that we are contributing to the quadrennial review where you go into 150 different countries -- and people need to look at foreign policy magazine, and they were celebrating yesterday's saying we are fixing to pick up the aid program. and also the institute of peace, they were also talking about this quadrennial review. everybody needs to go to the website on c-span and look at those that were held the other day. apparently we are fixing to go into 150 countries and bring all

of these people and even and the stable ones, said up regimes because they might not be stable later. and the contractors are running contracts with subcontractors and buying them out, and aid would not answer questions. out of all the companies, they were the ones who did not answer questions. where are we saving money? host: thank you. guest: susan, you mentioned a few minutes ago that i had held in number of positions in government, which is true. aid and foreign-policy have not been in my area. i will let that go. host: dallas, texas. robert of the republican line. caller: two things i would like to bring up for your guest. is coli -- as colin powell said,

vietnam veteran, we will use the principle overwhelming force to wage war. the first thing i would like to know is, what happens to the doctrine? donald rumsfeld said "you go to war with what you have at that time." he sent our troops into iraq without the proper body armor and vehicles. i would like you to comment on those two things, please. thank you. guest: i am not sure i can analyze historical what happened at a specific pulled the. -- specific point. but i can tell you that colin powell is right in terms of overwhelming force, a part of that it is having the highest and best technology at your disposal. one reason why the united states has been so very successful and formidable around the world when it comes to conflict is we did not believe in and unlevel playing field and to keep it to

our advantage has been technology. being able to bring that in so that it is not just on the shoulders of our war fighters and just on a basis of numbers of people fighting. it is all so that real technological edge making a difference. one reason why you find secretary gates talking a great deal about modernizing because the equipment is wearing out in afghanistan and iraq. you think about the desert conditions. believe me, we have been putting it through paces that simply -- at this point, we are seeing a great deal of need to replace the most basic of equipment. but it does not really make sense to replace it with 20- year-old, 30-year-old technology because a lot of the stuff has been in the field a long time. so he is seeking to modernize. reset, recapitalize, modernize at the same time. i think that is a very important part of the equation of the wars

of today and tomorrow. host: columbia, south carolina. caller: good morning, susan. you are one of my favorite people. i would like to say, i am a formal -- former marine, 10 years, air force for 10 years, and have been retired a good while. speaking to other retirees at the va and different places, most of them think -- and i do -- think that we should bring back the draft and get rid of these contractors over in afghanistan and iraq, because of i were a marine over there now making a marine sergeants wages and looked at contractors to fight to get over there almost, making the money in that they do, my morel would not be worth a damn.

i just think we need to clean it up. and if we cannot get the troops to fight the war and get the contractors out of their, we ought to get out of those countries pronto. i thank you very much. host: thanks very much. i know that is not in your area of expertise but would you like to comment? guest: i would simply say this. number one, i am certainly and pressed with the caller possibility to serve in the marines and air force. and the contractors abroad that are again often shoulder to shoulder with uniformed military, remember that there has been a tremendous loss of life among the contractors. so, they also serve. and you certainly see the casualties they're being very, very significant. those in uniform military, of course, are doing a great deal of this work. what the balance should be, i do

not think i would be in a position to make a judgment but to recognize service on both fronts. host: at couple -- a couple of callers mentioned the quadrennial review. how does the debate on this progress? guest: qdr is an important document because it leaves out what we are planning in terms of strategy, what we believe the scenarios we may have to face from the standpoint of the fence will be, and it gives congress a good insight on the road map for the defense department. they get to consider that and discuss whether or not there changes. it is a dynamic document. it came out, i believe, in february of this year. but there will be further refinements. and there will be another version of this in a few years,

from scratch. but the document they are working right now, i think, provides of the transparency into what the defense establishment intends. it is a very helpful thing and it turned out, i believe, a good way of conducting the kind of dialogue and building of consensus you've got to have. host: just to close, a fine point on this -- aerospace industry reaction to this announcement is what? guest: this is an important test to try to streamline, become more efficient. we are very much a partner of doing so and we would like to see important changes in the way the defense department buys equipment because we believe there is a lot of deficiency that can be gained there. i am glad to see secretary gates tackling bad -- in that himself. host: we will take a break in the update from c-span radio on what is happening in the world and then we will be back with todd purdum to look at his article, asking whether

washington is broken beyond repair. more from him in a few minutes. >> new numbers on spending and foreclosures today. mastercard advisers spending pulls says retail sales barely rose last month, up just 0.1%. meantime, realty tracks says the number of foreclosed homes rose last month to 93,000, and 9% increase from june. more on the economy from democratic representative cozenage, whose name was invoked at yesterday's white house briefing. he said earlier on "good morning america" that the white house does not understand the deep public frustration over the troubled economy and defense -- press secretary robert kids should not have attack, in his words, "the professional left." the ohio democrat said -- "those of us who call ourselves liberal will not rest until we get back to full employment economy." asked if he would challenge president obama for the party's

nomination in 2012, mr. kucinich, who did run in 2008, replied, no. a christian charity group says it now believes militants killed 10 members of its medical team last week, not robbers. an official says the sole survivor of the attack said the leader. to be pakistani. the attack killed six americans, two afghans, a german, and a briton. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span ready. >> c-span programing -- politics, books, history, available anytime on c-span radio in the baltimore area, 90.1, nationwide, sirus xm, ipad or iphone apps, and now listen on the phone through a partnership with audio now, a leader in mobile phone radio.

c-span radio is available any time, just call. it is free, but check with your phone service provider for additional charges. c-span radio, even more available on your phone. >> "washington journal" continues. host: todd purdum is our next guest and if you watch political television you probably have seen him around. guest: over exposed. but as a monthly magazine writer you have to take opportunities as you find them. host: what we are talking about is the september issue of vanity fair. "washington, we have a problem."

we are going to talk about all of that and more in the discussion. how did this come about? guest: my editor, longtime managing editor, we have been talking for months on how to get the question that vice- president biden said last winter -- is washington broken? we thought if we just looked at a single day at the life of the presidency and spun out to talk about various problems, the impatience of the public, you probably create a pretty good portrait on an average day. my own members having covered the clinton white house a few years ago, my feeling of the pace of working in and covering the white house today is so much faster, causes so many more problems, that i cannot imagine doing it. that is worth taking a look at. host: we pulled two quotes,

picking up on the comment you just made. modern presidency has become a job of such gargantuan size, speed, and complexity as to be all but unrecognizable to most of the previous chief executives. host: would you elaborate a little bit more? guest: people point out to me that fdr was present on the eve of world war ii, six people with the title president and after the war he had about a dozen and they would meet in a semicircle. now there are more than 100 people in the white house that has some form of the word assistant in their title. because the responsibilities of the executive-branch have grown

so enormously, it is very hard for any entity -- you know, the west wing is much smaller than the typical corporate law office. it is action is very intimate place. not that much room to do the work and people are crowded one on top of the other. i think the gulf between the task that any modern president has -- by the way, this article could be equally written about present bush -- the gulf between the task at hand and resources are enormous. host: i want to reference two books that a been around for a while. a longtime reporter from "the los angeles times" wrote a number of years ago. it was a study of the throughout history how president our first flummoxed by the technology gebbie -- going back to telegraphs, newspaper, radio, and then learning how to master it and use it to the own and

manage. a similar book written about president lincoln, calling it "mr. lee and's email," about how the telegraph flummoxed lincoln because the generals were communicating absent him and he goes to the telegraph and started using it. guest: reading it and having sort of the first line of intelligence. host: my background. here is the second -- "when could also ask, even if washington is broken, is still partly usable? is there a way to play the washington game on its own of the terms and even play in ferociously because you have to, and yet transcend the game in some fundamental way?" the disruptive technology of the internet and twitter and and listen lobbying. guest: i think it is a very good point. this white house is clearly not operating out of some ivory

tower or candlelight age. they are pitching in all of these new media. the white house has a very active blog of their own. they did not wait 24 or 36 hours to have an op ed piece. if something happened that they did not like, they put it on their own white house block. they produce a video, produced news pieces that effectively compete with broadcast news and cable news outlets, versions of event. one of the complaints about journalists at the white house is the white house does not give as much access president of the past have given to news photographers but instead have a very capable and even brilliant staff, and they often release official white house goes to the news media. they are playing very hard, and i think by the light of some reporters, they are playing hard ball on it be questions. that is an interesting commentary on the way that they are, in fact, trying to exploit

the new media as well. host: a call from savannah. this is bobby calling on the republican line. you are on the air. caller: good morning, how are you doing? what to talk about the way the government is broken and carry over from some of the military that you just spoke about with the other guests. i have been in the military 31 years and i have been civil service full time of the military for over 30 years and i have been a taxpayer the entire time and one thing that bothered me is for most of my career i had to listen to the public's negative feelings about how the u.s. spends -- for instance, you heard about the $200 hammers, $500 toilet seats that our military spends -- that they spend too much. well, at the same time, i am highly involved in buying parts and supplies for military weapons systems. and we are forced and told to use minority contractors and female contractors and women-

owned businesses. there have been numerous times i could about the part that i needed that was the best fit but was diverted into other directions. anyway, i call it government overhead -- like any business, there is overhead. but part of our overhead is we use one service or one business or one aspect of government to fund others. what i think they should do and what i always said they should do -- because i have been a taxpayer of 31 years -- i wish they would let us work more efficiently. i wish they would let us buy the parts of the best place for the best price, and then -- so that people know where money is going. host: i want to wrap his comments into your discussion about the sheer growth and size of responsibility. here is a tweet on the topic as well.

does washington control to much? is, yes, inquestion fact this successive administrations, more and more is on a plate of the present but should there be a debate in the country going on about the sheer size of washington? guest: i think that debate has been going on for 30 years when president reagan came into the office saying government is not the solution to the problems, government is the problem. as you obviously know, republican candidates are talking a lot about how we should shrink the size and mission of government and get back to basic constitutional principles, and why is the government and all these things. he raises an interesting point about complex multifaceted priorities. on the one hand, to get the best goods at the cheapest price to the job and the other, to promote social justice through a

notion of minority and women contract. that has been a longstanding priorities of republican and democratic administrations to one degree or the other. it is a constant trade off. i think one of the problems when the government is so complex it is measuring the trade up, and in some sense, even being able to see them and understand them. so many things are built into the pie that the public it is not aware of the choices effectively being made because the choices are being cremate. it is the kind of evolution -- a line host: the kind of evolution -- they went through it in demise. guest: there has been a big debate. there was a book "are we rolm" about whether we are fat and sloppy and off our game. i think one thing that happens to any mature society is a

certain kind of arterial scotia in -- sclerosis. it is a hardening of arteries. we take for granted what our forefathers fought to take advantage of. this is not a new theme, but many ways, we are spoiled by the freedoms we have. we have low voter turnout, all these kinds of things that are signs. host: you are on the air with todd purdum. gary, independent line. caller: i think the major problem with our government is the corruption. i would like to bring up something here, with the financial reform. senator mark lee and levin put a roll in, known as but volcker role, that would have put a fire wall between investment houses and commercial banking. one of the key sanction --

sections was a ban on proprietary trading, gambling for profit. there was a link and roll. one of the key sections there was giving gambling with dangers and to mislike credit defaults swaps. then we had a senator who -- and of being named after, mr. chris dodd -- the money he takes, as far as the lobbying, working behind the scenes to take any teeth out of that bill. to kill it. the senators and his own party debate maria cantwell -- they set up a watch on him so he could not put a substitute in. one democratic senator, congressman, him and geithner and schumer and the rest of those crooks -- that is the problem.

that is why the american people don't trust our government. host: you have given us a lot to work with. i want to use this as a jumping off point for part of the piece that looks at congress and influence of lobbying. the magazine blew out this quote. lobbying industry is the true fourth branch of government. guest: the logging industry spent $3.5 billion -- lobbying industry spent about $3.5 billion. it is really a record. it has been steadily growing over the past 30 or 40 years. just one small index. it amounts to something over a million dollars for every hour that congress was in session. the single largest lobbing into the was the chamber of congress that spend something like $130 million, which is more than the combined payroll of all 535

members of congress. so, the gap between the amount being spent by those doing that influencing and am now available to those being influenced is still out wildly disproportionate. host: michael, republican line, from queens. caller: i watch your show every morning to get ideas about what is going on in the country. washington is broke, corrupt, and the kind of change that barack obama is bringing to this country, we don't need. he wants to bring america to the european system. this is the united states. we have a constitution that protects our government from us. what is next? would he tell us what kind of clothes to wear? it is crazy. michelle obama was saying, i am ashamed of my country. i ashamed of my country for what they are doing to it. we have veterans who are fighting for us, our freedoms, and they are tried to take them away.

change? i see the change. a european system. cannot join unless they get rid of our constitution and bankrupt the country and that is what they are trying to do. where in guest: where in queens? i was on a radio interview with someone from the british broadcasting corporation in england and he said he was puzzled with this line of criticism because people in england thought he was to the right of the new prime minister -- european style. it was applicable. i think anytime somebody comes into office and makes a change and president obama wasn't shy about wanting to do it.

they subject themselves to a lot of controversial. i think it's pretty clear that in historical terms president obama is in the broad mainstream of american life and he's not really trying to do anything that presidents of both parties to one degree other other has tried to do before. what his problem is he's counting on government to do big things, whether it's financial regulatory reform at a time when the public simply doesn't trust government very much, doesn't trust institutions. and i think that's really his biggest problem. host: started off the program showing peter hart's new survey , "grim voter mood turns grimmer." you know, ratings for congress is somewhat historic lows for as long as some pollsters have been registering them. let me use that to get into your section about the partisan divide in congress.

what are your takes, what did you learn, what are your observations of working across party lines in d.c.? guest: well, when thing that's happened steadily is structurally. since the civil rights and vietnam era, the composition of the parties has changed. the republican party used to be divided between midwestern conservatives, northern liberals. democratic is southern conservatives and urban liberals and moderates. those wings have disappeared. there are no moderate republicans and there really aren't conservative democrats. they don't have any structural interest in cooperating. 40, 50 years ago congress was in session up to nine years. their families were here. they socialized with each other

and they knew each other. ron who died was very close friends with the house republican leader bob michael of illinois and they used to drive back to illinois -- host: you write that the lively of congressional discourse has gone steadily downhill since 1789. guest: the truth is in, you know, discourse off the floor of congress, members are quite nasty to each other these days. host: we'll come back and talk about the filibuster which you write about. jean, republican line. caller: washington is not listening to the ordinary, everyday jews out there and they are stuck in their own bubble.

and they are -- they are out of touch with what's happening in the rest of the country. you guys have been plagued by john mccain on this c-17 issue is one example. he doesn't want any money going into that air force program. he puts this out and you guys keep talking about talking about it. those c-17 are the workhorse of the two wars that we were involved in and they are getting beat up and they have to be replaced and fixed and we just have the first one crash and it's probably from lack of maintenance. and you're putting my son, his -- is on the c-17 crew in jeopardy if you don't maintain them. and this president, he wants to be bipartisan, and he hasn't been bipartisan from day one.

that's what's wrong with washington. host: thanks very much. guest: well, i was puzzled about the whole announcement involving the c-17 because these are the workhorses of the military in terms of transport. i wonder do they have enough, what will they do? i guess secretary gates will cut someplace and presumably that was one that he judged as expendable. i do think it's wrong to say that president obama hasn't tried to be bipartisan. i think from the very beginning he did try to be. he certainly thought there would be more bipartisanship upon his taking office. republicans say when the bill got passed, their ideas weren't listened to. but i think at important levels president obama has personally tried to reach out. he feels that -- just reporting his perspective, he feels that he's been snubbed. this is objective fact. the republicans have not given support to any degree for the most important priorities.

host: let's show this to our audience who didn't have a chance to watch and get your reaction. >> talked about washington being broken. he talked about the president's effort to transcend politics in washington. and reporting is subjecting that the president made a concerted effort to reach out to republicans early on. i got to tell you, this administration hasn't sought to transcend the politics of washington, d.c. this has been the my way or the highway administration from the stimulus bill forward, democrats on capitol hill and in this administration have slammed the door on republican ideas, have slammed the door on bipartisan proposals, and, you know -- and, again, i just saw on your program again this morning, the president saying even though we handed the president a book of republican solutions in february at our retreat and he acknowledged that we offered policy alternatives to stimulus, to budget, to energy, to health care, the president is back to that old saw that republicans

have no ideas. i think that's the reason that his approval rating is plummeting. host: what was your reaction? guest: i thought that congressman pence is very smart and good legislator. he was really saying the only thing wrong with washington is president obama who is doing everything we don't like. but the truth is the obama administration made a lot of changes and compromises in its most important proposals including removing the public option from health care, in cap and trade. it's -- i mean, in the energy legislation, it's backed away from cap and trade. so he has done things to try to get republican votes. he just hasn't been very successful in getting them. host: next call is from corbin, kentucky. this is robert from the ind line. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. my question is, is it possible that government -- washington isn't broke -- is not broken and that what we're seeing is just a met more if i cisfrom --

metamorphisis -- and a lot of accomplishments has occurred and that the interchange between those who don't want to move forward in that new role, which will obviously take sometime, and those who maybe are pushing forward with the free trade agreement and other aspects of that? thank you. guest: well, i think robert raised an interesting point. for the past two i think we have been in transition from an old style of industrial economy and that is a stressful time. given the problems with our educational susan, there is a real challenge to make sure that our work force is up and ready for the jobs that will be there. and part of what you see in washington is that debate played out and those kinds of fights that have been around the world come to washington every day so

i thinking makes a fair point host: the next call is from delores. good morning. caller: we need our defense build up. we need our borders protected. thethey're also breaking up middle class in america and it is making us very nervous. general motors now, or government voters, that is not the government's place. -- general motors now, or government motors, that is not the government's place. thank you and have a good day. host: the question that comes out for me is how much of this is just tough for governing in

times of an economic crisis than in boone times? guest: id that is a very good point. -- i think that is a very good point. it is more difficult. i know john mccain feels this and other congressmen have made this point the of the day is that republicans got very sloppy about controlling spending. yes, they cut taxes, but the under president bush. i think both parties have been years bonds " with current finances. host: thomas, go ahead. caller: all these people accusing obama of being a dictatorial tyrant, where were they during the bush years when

he declared that he had the right to ignore those he did not agree with, and in fact, he did. he was struck down three times by the supreme court over the way he was treating the detainees in guantanamo. why do we hear all of these tea baggers andve decker' others, about this? guest: one of the realities in politics is that we have such a few -- we have such a short memory. there is not a kind of consistency and institutional memory that would help us sort through some of these criticisms in a more useful way. host: next call is from jim.

what good morning, jim. caller: [unintelligible] c-span won't even address that issue. host: to get his point of view, he is worried about neocons influence on policy and general patraeus's upcoming speech. guest: i do not think general patraeus is going to be the kind of person who will be unduly sway by either party. -- unduly swayed by either party. i think both parties agree that if anyone has to be doing this job, general patraeus is the man to do it. host: it is interesting this week because of robert gibson's comments about the left -- robert gibson's comments about

the left. he talked a little bit about this from the podium. >> do you regret any of what you said to the hilt? >> i will say i think there are many times when i read the transcripts even of answers i give in here that i could have said things slightly differently. i will say, you know, i watch a lot of cable tv and you do not have to watch a lot of it to get frustrated by some of what is said. i think that is what that answer host: there is a lot to pick apart there. let's start with this daily press briefing and what it is about. guest: i have to say that 15 years ago i used to go there and say, i'm not going to ask a question and mike mcguire woods

is something that struck me as not particularly right and then you end up in a 45 minute conversation. it has kind of evolved into a debate in society. it is not just that they need to have the sound and the pictures in directing with them. i think robert in many ways has a very hard job and i'm sure he gets frustrated by it. i think most democratic president get liberated by the most liberal base in the same way that most republican partisans get frustrated -- most republican presidents get frustrated by their most conservative base. it must be said, for all of the callers who have said that obama is taking us towards socialism or wherever, president obama has not received unstinting support

from the most durable -- and most liberal elements of his party. host: you participate in the daily political talk. guest: just as it were that obama participated in crazy game, too. one thing that has not changed in the past 20 years in washington is that there is much ating going on. we used to say that we have news in the 80 -- in the '80s and '90s, when there really was a lot more updating. now we have discussion about what the president does and what it means and what he will do next.

guest: the thing about twitter is that it is always a little bit like a haiku. host: someone earlier treated us , themr. lincoln's e-mails original twitter user. up next is greg. is washington brooke and beyond repair? caller: good morning, how are you? -- is washington broken beyond repair? caller: good morning, how are you. let's get real. he was a part-time professor at a liberal university. did anybody really believe this country was not going to go to hell in a handbasket when we

elected this man? thank you. guest: that is an interesting call from greg because by many indices, the president is, in fact, succeeding. he is getting done what he said he would do when he took office. you do not have to be a supporter of obama to recognize that he did many things other than standing on a street corner in handing out pamphlets. as abraham lincoln once said and as president obama used to say, he had enough experience to know that what was happening was not necessarily working. host: north carolina, and davis on the air. good morning. caller: i look around congress and i see a lot of these old guys, right now, these old world war ii guys and they do not have

open minds. ,et's say obama is a socialist if socialism would work best for our country, what would be wrong with that? obviously, something is not working. it is not just now. for people to say it started with obama, well, nothing has changed just yet. it takes time to correct where we are right now. host: both of us are in treat the that you as a high-school senior are interested in politics. what inspired you? caller: obama. host: what is next?

caller: i will probably join the reserves, go to university, probably north carolina state. host: will you eventually come to washington? caller: of course. host: thank you for calling us and sharing with us your plans. guest: he makes a good point. although, when you talked about world war ii generation politics, even charlie rangel, who is 80 years old, is a veteran of the korean war. that generation, in terms of service in government, has passed from the scene. dingelldn't mr. service? guest: he may have, but just a

handful. whereas, 20 years ago, there were many. obama was born during the kennedy administration. part of the stress in the criticism of obama is purely a generational question. host: i want to put another quote here on the health care debate. guest: it is sending to think about in this day and age because a lot of what used to happen in washington have been behind in scenes.

-- happened behind the scenes. transparency is the word of the day now. i think a lot of what used to happen in congress could not happen anymore. host: our producer is also reminding us about senator dan and away service in world war ii. guest: good point. host: let's go to theresa, atlanta. caller: good morning. i have some point and i ask that you not cut me off. i do live in the south and i do want to ask about the calculated assault on the white american male worker from this president. we have heard several people saying that contracts are only

going to minority workers, will women -- or women. the white male worker is under assault from this president. i want to get your opinion on that. that is how i feel. guest: of the interesting things about that is that almost all of the president's own senior aides are white males. he gets a lot of criticism for that. as kind of connecting a full employment plan for white democratic political operatives. i think that is just your opinion and i do not have any view on it. as one white male, 50 years old, who has been working for 30 years, i do not feel under assault. but that is as one person. host: next caller from maryland.

caller: two people have called in and said some ridiculous things. the lady that just called from the south, obviously, she is in immediate. she does blamed -- she is an idiot. she is blamed on obama issues for white men. you cannot get anything done. another caller said that he was a pamphlet backhander and what did you expect? president bush was a draft dodger and a drunk and he became president. what we need to do is fire everybody in the senate, everybody in the house, get people in there that have no tenure were you cannot get them out, so they can work and do things. we can get more things done with college graduates taking their place. we can move things along. the problem is we cannot get

anything done because people are blaming it on the republicans, blaming it on the democrats. i do not care about the politics of it. i loved lbj because i watch c- span and i saw the movie. i love the way he did things. you're going to support this legislation or you had to pay for it. host: he is referring to on saturday afternoons we hear the lbj and tapes. guest: as our wonderful tapes to listen to. -- those are wonderful tapes to listen to. there is intense anger in the air can -- and on roger during the round is the way to do it. -- and i am not sure throwing them around as a way to do it. hon host: next call from betty. caller: i would like to hear

more news, just straight news, what is going on. we have fewer journalists who are really journalists. these people are giving their opinion and they are going to the blogs and saying these things. this country shall not be so racist because other countries do that, too. we talk about other people in other countries, but this country, we are divided between colors. we are all americans. i think obama is doing the best to can. i think he really wants to change washington. i think he really is trying to do the best he can and try to go across the aisle. but republicans are going along with this tea party and they are just going crazy.

hong guest: that makes at least one indisputable point, which is that there's a lot more in in journalism that there yesterday. the late senator from new york for many years used to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not their own facts. i think these days we find that journalists tend to a substitute their own facts. i think we have to find something that we can all agree on and president obama is trying hard to do that, i think. host: the new issue of vanity fair has lady gaga on the cover. is it broken beyond repair? guest: i hope not, because we still depend on it being able to function. big things can still get done, as seen over the last 18 months. we will see whether the -- whether the public agrees.

host: we're going to take a break. we will go back to c-span radio to learn about news events. and in our final segment today, we will discuss energy and energy technologies, looking at wind energy. >> it is 9:14 a.m. eastern time. job reports in from the labor department's a first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose last week to their almost highest level in six months, a sign that employers are still cutting their staffs. initial claims have now risen in three of the last four weeks. profits being reported by general motors today. the company said it made over $1 billion in the second quarter. it is gm's strake second quarterly profit and a sign of growing industry -- growing strength as they prepared to sell stock to the public. more on california's same-sex marriage case, the federal judge to overturn the ban a week ago is set to rule on whether gay

marriages should resume immediately in the state or wait for appeals court input. the judge will issue his decision by noon. and the bbc says iraq owes the top army officer says the planned troop withdrawal by the end of next year is premature. he warns of the military might not be ready to take control for another decade. the u.s. says it is on target to end combat operations by the end of august and return -- and meet its deadline of removing alter's by the end of 2011. -- removing all trips by the end of 2011. >> not a bad desk, you there. >> harry truman, in 1939 when he saw this movie, he did this movie. he really despise it. at the time, harry truman was seen as a senator from the pandher guest machine in kansas city. i was wondering if he did not think at that point, at least, that the movie was looking at

him with his situation with the political machine back home. >> donald ritchie and his book on congress sunday on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on this thursday morning we continue our week-long discussion about energy issues and energy policy. every day we are focusing on different technology. today we will look at wind technology and our special guest is george hagerman, who is a specialist particularly in offshore wind. the is from virginia tech. -- he is from virginia tech. there is an enormous increase in 2011 and also stimulus funds for wind energy. thank you for joining us. tell us about your job. what do you do?

guest: i am presently director of research for the virginia coastal energy research consortium. we are a consortium of nine universities and a variety of state agencies and private industry organizations that have collaborated and receive funding from the virginia general assembly and two over the last two to three years look into -- to over the last two to three years look into what virginia can do to promote alternative resources. everyone is very collegial and i have to give a huge shot are to all my colleagues and different universities around the state. there is also another effort to ae asat biodiesel from lalge in other renewable resource.

you really have to look at the whole picture. you cannot just choose one area. they will affect each other. host: with your background and education are you an engineer? guest: i am a scientist by trade. i got my degree from chapel hill. i realized in the 1980's there were energy crises back then and i really wanted to devote my knowledge of the ocean to harnessing the energy from the ocean. i have worked in renewable ocean energy for almost 30 years, starting with the department of energy's otec program, a resource in the tropics that was pioneered in the early 1900's by the french and then moving on into wave energy from tidal currents, ocean currents virginia's largest endemic renewable energy resources from the sea is offshore wind.

that is my focus has been. host: many live in parts of a country where there has been a big public debate about offshore wind energy development. many of you have experience in land and earlier versions of of the wind farms, as they are called. we would like to add you to the discussion this morning as to talk about wind energy development in the u.s. let me ask you about what you think the bp oil catastrophe has done to your work. has it been a plus or minus? guest: it is a complex answer. i would say it is both a plus and minus. it has increased the clarity and raise the voltage level of the debate into political opinion, as your previous guest was discussing, and we are sort of losing sight of the fox and people are much more in canadiaopinionated and not necey

looking at of the facts. i would say that it is because of the pause that has been put on offshore -- and virginia is one of the only states that had a lease sale for offshore planning area and that has now been put on hold. the governor been more committed to making virginia and energy of, he now understands that oil and gas was not the only possible economic driver and job creator. offshore wind can use many of the same assets to move this industry offshore as well. host: i want to take your phone calls and questions also by e- mail at twitter. occurred on the democrats line, you're on the line for george hagerman. caller: good morning, my

question concerns an idea i have become aware of. at mit, someone developed the catalyst -- i think it was using cobalt, oracle called chemical so they could produce hydrogen with a trellises very cheaply. i have been fascinated with the sis verythe electrologist cheaply. i have been fascinated by this. it is stored by pipa, to produce wind energy. i'm wondering, can either of ?hem be transferred by pipe to me, that would be a comprehensive solution to the

interagency of the wind -- intermittencey of the wind. guest: you are right on target. i was familiar with out when it was announced. maybe instead of thinking of the centralized energy approach where you pipe hydrogen around -- that is actually an infrastructure that we really do not have. hardin is a much smaller molecules and gas, so it makes all over the natural gas pipelines. the significance of that research is that it provides what i would call "household energy security. all but we all enjoy been able to stay and rely on our homes for our resources. if you could have a local source of power that comes from your own rooftop and you store the hydrogen in your home, then

you've got your own resources. but you still have thousands to millions of homes with your photovoltaics, or your son to hydrogen as you described -- or your sun-to-hydrogen, as you described. that is the key to our sustainability, which is to combine many resources. and some are centralized. offshore wind is only economical if it is in a large offshore station. but if your household photovoltaics santa hydrogen -- household photovoltaics and hydrogen and you are using natural gas as well and you are using natural gas structure to be the storage medium, all of a sudden you have enormous and it -- enormous amounts of energy

than you do now. host: how long has it been around, the technology? guest: since i was in graduate school driving out to boone, n.c., the first turbines in the 1980's out in california -- actually, in the late '70s were just a few test turbines. that shows you there has been a 30-year built where the cost has come down dramatically and the reliability has gone up tremendously. that is a lesson for what we can do in offshore wind. there's a lot of learning still to be done through trial and error and research development and demonstration. that is in his budget. the president's budget do this much more quickly than we did in the 1980's. host: where are the parts for these machines being manufactured?

guest: all over the country. i think the three largest states -- and you can go to the wind energy association website associationwea.org, -- web site, wea.org. there are turbine assembly that put everything together, the blades, the rotors and all the gears and all of that. those states have supply chain. particularly in america's heartland, the structure of what used to be called the rust belt in the great lakes and the ohio valley and over toward the mid atlantic, that is where you have your second tier of suppliers. these are the prefab buildings that have sheet metal workers and produce fasteners, nuts,

bolts, metal stamping. all of those businesses can be revitalized again. they can feed the great make offshore wind as well as the mid atlantic offshore wind. host: what does it cost compared to a land-based wind project? guest: a land-based project would cost in the range of 2000 per megawatt. that is to million-dollar is -- saddest $2 million -- that is delaying dollars to $2.5 million per megawatt. offshore, we calculate it around $3.5 million to $4 million per installed to what --

per installed megawatt. it is a little bit more costly, but what you are generating could easily be 1.8 times higher offshore. the cost can be offset by the increase in productivity by the turbines. host: we talked about the $5 million and the $45 million. there's also stimulus money. there are companies competing for contracts. and what is the ratio of public to private investment in energy? guest: i do not know the private, so it can on his neck question. host: is there a lot of -- so i cannot answer that question. is there a lot before private? guest: guess, and there are several kinds. there are the deregulated and than the regulated and investor owned properties.

they tend to get iraq -- get involved in much larger projects. where the government support has been most helpful are on things like loan guarantees and investing in the supply chain because every dollar you invest in the supply chain really lowers the cost of energy for all projects. we are more heavily interested in seeing government support for creating a domestic supply chain to lower the cost of energy for everyone then picking no. -- picking winners and losers. host: for the big proponents of wind technology, if it works the way they wanted to, what percentage of electricity needs will come from it? guest: there is a road map that spells out in great detail from the national labs all over the country and funded by the department of energy called "the 20% by 2030 plan."

and if you google that in quotes, you will immediately come to a website that talk about 20% with incredible bill daud and minimal cost and action as some benefits in both cost and -- with incredible bill out and minimal cost and actually, some benefits in both cost and energy produced. it will produce about 50,000 megawatts in offshore wind in the plan. host: next is san diego, steve on the republican line. caller: there is a wind farm in the valley near los angeles and is a huge eyesore. what is to say the government will not take them over after they are billed even if they are built by private venture. -- what is to say the government

will not take them over after they are built, even if they are built by private ventures? host: let's start with the first one, abandoned projects. guest: in the 1980's there were, indeed, abandoned powers. those were the early projects and the wave they were constructed, it was not about how much when produced, but how much people invested. people could use it as a way to get out of taxes but just by investing, but they're not really maintaining it properly. i will say, for land-based wind, visual impact is an important issue and is an important issue and a festival who live near or even visit people who have seen it. one advantage of offshore wind is that we have calculated in our report, and hopefully you will put this on your web site for the viewers to dig deeper

into this if they want to. we can be 12 nautical miles offshore, which is the territorial sea limit, it is also a good proxy for the visual verizon and, relief from of the outside -- visual horizon and, really, be out of sight. they realize that there are many more benefits, and really negligible risk of intrusion for offshore wind. that is one advantage that offshore wind has. it can be put far enough offshore that it is not in the view. the cape of nantucket sound, that is a very unusual situation where you have federal waters surrounded by continent all sides. they do not have anywhere to go but the horizon. that is an unusual situation.

in the atlantic, we can go well beyond the visual horizon. the technical question? host: you can do that or move on. guest: these are actually done on land. and it is a closed system. there is no release of these algae into the waters. host: dawdled is joining us by telephone from portland, oregon. he is the senior vice president of iberdrola renewables, which is described as the second producer of power and the enormous states. he has a big portfolio. good morning. thanks for being with us. let's start with the public- private investment act of -- aspect buof this. we have been talking about how

the government is trying to stimulate wind energy technology. how does that work for you? guest: it works and it does not work. every energy form has various forms of economic support from the government. the nuclear industry would not exist without the price anderson act, which essentially provide them with government assurance. and there are severance taxes and so on with other distraction industries. we get the production tax credit right now and it is a little bit different because as part of the recovery act, we shifted, because we needed to go to wall street to monetize the tax credits. when wall street fell apart, we needed a way to capture our tax credits. we now get those in the form of a grant. we have that in place. it is essentially a tax credit that the government buys back for us, at least through the end of -- for a project start

through the end of this year. what we really need is a national renewable energy standard. i was just the recent past president of the american wind energy association and that is the wind energy association's no. 1 priority. doing is filling a gap, a gap in national policy. until we have a renewable energy standard that really sets in place a pathway to the vision e report sets out for energy, we will not seek jobs, the economic benefits, the investments coming true. -- we will not see the jobs, the economic benefits, the investment coming through. it is mostly private money that is driving this. host: i want to give our audience what the dollars and tax credits are like for that.

doing itscompany's drink best to take advantage of these? caller: we are and we have been shifting manufacturing to the united states. host: where have you been? caller: we have been investing our money where we can make a return and because of the packed because of wall street, we were starting to pull back our investment in the u.s.. but with the recovery act, we are actually increasing to the point where we are investing $2 billion to $3 billion in the

united states. host: how many people you employ? guest: to almost 1000. we have offices in portland, oregon and in houston and chicago. host: where are your major -- major project proposals? guest: we are everywhere. from new york to texas to the columbia river gorge in the northwest to the midwest. and where the wind blows. with the exception of offshore. we do invested offshore, but we do not feel like it is quite right in the u.s., at least for our investment portfolio. we will eventually focused on it, but we are currently focused on the with the regions of the u.s.. -- on the windy regions of the u.s. host: how concerned are you about the arguments of conservationists, while life

endangerment, noise pollution -- all of these things that have been expressed as concerns by communities in those areas? how has action changed to mitigate that going forward? guest: there are a lot of things. my company, in particular, works very close the with the committee on every project. -- works very closely with the community on every project. the first big thing is that we moved to closed towers. that significantly reduced the amount of bird and about bat mortality because they like to perch on those things. if we need to look at what is going on -- we need to look a what is going on. we installed a radar system in

texas that monitors migratory birds and it just on the system. when bats are active, it tends to be low-speed time frames around dusk, so we will shut down our turbines because we are not making much money anyway. real portrait -- we have worked very closely with the activists and academics on this. host: was the best place people can go on the internet to find out more about the technology and what your doing? guest: the american wind energy association which is awea.org, is it a tremendous place to go. i cannot go without getting in the importance of their national -- the importance of a national renewable energy

standard. it is a bipartisan policy. we came close to getting it so many times in the past few years. the american public supports this. over 70% of the american public supports a renewable energy standard, but we have been held up in congress for the past few years trying to get this through. it is going to be on the agenda, we believe, is of timber. we are hoping to move something forward. -- in september. we're hoping to move something forward. we're hoping for job creation not just in win construction or turbine manufacturing, but the whole supply chain that hagerman referred to. if we do not get this, you will not seek the demand for -- you will not see the investment materialized. we will give this technology away to other countries. that would be unfortunate. host: mr. foreman, thank you for

your time this morning. let's go to louisville, kentucky, mark on the republican line. caller: i agree with the gentleman you have on there, talking about the wind turbines and all of that. i have a feeling that you could probably maybe make some device where the wind turbines could go underground into tunnels, d, and there would not be known noises deep, and there were not be no noises as much. i think you could get electricity out of that. and cars could even be driven on the fuel from the wind. host: is it possible to do this

technology in tunnels? guest: the wind quarter, which is what produces the noise as well as the visual impact needs to be above ground because it has got to get out of the direct effects of the trees and buildings, so it actually has to be up fairly high. where the underground tunnels and abandoned mines can be useful are in looking at things like compressed air energy storage, so that you actually stored compressed air that is compressed by the wind turbines and that could solve some of these questions. host: we welcome your calls and comments about use of wind turbines and particularly, move to offshore in the future. the very first offshore project will be where? guest: [laughter] that is a big question. everybody wants to be first.

cape wind certainly start of the race. host: which is off cape cod? guest: that is the one indoor nantucket sound, correct. parabolan was to be first. new jersey wants to be first. -- rhode island wants to be first. new jersey wants to be first. if you're going to have them offshore, that increases the energy cost by $500,000 per megawatt. your adding that because you have to source the turbines from europe. host: can the parts come from china, as our phone guest just referenced? guest: yes, but there is concern about the logistics of the long sea transport. we are more about trying to do as much fabrication in the mid atlantic's and southeast as possible. -- the mid-atlantic and southeast as possible. host: a question on twitter

about the technology. guest: the turbines themselves, the turbines and towers are typically 25-year service life. the basic foundation and power cables are typically designed and engineered to have corrosion protection for 50 years. you could power the same project with the same set of turbines and engines with the same project. i remember my train of thought. that is, the issue of who is going to be first. we have land-based turbines manufactured in the u.s., but no offshore cost turbines. in racing to be first, we are committing ourselves to importing the turbines and paying the higher cost for offshore wind. but also, there's a danger of a boom-bust affect.

if all these projects race to be first and come up at the same time, you have a lot of mobilization of shipyards and welders and they will be chasing projects up and down the coast. in virginia, and our immediate neighbors to our north and south, we are really interested in an offshore wind program where you create jobs and have a 20-year buildup of the best and brightest. that is what will bring them to our shores. host: redmond, democrats line. caller: the public utilities commission in a rhode island just passed a bill yesterday. it is a very controversial project and the cost of the contract is about three times what it would cost us to buy electricity normally in a row island, 24.4 cents per kilowatt.

host: are you a supporter, or against it because of the cost? caller: i am against it because it is adversely affects the high energy issues in the state. but it passed, the governor supported, because it will create jobs. my question is, is there a wind project that would be viable in terms of cost effectiveness? guest: in europe, to deal with this issue -- let me come in first on the block island project. the deep water project is very costly for a number of reasons, not just because of the cost. it is an amount of scale. a lot of the work they do for an 800 what -- 800 megawatt project, you have to do for an project.rojecwatt

the other thing is that in that review your case off block island, the deep water, they have to use -- in that particular case off block island, the deep water, they have to use technology that comes from the workforce in europe. even the small projects, let's say come off a north carolina or virginia or delaware will still be more cause the because the first of its kind is always more costly. we are now where land-based was in the 1980's. those costs will come down as there is better improve technology and more efficiency in the supply chain. with the europeans have been able to do is to have feed in tariffs. for the first number of megawatts or gigawatts, there will be a subsidy given to

offset the high cost so that the rate payers are not affected. but ultimately, it comes back to being amortized accoracross the entire citizenry in europe, they still install other offshore projects in the same way they do land-based projects. you will together towers and put them on cranes. we think there are better ways to do offshore and different kinds of turbines that are more cost-effective. to answer your question, as of today, no, there is nothing to plug in to the grid that would be cost competitive, as you pointed out for the early pilot project off blogger island. but i think it is certainly achievable. viewers can download a report and see the details of how a new offshore wind project compares

to a cold cycle project, we have those numbers that you can read. host: west region and, good morning. caller: thank you to c-span and all that you do for the public. -- youretired pva köhler vehicle minor and where estrogen is the epicenter for coal. one of your callers said this is -- i am a retired coal miner where it is in western and the epicenter for coal. there is a project where the upper big branch explosion occurred at the nasty energy complex that is called the -- at the massy energy complex that is

called the nowlin project. -- mountain wind project. all of our property is owned by outside corporations. they are coming in and leveling these mountains and releasing these heavy metals into the streams that are destroying the water in the eastern united states and we cannot stop them. we have a governor here, joe manchin, who is a coal workebro. we are doomed. people talk about the cost of electricity. every time someone turns on these flights, which 40% of west coal is mountaintop

removal. this mountaintop removal is irreversible and destroying everything. in boone county and in the vote counted there is already a project host: thanks for your call. guest: a great comment and everything that the callers that is consistent with what we researched. in virginia, we do not do as much mountaintop removal. we do a lot of underground and surface well mining. one of the things -- we had some funding from the state as well as department of energy. we looked at the ability to take the surface mined coal fields that are on high ridges where your the have an infrastructure of roads and an

electric substation to support the mining equipment and miners and fences and warehouses instead of restoring it to full original condition after they take care of all of the toxic waste and issues such as that, to actually leave the roads and other electrical infrastructure there so that you can form that into a wind project. the do not have to put them in pristine areas -- pristine, forested areas. these are areas that have already been cleared. this would be a benefit to the mine operator as well as the wind farm operator. one of the utilities in virginia is looking at one of the projects that came out of our study that is being developed in wise county. is a former coal side. but i agree, mountaintop

removal, that is not in that category. not only does it have all of the tragic effects on the surrounding ecosystem, but you have now lord the height of the nine -- what you have now lowered the height of the mountain. it kind of dooms you to follow this -- mountaintop cold removal due to follow this method we have in western kenya. -- western virginia. host: the bus, and it is talking about taking the taxes and a from the 1980's. it would not be a race if it is not a good idea. they are chasing the government money, in other words. guest: the government money for offshore wind has not materialized yet. as you said, there is a tenfold increase in the offshore wind

budget between now and next year. i will agree with the -- where i will agree with the caller is, if you heavily subsidize the projects, which is what merchants like iberdrola would like to see, you remove the incentive to innovate and make the projects more cost- effective. projects, europe's were developed as an extensive project. if you get model file foundations, each model pile and transition peace that 6 above -- each monpoile transition peace that sticks above the surface is very small. those with experience in the offshore industry know there are more cost-effective ways to put

together a structures in the ocean. that is where i think government funding would help bring down the cost so you do not have these huge rate increases that they are concerned about in rhode island, for example. host: san diego, independent line. caller: i have been -- driven from madrid to barcelona several times. [unintelligible] it does not seem efficient. for every job created by these projects, it actually kills more jobs in other sectors than they

create because the money for the electricity has to be paid by somebody. i would like you to comment on that study. have you read it? guest: first, regarding the 10% to 15% of the turbines turning -- and again, these are some of the california projects, the early projects that were structured for capital investment and of production- based. it is not surprising that these products are limping along now, and do not represent the state of the art. you can read more about the actual cost of wind energy and land-based in the history and how they performed so much more costlpoorly. there is a study that came out in august that is done every year, and it is done by wiser

and bollinger, and they do a whole survey of what the actual cost is. it is tons of data and very valuable. i have not read the spanish report. i do know that things in europe do not represent how things will unfold in the u.s. we do not have the political appetite, nor the economic chianti to be able to put those kinds of subsidies in -- nor the economic reality to be able to put those kinds of subsidies in place. i think we need to put in place some backbones to reduce the cost to think environmentally and things like that. i do think we will have a net job creation. i would like to refer your readers to www.vercrc.org to

look at the city -- to look at these studies. host: hello, george, you are on. caller: i am trying to put together some kind of a understanding of these people who want these expensive, over the price, high-cost, high impact ideas as far as generators corona and that support the grid system that raises our rates -- as generators go that support the grid system the raise our rates every year. i am trying to figure out a way to produce solar myself. host: a comparison between photovoltaic and wind.

guest: we have to get away from the mentality that is either/or. in combination, you would need less of each. if you had to have your photovoltaics carry you through the winter peak, you would have to have dozens more solar panels on your roof. but if you were correct -- connected to agree that had wind energy on it, you would need fewer solar panels because during the winter is when the wind peaks. you need a mix of renewable energy. angoff ordaz regarding this notion that wind and photovoltaics are costly, that is absolutely right. the initial cost is higher. but then there is no cost of fuel. you are not subject to future cost volatility. kohl went off to -- went from $50 per ton and then almost $100 per ton and then back. if it had stayed at $100 per ton, that would have had huge