william reilly. "washington journal" is next. host: "washington journal" this morning, the lead story, a total of $87.5 million on elections this year. crossroads plan fresh pledges to spend $65 million and the chamber $35 million. the tax " could go as high as 235 billion. most of you have read the news that juan williams was fired from npr for comment that he made on fox news.

this morning, we want to get your opinion on it. the phone numbers are on your screen right now. let me show you first what was stricken -- mr. williams said on bill o'reilly's show wednesday night. >> and not a bigot. you know the books i've read about the civil rights on this country. but when i get a plane and i see people in muslim guard and i see people who identify first and foremost as muslim, i get worried. i get nervous. i think this was just last week where president obama said america's war with muslims is just beginning. it is the first drop of blood. i do not think there is any way of getting away from these it is not aat war with these people.

that "washington *" said it did not justify a more general prejudiced or discrimination against muslims as a group. here's what npr had to say. there is so much in the blogosphere, they say. it is nuts. when anyone does that it undermines their credibility as a journalist. more from npr on this. they say this --

we would like you to weigh in on these opinions about whether or not juan williams should have been fired. her morning -- good morning, ohio. caller: i do not think that he should have been fired. i do not follow fox news or anything like that, but i just think it is the way society is today. we are so quick and easy to jump to conclusions about so many things and this is just another example. i really think that people need to take a step back and assess

the whole situation and look at it for what it really is before we start drawing conclusions on things. i think it would help eliminate circumstances like this in the future host: when you say i'm going to take a step back and look at the whole future -- the whole thing, what are you referring to? caller: when you take his whole statement in context, there is no way that npr could have come to the conclusion that he was making a racist statement. the same thing happened with the african-american -- i cannot remember the name off hand. everybody blew that out of proportion because people saw some of its of things. host: you are talking about shirley shahram?

caller: yes. host: conversation continued on the already factor between mr. williams and the host. let me show you what he had to say. >> if you say to me the mcveigh, the of the? intech bomber, these people that are protesting -- >> but it's not at that level. it does not rise to that level. >> correct, and when you said a few minutes ago that there are good muslims, that is right. host: juan williams went on to say you cannot categories an entire group. reggie in baltimore, are you there? i think we lost him.

but on to edith. a lot of newshe and i read a lot of boats and magazines and newspapers. i watch c-span every morning and i think this is something that everyone in this country should vote -- a low set at this and say, why are people getting fired for their own opinion? he was just stating his opinion and how he felt and i really believe everyone in this united states has those feelings. it is just very, very scary. host: edith, what do you make of the fact that npr have these rules on the books that say anyone who works for them should not make these types of statements? and many journalists organizations have rules that

prohibit journalists, even on their face but pages or twitter to give their opinion because it makes the appearance of bias. caller: he has been working for npr 04 over 10 years. -- on npr for over 10 years. he is the only african-american man on npr. i do not know why they should go ahead and dictate his feelings. he has been like this forever. he has always been in the middle handle a little on the left. that is why he is on fox news. i think he makes great news and rights creek books. mcginn government is ashamed for st. -- i think that women should

be ashamed for saying that he should go to his psychiatrist. host: what edith is referring to is that vivian schiller said at the event of press club that he should get his feelings about muslims between himself and his psychiatrist how his publicist. she later said she spoke hastily and apologized for remarks.

back to an atlanta, georgia. c.j., go ahead.

caller: 01 to comment on the williams situation. i watched that show and i want to make it in context. bill o'reilly may be as dumb and begin a statement that we were attacked by muslims. we were not attacked by muslims. we were attacked by terrorists. williams lived in a section of the country where we were terrorized by the klan. they did it in the name of christianity. their symbol was the cross. if african-americans used bill o'reilly is some logic we would have said we were attacked by christians. we were not. it was terrorists. this has been a problem with fox news. it spreads racism and hate and bigotry by telling have newt -- half-truths' and lies. host: on fox news, the chairman

and chief of the cuba of officer said the commentator to these will not include hosting mr. riley's show on friday nights. new york, darren, democratic line, good morning. caller: i was calling about the juan williams situation. i do not know that he should have been fired for what he said, except that i do not understand why as an analyst he would equate traditionally muslims with terrorists when we all know that the 9/11 hijackers made a great effort to wear western clothing and to fit into our society so they could plan their attack and execute it.

that is where they are called sleepers cells. they do not stand out. they do not try to make themselves conspicuous. he should be fired, perhaps, for analytical incompetence, but not expressing his own opinion. host: that is a point made in a couple of opinions in the papers this morning. that traditionally, terrorists tried to fit in, not stand out. here is a piece in though, "wall street journal" this morning by a freelance writer based in new jersey.

anyone who cares about free speech in this country should protest his fire and. running on the republican line, your opinion this morning. -- rodney on the republican line, in your opinion this morning. caller: i do not think he should have been fired. he has free speech. as far as the muslims go, i do not think they're all bad. just the terrorist. host: ok, baltimore, md., line

on the democratic line, good morning. lionel on the democratic line, good morning. caller: only thing that bothers me about this williams case is, did he know the rules when he got hired? if he did, then that is his risk. as far as the muslims being bad or being good, when you have these groups running around practicing to be soldiers, that is not a part of our military. i'm 59 years old. i've seen things in my life that just do not add up. these militarye groups running around economic soldiers? host: juan williams wrote an essay yesterday about why he was

fired. a "mpr fired me for telling the truth," it says. two days later, my boss at npr called to say i crossed the line. it is an essay that appeared on

fox news yesterday and it is in the post this morning.

pittsburgh, harry on the republican line, your opinion. go ahead. caller: scolding has taken an interesting spin, i think. -- this whole thing has taken an interesting spin, i think. george soros has just taken $1 billion for reporters. i watched clips the other day. there was a senator back in the 1990's to made a remark about him and his whole family should give aids, his grandchildren and then tea party cartoons. and this whole thing that says muslims cannot ride airplanes. freedom of speech, i guess they do not believe it. if you cannot call the muslim side terrace, let's start calling them adis and liberals because they believe the same thing. juan williams, i do not agree

with him. but he is one of the few liberals that does not talk hate. he is, and does not call names. if you want to look at -- he is itself controlled and does not call names. if you want to look at msnbc, they are hateful. host: and the caller brought of george soros donation to npr. it goes on to say that -- mr. kurt says that is all in the midst of a fund-raising drive. goodluck with that.

ohio, independent line, good morning. caller: to begin with, and williams was never truly a liberal. he was just fox's of whipping boy, so he has an extra income. he has an extra $2 million, shut his mouth. it is hard for me to feel sorry for him. i am working two jobs. if i'm a metal plate, i can be fired. fox news is so overwhelmingly to face. last year, rupert murdoch gave $2 million for republicans. for npr to fire one unimportant person who has never brought anything to the table, get real. host: all right, linda. on your point, this is brian filters peace this morning.

madison, neb., steve, republican line. good morning. caller: you hear how political correctness is going to ruin this country and what have you. boy, if this into an example of that. npr, -- if this ain't an example of that. about a bunchking

of idiots. what right do they have to extend the liberal bias to the islamic religion? the women who are dressed in islamic art with a fall clothing and what have you, they are usually not that brave to be dealt strait of about their terrorism. they're usually quite a bit more cowardly than that with planting the bombs and going after civilians and what have you. host: all right, that was steve on the republican line in madison, nebraska. we want to your from democrats this morning. we are getting a lot of calls from republicans this morning. independence as well. hoenig, go ahead. -- tony, go ahead.

caller: no one has the right to say whether ever he wants. paying the consequence for free speech is a great responsibility. people like these rush limbaugh one of these, they have to be careful about what they say -- rush limbaugh wannabes they have to be careful about what they say to people. a group of lead people -- a group of black people standing in front of a building, what would mr. williams, andy? -- mr. williams, and to be? host: ok, john, republican line. caller: i watched mr. williams

every night and his comment probably just reflects a rational basis type of fear. i mean, jesse jackson made a similar comment about walking down the street. he did not get fired from anything that i recall. although he is not a journalist. the assembly in the media. if you just look -- he is simply in the media. if you just look at media projections of these terrorists dressed in traditional garb blowing themselves up and saw in people's hands off and yelling ali akbar.ar

that produces a year. host: -- that produces fear. host: here are the headlines on cbs news.com. if you read the story written by brian montipoli it says how it is broken down. it goes on to say this, though. page 17 specifically.

that is cbs news if your interested in that story. little rock, ark., stacey, go ahead. caller: i would have thought that it was wrong, but not anymore. i think fox is offering -- is outrageous. the viewthe girls of " revie were right to walk away from o'reilly. i think is outrageous. host: ok. albany, new york, good morning. caller: says actually a little bit laughable because one williams -- williams is usually a trading card.

he is the only black man and in pr -- at npr for 10 years. did you hear him complaining about that? no, and how we get fired. as a black woman, we can say the same thing after 100 years of being terrorized by the klan. he should not have said that comment. it was pretty wrong. host: we will go to patti, republican line, what you think? amazed atm pretty african-americans, if they say anything that does not agree, they get nailed. also, the npr woman accusing him of needing to go to a psychiatrist? she should be fired just for using her own logic.

it is so -- is not fair to have one conservative leaning news agency, but it is okay to have msnbc, cnn, abc, cbs. why does just one conservative cable station drive them so crazy? maybe they'd better think a little bit harder. maybe they'd better open their minds. they profess to be so tolerant. they profess to be so open minded. what a bunch of baloney. host: let's hear from a democrat. new jersey, you are on the air. caller: good morning. i think you can get a couple of different ways. first, what are his contractual obligations, such as you spoke of before. why would a news organization as a person not to have an opinion? i think you developed your own

show were the host and moderator's take a neutral position and they do that now because the organization wants to inhibit your speech, but merely because you want to encourage the marketplace of ideas by not interfering in that process. i think your program "washington journal" does that quite well. in that respect, we have seen that the organization is kind of -- i think they made a big mistake because they're letting him appear on an opinionated station, an american conservative station for quite some time now. and in an environment he is going to express his opinion one way or another. whether it be conservative or liberal or whatever it does not matter. i think it is a little hypocritical of npr on at that

point. as far as what he said and as far as his making a point of racism and bigotry, i think he's making -- i do not think it is all that clear that he is making a statement that there should be tolerance. i do not think that is flushed out very clearly. host: did you watched the whole of your did you just hear sound bites? caller: i did not. i have only seen snippets of it. in fairness, i cannot really say that i have seen the entire thing. but what i am seeing and what is being presented, it does not seem to be a very well fleshed out opinion. but again, from an organizational point of view, i'm not sure that is something that would matter. if you want to look at the morality of what he is saying, i

do not know that he made the point -- if he was trying to make the point that he has this emotional reaction to someone dressed in muslim garb and even though he had this reaction and this was his emotion, if he had expressed the point that this is how i felt. i understand that i might have this reaction based on events that have happened in this country. and you know, my indoctrination toward that, but i realize that is a prejudiced view. host: if you watch the whole interview, williams went on to say that you cannot lump all people into one group. and he said that while that fear may be real it does not justify prejudice. here is an e-mail from a viewer that says, if they are uniformly enforced, referring to npr's rules, and in the case of npr,

they have not been. you can join this conversation through e-mail at journal@0 c- span.org. your is a tweet from someone reacting to the article, the news that republicans want to cut funding for npr saying that they already started. it will try to pull public funding like acorn. the "wall street journal" editorial says --

evansville in vienna, jim on the republican line, good morning. -- evansville, indiana, jim on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, first off, this was not an opinion. it was a personal feeling. that is how he feels. the host: and what do you think of -- and what difference does that make? caller: because he was saying this is how i feel, not that he thinks everyone else should agree. he was saying how he feels when he sees someone in muslim guar garb getting on a plane. the ones who tested those flights certainly were dressed that way. i was on one of those flights.

there was one of them on the front row right behind the cockpit dressed in traditional garb. host: ok. i want to give you an update this morning. yesterday on the "washington journal" lt. dan joined us he was one who was discharged for coming out saying he was gay.

los angeles, korea on the democratic line williams was fired, and you agree or disagree? caller: i agree. if someone is going to say they are a journalist, then what goes along with that is being impartial and not making it known your opinion on a particular topic. then he went and did that. i think his employer has the right to fire him over something like that. host: all right. in oregon, howard, in the pan and line. caller: first-time caller. thank you very much for the

show, by the way. i cannot believe some of the responses we are getting from the democrats, like the last caller. this is political correctness gone amok. i think we should work to get the people fired who fired one williams -- who fired juan williams. perhaps fox news had it right all these years, you know, making all of the aspersions against npr for being a liberal oregon. host: what is -- a liberal oregoorgan. host: and howard, what is your opinion of fox news? caller: i think iit is a out there, but this gives some

credibility. i would have said that and your was very impartial, but not anymore. -- that npr was very impartial, but not anymore. host:. "new york times" had line. it shows the top 10 groups in campaign spending this election cycle. the top is the national republican congressional committee, followed by a democratic congressional committee, followed by the chamber of commerce and from there. this is from the "wall street journal" this morning.

overland park, kan., john on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. american. i am a muslim. i am african-american. i think his firing, quite frankly, was wrong. they'd put a chilling affect on free speech.

it gives the feeling that he is being targeted and had been targeted for a while. i do not agree with his views, but i do not want the fact that it prevents the idea that a african-americans, or even muslims, cannot know how and feel. he presented an idea, a feeling that is out there. even high as a traveler, i am i ase apprehensive -- even b a traveler, i am quite apprehensive. i think what mpr did was wrong. guest: ok, glenn on the democratic line. and good morning.

host: if -- caller: if people look up the whole interview, he was actually defending muslims. and the thing about him working on fox news is that he is pretty much the liberal on fox news. if he does not want to be the angry on fox news, so he cannot -- he can only go so far. if black people have the 9/11, -- had done at 9/11, and i saw some what people getting on a plane, i would be nervous. i do not think he should be fired. host: one of the house speaker

john boehner reaches out to the two-party. that is the headline this morning in the "washington post." inside the newspaper on this story, it says that -- kirkland, new york, michael on

the republican line. -- brooklyn, new york, michael on the republican line. good morning. caller: i do not agree with everything mr. williams said, but it comes down to freedom of speech. what he said was wrong. i back that 100%. and everybody is bashing fox. when it comes to the media, it is to the left, all the other channels. everybody is bashing o'reilly. i do not think it is fair. i am one of those rare conservatives from brooklyn. when it comes down to it, i work for the 1199 union. they took 11 cents from every

paycheck and that went to the democratic party. it may not sound like a lot, but when you are talking millions of people, that is a lot of money. i made them stop taking it out and i was fired two weeks later. host: in several papers this morning they're talking about danny and freddie. we sat down with phil and elissangelides. here is what he had to say. >> there is no question that fannie and freddie because of their scale, because they were deeply involved in this credit crisis that they were players. i do not want to get ahead of my commissioners, but i will give

you a couple of observations. at least from the information i have seen, while freddie and fanny were clearly disastrous at epic proportions, while their business model was extraordinarily flawed -- this notion of a private/publicly traded organization with the taxpayer bearing the downside, it was a tragically flawed model. as we look at the data, does appear, however, that in the early to mid 2000's it was wall street that really led the charge in subprime lending and it was really the wall street package products that began at the present in terms of the subprime lending that happened in this country. but there's no question that from 2005, 2006, 2007 fannie mae and freddie mac jumped in full force and because of their scale in this market, they have an impact. there's no question about it. host: you can see the entire interview with him this sunday

on news makers at 6:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. it is also available at c- span.org. hund remember, it is an a.d.p. on your iphone. -- is an app on your iphone. let's go to sarah on the democratic line. caller: i think it is ironic with williams because he is on so many talk shows and he is always talking about people plea of the race card. -- about people pulling out the race card. it is as for the ironic. he is finally getting what he has called other people. then you talk about the tea parties and republicans, though wanting to conserve and 1/2 --

of the wanting to conserve and bring back america. what are they trying to conserve? racism, keeping people pour, being like other countries where we do not have a middle-class ?a america needs to wake up. the we are in a time where we have -- we are when to go back to slavery days. the poor people in this country are going to be the slaves in this country. america wake up. get these tea parties and conservatives out of here. host: last phone call, richard, go ahead. caller: i wish i was not the last phone call because nobody comments after this. but i'm kind of curious, firing williams over his remarks, it makes you stop and think. they also fired don imus for his remarks. and recently at cnn, rich lost

his job because of his remarks about the jewish people. when i see a priest, it makes me think of a pedophile. as far as fox is concerned, i perceive them as part of a propaganda network. who should you pay today? all they're doing is -- who should you hate today? all they're doing is dividing this country. i do not see any good in all of this. and frankly, i do not know the code of conduct of npr or stuff like that. host: that was richard on the independent line. he comes from ohio. we will end it there for the question this morning, but continue on our conversation here on the "washington journal" looking at 100 state ballot initiatives that deal with taxes

and spending. we will talk about that coming up next. >> c-span's local content of -- vehicles are traveling the country. as we look at some of the most contested house races leading up to this midterm election. >> it has been a very interesting race for the sixth district congressional seat. through the primaries both parties were hotly contested. both the nominees won by just the slimmest of margins. this has ben area that has been predominantly democratic. now it looks like it may go republican. it has been good, old time, southern politics. kissing babies, shaking hands -- all the things that you can imagine.

>> i'm running for the state department. i was over your on the square one evening and arresting everybody. -- harassing everybody. it did not do no good. >> [unintelligible] >> and diane blye, she is the state senator. obviously, she knows politics. she has been around. she is a former nurse. she has been able to use her medical background to appeal to the anti-obama care. she comes across as someone who is a mom, in granma, very down- to-earth. she is a that can -- a person voters can relate to.

>> and taking on the banking industry, health care, capt. trade. people are just saying to government, stop, slowdown, do not spend so much. to get out of our lives. >> read carter just came out of nowhere. -- brent carter just came out of nowhere. he had just gotten out of the marines and had been in the navy. -- his opponent had just gotten out of the marines and had been in the navy. along came carter and he was very plain spoken. he does not seem to be a politician exactly. he just seems like your average joe just talking to everybody and trying to get the vote. >> i think the people in this

district are tired of career politicians. they want some new faces in washington and that is what i offer. i will make sure with my accounting degree that we are accountable for the money we spend in washington. i am a veteran and i have the that -- the backbone to do what we need to do in washington. >> the district itself the several counties, with cook will end at murfreesboro being the two largest cities. it has always been democrat. bart gordon was here and he'll the seat for 26 years. i think you take somebody like a brett carter, who is not a politician and has not been involved in politics who says,

you know what, i am not a democrat, but i think i will elisse try to keep the seed a democratic seat in congress. carter and black were both trying to distance themselves from politics. they're both running on the platform that when they go to washington they will try to go up there and make a difference for our area. they're both very similar in a lot of things. as a matter of fact, carter has a press conference asking for nancy's's resignation. in doing that -- nancy pelosi's resignation. in doing that, he is trying to distance himself as a democrat from the democratic party. i think dianne black wants to go up there and go through the whole reform of health care thing holagain.

you do not hear carter saying much on that. they both say they want to cut taxes and increase spending. by then they agree on a lot of things and you do not hear a lot of back-and-forth between them so far. we're not privy to a lot of polls in this area, but i would say that i am black, just by looking at name recognition has to have, i think, at least a 10 point lead over carter right now. he is definitely an underdog, but i think he knows that and relishes the role as the underdog. like i said, he came out of nowhere. there are not as many people know him as well as they know her. and the fact she was in a very nasty primary race with some other republicans, you have got to wonder, has the party come together now? it will be interesting to see. >> the c-span's local content vehicles are troubling the as we look at some of

the most hotly contested races in the house meeting of to the selection. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this season, visit our web site cv.pan.org/l host: pete sepp is the executive frye's president for the national taxpayers union. -- is the executive vice president for the national taxpayers union. this year, there are not a lot of hot-button social ballot initiatives. what does that mean for taxing and spending initiatives? guest: i think it is reflective of the overall national economic mood. there's a lot of insecurity about jobs, about things like health care. you see that reflected in many

national advisory type measures appearing on state ballots. that is one trend that is new to this election. you do not often see things like health care about initiatives saying that citizens have the right to choose and that they do not want to submit to any kind of national mandate. that is really, a new phenomenon. there are traditional belen measures, things like property tax exemptions, -- ballot measures, things like corporate tax exemptions. host: given the mood of the electorate upset about the amount of spending that goes on in washington, the debt facing our country, the debt facing many states, do think that will drive people to the balance -- to the polls? guest: i think it will. there are many things attracting people to vent their frustration at the ballot box because time and again, candidates of both

parties have disappointed them. ballot measures do not grow in office, or change their minds once they are elected. they are a fixed point that people can focus on and debate. of course, there are interpretations of what measures would do when other laws are subsequently enacted. they affect the kind of language in ballot measures uc. but by and large, people can -- measures that you see. but by and large, people can have a structured debate in a way that you cno t ofour candids duking it out on stage. host: could there be no return of a ballot initiative? -- and overturn of a ballot initiative? guest: in 1990, the supreme court overturned a ballot measure requiring voter approval for higher taxes. it was approved by the voters.

it was vetted.com all the language. but the court stepped in and said -- it was vetted, all the language. they said that the citizens could not use all of the lawmaking powers they have in the future. what we need to remember is that the initiative power is something that is used for all kinds of political reasons and, while i believe it is a great thing for limiting taxes, others may think it is great for raising taxes, animal rights, what have you. the we have to defend the process, regardless of what issue is at stake, because it is under attack. state lawmakers often complain

about 50 -- about the fatigue. if they lose once in the election, two or three months later they will put it back on the ballot and keep going and going, hoping to where voters down host: we are talking about state ballot measures that have to do with taxes and spending. pete sepp and the national taxpayers union have identified 400 county, city, and local initiatives as well dealing with taxes and spending. guest: yes, the internet has increased our power to identify these things, but still, there is information about local ballots in many areas of the country that we are hoping to continue looking for these measures and improving the content of future ballot guides for that reason. we see primarily debt issues and property tax increases coming up in places like michigan and california.

but also, things like hotel tax increases. and in illinois, you have a lot of local measures that would instruct the state to address the pension problems of illinois, which are very serious. there are firefighters, police, and other employee pension systems that are grown -- going broke. many are concerned that they will not be able to sustain the tax base. host: we're looking at some of the biggies on the ballot measures that are out there, but if you have a question or if you know of a state or local issue and you are dealing with that, start dialing in. republicans, democrats, independents, the phone numbers will be on the screen. let's begin in massachusetts. washington state, 1098 imposes a first-ever 5% tax on those making over $200,000 and a first

ever 9% tax on those earning over $500,000. it reduces the sales tax to 3% from 6.25%. what is the impact of this? guest: these are important measures because they represent polar opposites. in washington state we're talking about the imposition of an income tax. it is not just a tax on upper- income folks. it would be the first-ever income tax in the state at all. there is not one currently. washington state is one of nine paetec currently does not have such a thing. the concern -- is one of nine states that currently does not have such a thing. the concern is that it might become much more broad based. the polls are showing that the measure is becoming a little less popular, and that it may very well be rejected. in our opinion, that would be an important signal that lawmakers searching for more revenues to balance their state budgets are

not going to find it with massive measures like these. . .

put lawmaking back into the hands of the people. give us that and we could talk about property tax reform. this was over 30 years ago. we talk about jarvis and california opposing prop. 13 in the late '70s as the beginning for the ballot measures.

it was far before that. host: ok, the key is joining us on the democratic line. good morning. -- of the key is joining us on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i think, who they need to do away with the federal statin -- a federal and state tax. we just cannot do any more. host: are you aware of the ballot initiative in your state? caller: yes. host: according to the national taxpayers union, amendment two on the statewide ballot would impose a $10 registration fee on motor vehicles to raise about $80 million per year for state trauma care centers. do you agree or disagree? caller: i disagree. host: why you disagree? caller: because they just keep adding more and more fees. people on fixed income, social

security, they just cannot keep paying the extra fees. they just keep looking to more and more people to find everything and they cannot afford it. host: on the statewide ballot that would allow for inventory -- referendum a on the statewide ballot would allow for inventory of businesses to be exempt from state property-tax is. caller: our property taxes have already doubled. they get away with our homestead exemption. and our property taxes and school taxes are now so high that people do not know how they will pay them. guest: it is interesting to think about the multiplicity of these ballot measures. i think the caller brings up a fascinating point. we are talking about so many taxing districts now having the authority to oppose property taxes, fees, -- impose property taxes, fees, no wonder voters say to themselves they are being

nickel-and-dimed to death. and in some cases they are being nickel-and-dimed to the point of poverty. the very people who often create them, the elected officials, say, well, there are too many of these things for the voters to understand, so we should not even refer these tax increases to the valid anymore. it is almost a self perpetuating situation. host: cannon beach, republican, good morning. caller: my dad and devoted his whole life to balancing the budget. my mom could balance the budget better than them. they saw these comments. they are the only ones probably sitting pretty right now. i agree with the last caller. if you want to nickel and dime

us to death, why don't you do that to fed -- fannie and freddie and the banks and these people that got the bailouts? . .

the fact that this are statewide referendums being held on national policies. florida has not only put this issue on the ballot for citizens to tell congress to get going on a constitutional amendment. they have also used the article 5 power under the constitution to call for a state convention to propose such an amendment for ratification. so, florida is very active in this regard. this is one of several issues that are getting put on to statewide ballots. you have arizona, colorado and oklahoma voting on so-called obama care the national healthcare law. arizona, south carolina and utah are having referendums on car check legislation two make union organizing. host: is it just florida that is asking for a balanced federal budget? guest: on its balanced this year, yes. host: what impact would one state have.

guest: it can send a mental not only to washington, d.c. in general but that state's congressional delegation that the people of the state support direct action on behalf of balancing the federal budget. so it is two messages. it is not only sending the overall washington establishment a message but giving marching orders to senators an representatives of florida to back the amendment. host: but to have congress act on this what would it take? guest: this is obviously a nonbinding measure. a state can't compel the federal government to do it through there method. it could propose such an amendment through the article 5 convention process. that is something my organization was active in the 1970's and 1980's. we had 32 of the required 34 states to assemble a convention. then the amendment would be sent directly for ratification by three-fourths of states. that is gaining popularity again

florida pass that as i said. virginia is considering it. georgia is considering it. this is happening in the state legislatures right now. it may well make it to ballots in the 2012 cycle. host: dealt line in houston. texas. caller: i want to make a comment. we had a fire a couple of months ago and all of our voting boots were burned up and november 2 we will have a foot-foot-long ballot and there is like 10,000 names on it. the republicans are suggesting that everybody just vote straight republican. have you ever heard of anything like this? guest: well, i remember one of my first jobs during the summers in college was working with a local election authority an --

and we would include half a dozen or a dozen mini-ballots on tax elections and ballot measure like sewer, police, fire, what have you and they can get pretty long. i can't say i have ever heard of a situation where a printed ballot has to be used in this way and it is such a large single sheet of paper. pretty incredible. host: a tweet here. guest: the one in congress and the one that is generally popular circulating in the states has an exception for war or military emergency declared by joint resolution and there is usually an override clause, a so-called super majority whereby three-fifths, two-thirds, of medicals of congress could veto

to -- could vote to approve a specific deficit. host: next call is from california. what are the ballot initiatives in california? guest: a whole best of your knowledge of ballot initiatives in california. we can't even get into the local ones, they are everything from property tax increases to fire district fees, to hotel taxes. one would retire two-thirds approval by the legislature for certain fees. that was two-thirds requirement on taxes. they want to redefine fees as taxes which many think as quite right. there is another measure that would do the opposite which is remove the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for approving budgets. there is another that would suspend implementation of a statewide cap and trade regime. that is sort of a carbon regulation scheme that many

believe would raise prices of energy. it is more than twice that much right now. host: there is a proposal to repeal $1.7 billion in business tax relief. guest: yes, that business tax relief was predetermined before the economic recession hit, and there are many who say, well, we need to do something to shore up california's budget, why not delay the imposition of this tax relief. there are others who would argue that is going to send the worst possible message to an already depressed business community in california. host: let's go to santa cruz, jeffrey, independent line. are you familiar with these initiatives? caller: no, unfortunately but i'm an instructor and i gave my students an assignment to write

down 25 issues facing the american government and people in the next election and every one of them the first 10 somewhere in the middle is a complete overhaul of the income tax system to make it more fair for the masses and we got into a discussion how do we do that? because people have been talking about it for years and i asked how do the american people get the government to make the taxes more fair for the majority? guest: it seems clear that using the initiative and referendum process can provide guidance to members of congress. i personally think that it will take a much bigger event, something like the entire tax system collapsing under the weight of its own complexity. that sounds like gloom and doom scenario but quite honestly we think that is coming. it already imposes an annual

paperwork burden of 7.5 billion hours and others are having a hard time understanding how it works. i think within the next decade the laws will be so complex they will begin to exert a drag on the revenues coming in. people won't know how to comply and lawmakers will be compelled to reform if only to keep revenues flowing. host: you have defended the ballot initiative process saying it is important. but are you concerned about the outside money that comes in to states to either lobby against or for different ballot initiatives in in california on the cap and trade that has been millions poured in from texas oil companies to oppose proposition 23. is that fair ? guest: there can be outside influence and money in the initiative process. i would contend, however, that its influence is much less

pernicious than anything you would find in the congressional races or presently race because again what we are debating here is an issue, not personalties or people or promises. we can have a structured conversation about the contents of any initiative and can talk directly to the people about them. that is why i would much rather have the issue of the income tax on the washington state ballot and go head to head with opponents -- with row opponents -- -- with proponents to say we don't think it is a good. tell us why it is a good idea and have the people decide. host: governor schwarzenegger was critical of those that oppose it. he says does anyone believe the companies out of the goodness of their hearts are spending millions to protect jobs? he said this is like not about jobs. it is about their ability to

protect their profits. guest: the last refuge of a scoundrel to bring up things like nazi germany but he otherwise his political career to the direct democracy process. that put him in office. so, sometimes stkpwr another tweet it says they do not tell you the state ballot measures ahead of time. is that true? guest: you can find out some information but often it is very difficult to get the facts you need to decide ahead of time just how you will vote on them, consider the pros and cons. it is one reason we publish a guide like this. i think, too, that in many of

these races they are often referendums rather than citizen initiated measures. so there is not as much news coverage of them. host: if you want to look at the ballot guide that is put out by the national taxpayer union go to their website ntu.org. middleburg, pennsylvania. david, democratic line. caller: good morning. this is a whole thing that boils down to me. the federal government is cutting money so the state has to pick it up from somewhere because everybody is screaming about taxes. it comes back to the fact i turn on the tv and find out that bechtel, a company that made $587 billion last year, is considered a small business. we are back to rich man needs to pay his share. he spends all his money on politics and millions and millions of tkhradollars, why d you take them and put it to our

debt? no, the rich man needs to protect his property. he is rich. you know what i mean? just like the banks. we bailed the bank outer because of the rich guy. not the poor guy. the poor guy didn't stand this and say hey, we need our money. host: any comment? guest: the tarp bailout was certainly a lousy move. we disagreed with it. ironically though, the chief sponsor of the income tax measure in washington state is bill gates sr., one of the richest americans in the country. so, you have some curious lines of politics going on there. folks who disagree with limiting taxes, who want certain individuals to pay more have this process open to them to qualify measures for the ballot and mitt them to the people -- submit them to the people. we encourage them to do so rather than move all of this stuff through the legislature where all kinds of special

interest influences can exert themselves. >> we are happy to have that debate. host: it washington state voters will decide whether to impose a first ever 5% tax on those making over $200,000 and first ever 9% tax for those over $900,000. do you view this as a bellwether tax of the debate over bush tax cuts? >> i think this is one test. another is we are discussing earlier in massachusetts where there could be a rollback of the sales tax that was recently increased. it would take it even further in the direction of a lower tax. so, i think that those two are important. there are many others on ballots in california as well as washington state. they are in the same state with the income tax referendum you have a measure to reaffirm the state's requirement for a super majority in the legislature, a popular vote to raise taxes. that measure has been passed

before but the legislature keeps tinkering with it and overriding it. that is another major problem, a calendar with the initiative -- challenge with the process is getting elected officials to respect the equality of citizen law making. when they speak at the ballot box it should have the same validity as the ballots that elected them to office and they don't seem to get that. host: a democrat running in washington state, has she said her opinion on this ballot initiative? guest: i'm not certain. i know that in many races around the country elected officials do tend to weigh in on the ballot measures. host: los angeles, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and thank you for this intelligent, in-depth understanding with this gentleman here. finally, hurrah. we need to you stay right where you are. the reference of the constitutionality and vetting process, what is the purpose, if

we go through that, is there any way -- we can't remove the ability to challenge but can we guarantee, once that ballot is out that the constitutionality is right and we don't have to worry about a judge or somebody like a governor overturning, let's say, the issue with brown and the death penalty, not that i'm for or against it but the point is once the measure goes through we don't have to worry about the constitutionality of it? guest: well, some states have laws that require sort of a preflight certification of a ballot measure. in other words, if the attorney general approves the language, agrees with the constitutionality of the measure, the courts are automatically blocked from weighing in after the citizens vote on it. unfortunately, that is not the law in all states and in many cases these court challenges just persist year after year. i think the internet has helped citizen activists to exchange

information among themselves around the country and get legal insight, retain constitutional lawyers who can help them draft language that is not bulletproof but certainly better protected from those kinds of challenges. we work on that year after year actually and try to help local taxpayer groups as well as state level ones avoid those pitfalls. but still, still, we experience problems with the legal challenges. very difficult. host: we will go to missouri. lonnie on the republican line in sullivan, missouri. on the ballot in missouri is a statewide initiative that would prohibit the taxing of real estate sales or transfers. are you familiar with this one? caller: no, not really. i have been out of the loop at home because i'm cody, wyoming. i do have a question.

i hear everybody talking about let's tax the rich. i work for a pretty big company. if everybody wants to tax the rich, doesn't that mean the company i work for will get taxed and i won't get a raise. and if you tax all the rich, no farmers are rich, others are rich. guest: there is a lot of truth to this when you take a look at the statistics just in the i.r.s. the individual income tax on the federal level the top 1% of earners account for about 20% of the adjusted gross income. they pay 38% of the income taxes so they are pulling twice the load in taxes relative to what

they earn. it is exactly the opposite, flipped when you go down the income scale. the point is that if we are to have a debate over who should be taxed and how much, the citizen initiative process can help that. it certainly is not going to make a binding decision on federal level tax policy, but as we are seeing with these ballots, there are ways citizens can speak out on national issues and have some influence on the direction that is being taken in washington. host: one last phone call. washington, democrat line. caller: we are in a strange situation in columbia county here. in 2004 the voters, in part of columbia county, voted to approve a property tax increase of 38 cents per thousand to build a critical access hospital

in st. helen's. it only tax as small portion of the county property owners. the state of oregon has denied -- it is called a certificate of need that, and what that means that we don't qualify according to state and federal guidelines to have a hospital because we are within 35 miles of the portland metro area. when the original initiative was written the initiative said the money can only be used for the operation of a critical access hospital. when the state of oregon denied the certificate of need for the second time, we got an initiative on the ballot, collected signatures, got the initiative to refund and repeal that property tax because we are never going to get a critical access hospital. now the hospital board has

health us know they are going to appeal the election if we win. they have got hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight us in court with their lawyers. we are just a group of taxpayers from every persuasion. what do we do? guest: you can consult our website certainly. we have information available for citizen activists who are undergoing this exact kind of thing. we can also try to direct you to some resources for a bit of legal advice that is very difficult and very expensive as you well know. but we are trying to help folks like you around the country utilize this process, not only defend it, not only grow it, but help it to thrive and we will do whatever we can. host: pete sepp, thank you. coming up next we will turn our attention to the mid term

elections and those voters, the young. this is the headline in the wash tiles. stick with us, obama urges 2008 backers. first a campaign 2010 update. joining us from the hotline studios in washington is the executive editor of the hotline. let's begin with the pennsylvania senate race. the two candidates there already debated earlier this week. what came out of it? how did the voters react? guest: you saw both of the people paint each other out of the mainstream and that is a lot of narrative and attack that has g gotten sestak with traction. he was attacki ining taoply for business ties and working for the club for growth in washington. toomey tried to argue that

sestak's votes on stimulus and healthcare and the democratic congress is what is making the congressman out of the mainstream. it is a battle for both sides. you look at the new polls from pennsylvania, you see that the democratic base has come home. they have overwhelmingly decided to support sestak. toomey has an overwhelming support from the republican base and this will be decided by independent voters who are debating who is more mainstream and reflective of my values. you look at the quinnipiac numbers, they favor toomey by over 20 points. so the argument of who is more mainstream will be played out in the elections and 20-plus-point lead for toomey is good for him. we will see the messages attacking each candidate as extreme in the coming final weeks. >> the two also are going to

have a debate tonight. we are covering it live on c-span. what do you expect to be the issues tonight? >> i think you will hear a lot about trade and china from sestak. the one narrative we are hearing from democrats across the country especially in blue color states and districts is that the trade message is the only thing they have left. the notion that republicans are businessmen and favor business and will be responsible for the mess we are in. you saw sestak talk about toomey favoring outsourcing jobs to china and he will probably hammer that home tonight. but the mental for the republicans -- the message for the republicans is simple. they will try sestak and to his votes and stimulus is not popular in pennsylvania. healthcare is not popular and the financial reform bill is not a plus. so it will be an issues oriented messageor toomey and attack from

sestak on business, china. host: that is live tonight 7:00 p.m. we are covering this debate between the pennsylvania senate candidat candidates. let's move on to nevada now. president obama will be in that state tonight for a rally with the senate majority leader harry reid. why is he going there again? >> nevada is one of the states where democrats feel if they can get the base energized and labor, public sector, hispanics which comprise a pretty decent size of the electorate there, if they can get them excited about harry reid he has a shot at winning. if not, they are in deep trouble. this is a race where democrats absolutely need to get the base rallied. on the other side, this is a very polarize iing election and sharon angle's election is a national one. they have the highest unemployment rate in the

country, she is out with a really devastating hit connecting reid to obama. so, ironically the mental that the democrats want is the same message that sharon angle and the republics. it will be a very close election. but the base of both sides will be the key. host: the latest poll on october 18 shows that sharon angle is leading harry reid by three points. >> yes, if you look at the most recent polls there's a slight momentum to the republican though i would caution that this is still a very close race. both candidates are very unpopular and this is probably going to be one of the closest races we see election night. the big turning point looks like it could be the debate last week, the one debate they held in this contest where harry reid, for a senate majority leader looked awfully unprepared and ill at ease. that was his one big advantage is he knows how to bring the

money home to nevada. he has a lot of clout in washington. he didn't look like it in the debate and angle who people say is not ready for prime time and not ready to be a politician in washington, she seemed like she passed the bar. she had a low bar to pass but sealed to do it -- seemed to do it. so the trend is favoring the republicans but it is close. host: they say it will come down to a ground game in nevada. how do you watch it? >> see how much money the unions are spending in the final weeks of the election. so far colorado has been the one state where a lot of third parties have spent millions of dollars. expect a ton of money the final week into nevada. the ground game is essential for reid to win. we are seeing a lot of boasting from labor it is not so much the ads but the turnout. getting their core members to the polls. look at early voting and how many democrats have gone early.

if if behind past elections, that is not a good sign for reid. host: josh, thanks for your time. for more information about campaign 2010 coverage and the nevada rally tonight with president obama go to c-span.org/politics. joining me at the table now is the polling director at the harvard institute of politics out with a new poll on the mi e milleniel vote. less than 27% say they will definitely vote in november. guest: that is not good news for candidates who are concerned about them being a part of their base, i.e. democrats. it was only two years ago that that generation i think changed the face of american politics. by starting strong in iowa and supporting barack obama 55% in the caucus to 11% for hillary clinton and 14% for john edwards. they set the course of that campaign and played a

significant voice in that campaign and were somewhat responsible for electing obama president. two years later they seem to be check out in many cases as we look at the congressional races. host: when you poll the same voters in february of 2010, 31% said they would definitely turn out. in november of 2009, 36% said they would turn out. it has gone down. why? guest: very few elections we poll you see as the election gets closer people seem to become less interested. that doesn't happen very a. one thing is potentially sky high expectations young people had when they voted for the change a couple of years ago. they have not been met in their eyes. number one. number two, i think the negative tone out of the city is something that has turned some people off. the third thing, frankly, i'm concerned that young people may not see the efficacy of voting

any more. when we started the survey 10 years ago more young people were involved in community service and helping the community and volunteering. that was how they felt like they could have an impact on society. that changed after-september 11 and katrina in a tight presidential campaign. i'm concerned now people don't see the efficacy of making the effort to vote. host: is there a factor of coolness, that is that in 2008 many young people sort of got on the bandwagon, saw the other people their age were interested, going to vote and were part of this effort. guest: if ump a young -- if ump a young person you were contacted weekly because it was part of popular culture through texting, facebook, through signs and stickers everybody had an opinion and most of them were

supporting obama. he won 66% this generation. certainly not as -- i don't know if it is not clear enough but not something that is being discussed on a regular basis on and off college campuses. host: let's dig down into the polling. clem students between 18 and 24 years are more likely to vote than those 18 to 24 not pursuing a four-year college education. why? guest: that is always the case. education is a predictor of who will be active in politics. there are many more on a campus to vote than off campus. many states have different kinds of laws so there are a lot of barriers. but over the last several years

there have been a lot of organizations that tried to take down some of the barriers by making the process more transparent. host: of the youth vote, whether they are a democrat or republican, which party of the young voters are more enthusiastic? guest: that is great question. leading up to the election in less than a couple of weeks the republicans are slightly more enthusiastic. in our february survey of 3,000 mill lennials, we saw there was a statistical significant enthusiasm gap for republicans. people voted for mccain were more likely to vote. that has narrowed. it is within the margin of error. but there is a slight advantage to republican leaning voters. host: we are talking about the millennial vote. if you are between 18 and 2 we have a special lane for you. then we're asking everybody else

to call in at 202-737-0002. we will get the calls in a minute. how does it break down along race and gender? guest: a couple of points. among all of the constituencies who voted for president two years ago the one constituency that seems to still have strong support for president obama of democrats are young african-americans and blacks. 82% of that subgroup believes that the president gives -- gets a positive rating. if you look at men versus women we see a gender gap in reverse. typically women are more likely to vote and men are more likely to vote than young women. host: still waiting for phone culls. you ask -- calls. you can join us on or twitter page.

you also send us an e-mail. first phone call is tara independent line in new orleans. tara? how old are you? caller: i'm 42. host: go ahead. caller: hi. host: tara, you are on the air. caller: basically my problem is that the republicans and the democrats have not served the people justly at all. if both parties would come together and get us out of this mess we would be better off. by me seeing what happened with katrina down here and what has transpired with federal funds, they are really not paying attention to exactly what is going on. i think federal funds are being mishandled and mispropose --

misappropriated. i was someone that worked with sba right after the disaster and i was not only a victim but i was working the storm and to see all of the misspending and overspending and what is going on now, it is not like it just started. this started over 20 years before president obama has gotten into office. most people seem to forget that it started when they started nafta. when you started exporting jobs out of the country how do you expect for us to pay for anything if we don't have jobs? can somebody explain that to us? host: do you want to weigh in on that 1234 guest: the point i would like to make on this is if you have a concern with government now is the time to vote. there is a difference between polling and holding folks accountable. president obama from the earliest days in office and in the campaign said hold me and

others accountable for actions. my concern is that by seeing a decrease in levels of participating activity, young people and older people are not holding washington accountable. host: one opinion piece on the dallas news website talks about young voters are getting serious about the election. they are just not serious about him. guest: i disagree with that opinion piece. not only our data from harvard shows as the months get closer to the election young people are not as serious. less than one in five of them consider themselves to be politically engaged at the moment. two or three tiles indicate -- tiles indicated that two years ago. the number of people that definitely will vote has been decreasing. it is not only our data but recent surveys from pugh.

host: aaron is joining us on our line in woodruff, wisconsin. caller: i guess i'm planning on voting this year. last election cycle i was very, very engaged. i canvassed for feingold. i canvassed for steve kagan. i voted for obama. but i find i'm very apathetic now because red state, blue state, tea party, liberal. i feel like people are just arguing about the paint color on a house that is rotted. like until the government finally takes away corporate, legal personhood, none of us -- the government -- it is very primed and responsive to constituents. we are not its constituents. the corporations are. and unless somebody is willing to be the people's brutus and

kill it caesar it doesn't matter who you vote for. host: feingold is up for re-election. are you going to vote for him? caller: yes, because the other guy is not an option. you should see the political ads up here. it is idiotic. i will be voting for all the people i voted for last round because i'm sorry, like the republicans got us here. gave tax cuts to the top 1%, trickle down economics have been proven not to work and all of these guys are coming in like yeah, it is the democrats' fault. no, it takes 10 years to crash a ship as bad as we have crashed it. host: on the last point about the bush tax cuts because you polled on that issue. 44% of those you polled believe the tax cuts for those who make more than $250,000 should

expire. 38% say they should be extended forever. does that break along democrat and republican lines? guest: that certainly does break among party lines and a majority of young democrats, those who are active to vote certainly prefer the tax cuts for those americans only who make under $250,000. that is interesting because what we found the last couple of years since the 2008 campaign, a lot of the significant issues of the day, there are not as many dramatic differences between the way young people think and older americans. that is one issue where there are slight differences. the majority of americans generally believe the tax cuts should stay in effect for all americans. it is close. about five or six points gap. in ours it is in the other direction in terms of only for those who earn less than $250,000 host: was it interesting to you that the bush tax cut is an issue that is well known with

the young voters, not the war necessarily or healthcare, but we had a caller earlier talking about the bush tax cuts, too. guest: it is all about the economy and increasingly as we get every poll the idea of the federal deficit is something that is creeping in to the consciousness. it is not just this survey i recently conducted a series of a few dozen focus groups and when you ask people how the economy is affecting them, a couple of times young people broke down and cried because they are having to leave college to find a job or seeing their parents lose their house. so, it is really just about the economy for a significant majority of people. even in our polling when we ask about top issue, afghan war is low single digits. host: how does that compare to past years? guest: the economy has been a major issue in growing.

it went from in the high 40's to over 50% but it hasn't always been the case but it has since the 2008 crash. host: stan in washington. how old are you? caller: i'm 28. host: go ahead. caller: i would take issue with the last caller with regard to how the republicans put -- i wasn't quite following her logic but she had alluded to the republicans over the last 10 years have ran this ship into the rocky mess. i would suggest it could take over the last 80 years with the debt in the country and it will take a substantial amount of time to get us to reverse that. but it shows the logic of a lot of voters on the last election cycle especially the presidential cycle. voting on their motivated bia s

biases. but i had a quick question regarding your findings with the 27% in this going to show up at the polls. did you do a follow-up survey regarding how many of those individuals are of the millenniel situation an spread between democrats, republicans and independents? host: did you say whether you are going to vote? caller: yes, i'm going to vote. guest: we haven't done a follow-up survey yet. this was conducted between september 24 and october 4 of 2010. i will put them in context. in 2008, 52% of all 18 to 29 participated. in 2006, 22%. so when you look where our numbers are in terms of 27% say they will definitely vote i think it is fair to discount that as the election draws near and we are hook being at a similar 21%, 22%, 23% turnout

which would be a net decrease of 14 million young people voting in the upcoming election. certainly democrats and republicans are more likely than independents to turn out. i think independents 15% said they would vote. host: we have the polling director at harvard institute of politics to talk about the millenniel vote. they are out with a new poll on the issue. new hampshire, mark, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. a quick comment and question for john if i may. guest: sure. caller: the problem i believe we have is in the media where we are a sound bite nation and refer to the tax cut as bush tax cuts when we though congress passes the laws, not presidents. so to refer to them as bush tax

cuts is wrong because the congress passed the law. not bush. he recommended it and congress passed it. my question is, john, don't you feel that the 18 to 29 group has been somewhat indoctrinated through the years and that which will make them think or believe what they believe because most colleges have a left liberal view? thank you, c-span. guest: that is an interesting question that in fact i looked this morning at the ideology of young people 18 to 29 and among them 37% indicate they are liberal. 34% indicate they are conservative. so it is pretty much split 50-50. 27% moderate. when it comes to 18 to 24-year-olds almost 50% or 48% specifically say they are a liberal so you clearly have a liberal bias mock the students -- among the students of college

campuses across america. on the other point i don't think young people have been indoctrinated. it was young people after september 11 and the early years of the iraq war were more support active of -- supportive of president bush and older groups. so the idea young people were born with a democratic leaning d.n.a. or progressive d.n.a. is not necessarily the case. a couple of years before the presidential election of 2004 we we were in hypothetical races between george bush and a generic democratic candidate bush was leading. so, they were open to voting for republicans but certainly didn't turn out that way based on where the impact of the war was felt. host: we will go to mickey at connecticut. tea party supporter. caller: thank you for taking my call. first i want to encourage the kids to do as much research as they can before they vote.

i don't know if you will let me mention this but i believe that george soros is the one that is causing the deevaluation of the dollar. he is also working with groups like moveon.org and obama supported by giving him $29 million. host: what does this have to do with the topic? caller: you are talking about voting and i'm saying that i think the vote could be influenced by certain groups that are telling the kids the wrong information. they need to research their stuff. guest: i think that you give kids not enough credit. young people do research. not as many are engaged this year as years previous but they had been serious, those who vote, to research and spent a lot of time online and really the once who again not trusting traditional news and searching for additional analysis and facts and other things. so, i think the decision-making

process of a young person is not necessarily any better or worse than decision-making process of an older voter. but we do mention the tea party and mentioned a question in terms of do you find yourself a supporter or not of the tea party. and somewhat surprisingly i think it was 54% of young people were not sure whether they did or did not support the tea party. of those who did have an opinion, 11% supported it and 34% opposed it. but to me that is another indication of young people just not being checked in to this election. how can you not have an opinion about the tea party, the most significant issue in mesh politics or -- american politics or new issue in the last year? host: rockville, maryland, tracy, 29 years old, democrat. go ahead. caller: i have two comments. the first one is with the last caller, as far as the age difference younger adults versus

older adults on decision making around it is concerning because as a young person you are a little more flexible to hear people out and research and google it or what have you whereas an older person is kind of set in their ways and done this for years and this is what i'm going with. that is my comment. the question i have is with the last presidential election it was said that a lot of people were -- it was polled that we are not going to vote for a black president, no, i'm not voting at all, then it turned out all those who said her not going to vote for president barack obama they end up voting for him and getting him elected. so how does this poll and range, how is it so accurate? i think the margin of error should be a lot wider because people can say one thing and do another. because as a young person i'm on

tweeter and facebook and myspace and texting and i'm getting texts and calls and early voting starts in maryland today from 10:00 to 8:00. go to the places in our area. i am aware of this. i'm engaged, i'm excited. host: are you going to early vote? caller: absolutely, today when i get off work and pick up my daughter i'm going. i have until 8:00. caller: did you vote for president obama in 2008? host: i sure did and i will again as well as o'malley. caller: so you are voting -- so you are voting for democrats? stkphrao yes. guest: these polls, whoever poll is only a snapshot time. october 4 when the poll was concluded the key was 27% indicated they were definitely going to vote. but we also, working with students at the institute of politics at harvard have looked at this generation's voting patterns and attitudes over a decade at this point and by

looking at the decade by three polls in the last year we can see a number of trends pointing in less engagement and interest in this campaign. certainly there are 10 or 11 days left. it is not too late to engage some folks. but that is what it will take. it will take folks like tracy going to her personal networks and friends and organizing things on the ground level and grassroots whether democratic or republican to make a significant difference with young people. host: for president obama and his efforts to get out young voters to vote for him and vote for the democratic party like they voted for him, he plans to go on jon stuart's show close to the election and talk to young voters there, young democrats. does that have an impact? guest: we will see on november 2. but by concern is that he perhaps -- or other members of

his administration were not on jon stuart a year ago or six months ago. clearly there's been a lot of effort from the dealt party over the last couple of weeks in terms of organizing on khrupblg r college -- college campuses. i think that it is difficult to ignite that spark, these kinds of relationship take time and trust has to be built. what i'm afraid is what we are seeing is you lost the attention of young people the last year and i'm not completely convinced that a couple of appearances on tv will engage people, those folks who haven't been engaged the year previous. host: we have a democrat from union city, california, 19 years old. caller: i want to vote for those who support education like jerry brown. i like the healthcare reform because there are those of us

who are under 26 and continue to be on our parents' plan and government loans. yes, i love jon stewart and thank you for c-span. host: are you calling us through skype? caller: no. host: computer? go ahead. guest: i saw this morning the "l.a. times" had a piece about jerry brown trying to engage young people in that campaign and again he is trying to build a new relationship with young people. i wish most campaigns would study the data that we have that other organizations have regarding the history of the youth vote.

caller: i think we are being asked to vote on the issues in which we are most familiar, opinions seem sort of undervalued. it seems like a lot of callers on the show have been saying we are under informed, where i think young people are some of the most informed voters in the country. that often leads to us not being really excited about voting for candidates, or that we do not think we are valued with the votes that they can get. thank you so much. guest: thanks for the call. i agree, young people are informed. young people care significantly about the country.

also young people do want to get involved not just with voting but i think in working with government in general. there is data we will be releasing over the next couple of months at the institute of politics. young people do care. they may not vote and as high numbers as we would like them to be in this cycle, but they are still open to working in government to make some of this change from the inside. sometimes it is funny that difficultple do the more things rather than the more easy things like voting. the current election cycle is something that has made them slightly more lethargic and turned off. host: calling as an independent, 19-year-old st. bonaventure, new york. nick, go ahead.

caller: i have been watching c- span3 entire semester. -- c-span through the entire semester. for hours and hours and hours of it, every single candidate, regardless of location, party, gender, color, has pretty much, saying the exact same thing with only minor differences based on these things. i am just incredibly despondent about this election, and i cannot see any moving forward, anything actually changing. it is all this kind of bland. at this point i'm just waiting for someone to shake things up. host: neck, are you going to vote or you just do not know yet? caller: it would be really difficult for me to vote being

as far away as i am. there's just no one i want, honestly. guest: i think nick speaks for millions of young americans. it is reminiscent of our first survey in 2004 people did not see the connection between the issues that they cared about and voting and participating. it was not until the tragedy of 9/11 and katrina that young people could see that their vote made a specific difference in peace verses war -- peace versos war, federal dollars moving where they thought it should be moved. politics became much more tangible for them during those years, and i think we have lost some of that, unfortunately, over the last two years. host: this might be a little bit early, but you guys did the poll and looked to 2012, when voters are thinking about presidential matchups. obama bursas a generic

republican candidate -- obama vs. a generic republican candidate. guest: that would be a pretty significant concern to the white house and democrats. a generation that voted for the president 66% to 32%, who was responsible for putting him in the white house, turning north carolina, indiana, virginia from red to blue, to think that only 31%, less than half as many people, would definitely support him against a generic republican, would be of concern. however, when we actually put up the names of some of the more well-known republicans -- and who knows whether they will run -- newt gingrich, what is obama vs gain which, i believe that obama wins by -- verses gingrich, i believe that obama wins 30%.

obama vs. sarah palin -- host: obama verses palin, obama at 40%, palin at 23%. look at those that are unsure. guest: his base vote would be in the mid 40's at this point, and that is also consistent with job approval ratings and the high 40's. but he certainly has a long time to reestablish that relationship with young democrats and make it clear the differences between the democratic party in the republican party from his point of view. host: let's go to paul, a democrat, from wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. the previous caller, nick, i'm kind along the lines of that as well. i have a difficult time voting.

i think it's either the republican agenda or the democrat agenda, and it often times and the becoming a stalemate. everything -- and often times it ends up becoming a stalemate. nothing actually happens. i felt that obama really goes against the grain. he is doing different things with health care, doing things that people are unhappy about. but what the country needs in order for that to happen, i feel congress needs a complete overhaul. i mean, that is not going to happen. but i have a difficult time figuring out who to vote for because you pick one of the two, either democrats or republicans, and nothing actually changes. it is just the same thing for the past decade.

host: all right, we will leave it there. any thoughts? guest: well, i think some things have changed. we have health care, we have stimulus, we have troops in afghanistan. and lot -- a lot has changed. what the president offered, which is hold him accountable every else accountable, i do not think that you can get the change unless folks use their time and vote and make their voice heard. host: on health care, you pulled on the bush tax cuts and the mosque today. why not pull on an issue like health care? guest: this is a relatively short political tracking poll. the one that we did in february had some extensive questions about the economy and health care as well. we certainly found more support for the health care plan than

for other individuals, but we also found that the president joe approval rating on the health-care issue, still below past the presidential approval rating on the health-care issue, still below -- the presidential approval rating on the health- care issue, still below 50%, but up a few points. caller: i have worked in health care all my life, and in this town i have seen three young men in their 20's die because they couldn't get health care. even though i tried to get it at st. we have snono money joe. even though i am pretty much an independent, i am very upset the way the republicans say no to everything in health care because this country definitely needs some kind of health care program. there are young people and middle-aged people that are dying because they can go to the emergency room but they cannot get extended care. these people were like diabetics, people with cancer,

and one young man with an infected tooth. i do not want to live in a country where 20-year-old are dying. art,: will go on to pa independent mind, from nashville. caller: i have been voting since jfk, and i do not have a problem with young people. with so many young people using cell phones -- all my kids do -- how do you do the polling? guest: thank you, that is a great question. i think the number -- i think only 35% of what we will call millennial, between 18 to 29 year olds, only 35% have access to a land line telephone. to many service are still only conducted on land line telephones. several years ago we changed from telephone methodology to a

web-based methodology. we parted with a company called knowledge networks, which is the leading most rigorous web-based survey platform, survey company in america. the way we conduct the survey is a probability-based sample, where every house throughout the country has an equal chance of participating. once they agree to participate, provide them with an internet connection, and we can ask them to take our surveys. host: robert, democratic line, virginia beach. caller: i plan to vote for the democrats because the most important issue for me would be health care, labor, and education, and i believe that the democrats have the right plan on those three issues. that is my comments. host: robert, how much are you hearing about the campaign and how much are you paying attention to it?

caller: very much. i was at a forum at the local university in norfolk, and i saw three candidates debate -- democrat, republican, and independent. host: ok. we have a twitter here, a twitter comments from a viewer and i cannot find it right now. but they said, given all that we just talked about, and with all the young voters out there, this person was wondering about civics classes in high school and whether or not there is enough emphasis put on that. guest: that is something that we hear quite a bit, what are the drivers of participation. unfortunately, i am not an expert on this. we spent a lot on the ethics of participation at harvard, but there is less 6 teaching, and

civics- there is less teaching, and i could be a part of it. host: jon volpe -- john della volpe from the harvard institute of politics, thank you. they're more than 60 congressional hearings, 20,000 -- 27,000 fishing jobs in the louisiana coastal region. up next are the co-chairs of the national oil commission. if you have been following this story, you have been watching coverage on c-span of all the hearings. we will be right back with those two co-chairs.

>> voters head to the poll in less than two weeks. debates every night right up to election day. archive debates on line at the c-span video library, and at our politics page, candidates' twitter fees, campaign ads, other helpful resources. follow c-span election coverage right through election day. >> these weekend -- this weekend on "booktv," alison dagnes. dennis desouza is interviewed. and the examination of the feud between president nixon and the investigative journalist jack anderson. look for the entire "booktv"

schedule online at booktv.org. >> this week, on "q&a," william makai and charles johnson on the roles that run parliament and congress. >> it is time to get your camera rolling for this year's student cam the committee competition. make a five minute to 8 minute video on this year's team, "washington d.c. through my lands." tell us about a topic that helps you -- through my lens." tell us about a topic that helps you better understand your role in the community. you have a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prizes. c-span student cam video documentary student competition is open to middle school and

high-school students, grades 6 through 12. go to studentcam.org. host: on your screen, the two co-chairs of the national oil spill commission, senator bob graham, and william reilly, the former epa administrator for the bush administration from 1989 to 1993. welcome to both of you. thank you for being here. i want to begin, if i could, with where you both are, where your commission is in this process of putting out your report. it is due out in january. the president is asking for it. you have finished your public hearings. mr. reilly, please talk about where you are in the process. guest: we are about halfway through. our report is due january 11. we then will have two months to communicate it. we have completed hearings in new orleans and in washington. we have had an extensive list of

presenters, public officials, and our organization group leaders and others. a number of people from the region -- i think we have been careful to include the people most affected by the spill. next month, november 8, we'll have a full presentation of the details of what actually happened on the rig, the decisions that were made and the consequences for the technology, for the breakdown. then we will go to serious writing, and we will have recommendations no later than early december for the president. we will meet with the president late in november and let it all rollout in january. host: you will let him know privately sort of what you're -- guest: we will meet with the president to let him know some of the directions we are going, some of the recommendations, and i'm sure that the white house will be public about some of those.

host: senator graham joins us from miami this morning. what happens after you put the report out in january? you will have a couple of months to communicate that report. how are you and mr. riley -- mr. reilly and the rest of this report count? how will you make sure that your reforms and suggestions get passed congress and the administration? guest: the first that is the findings that support the recommendations, and do they make sense. are they persuasive to important decision makers, starting with the president. then congress, other members of the administration will be involved in implementing. number two is we will have an extensive set of activities with the american people. we have a number of presentations to university audiences and other groups that

have had a special interest in this issue. one of the things that we have not really talked about is what several other conditions, including the 9/11 commission and now the weapons of mass destruction commission have done, and that is set up some capacity to continue to influence public opinion on the topic after you go out of official business, which for us will be two months after january 11. that will be another way which a group can continue to press the importance of and the relevance of the recommendations that they are making. host: we are talking with former senator bob graham, talking to us from miami this morning, the co-chair of the national oil spill commission, along with william reilly, the epa administrator from the first bush administration. senator graham, you said it will

be the quality of your report that you think will make a difference. mr. reilly, do we need to name names, then? guest: we need to be specific, a truly to the proximate cause, of who did what. for that we would certainly name company names. beyond that, no, i would expect that we would be more policy- oriented than the justice department may be in its lead oregon -- it's later o investigations. host: there will be a lot of legislative father and a report, you said. senator gramm, can you give us an idea of where it -- senator graham, can you give us an idea of where that will be? guest: congress -- last summer

it did not pass the senate. when the congress reconvenes, this will be among their higher priorities. some of the issues are going to relate back to the last big oil spill, which was exxon valdez. after that, congress passed legislation that was very much focused on the specific circumstances of exxon valdez, an accident that occurred by a tanker that went aground, spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into a small bay in alaska. much of the current legislation oil spill is based on that scenario. we had quite a different situation occur on april 20. we had not an oil spill by a tanker, but rather a rupture of

a drilling rig, which is operating almost a mile below the surface of the water, where there were very few contained in capabilities on site, and there was an immediate scramble to try to hold the damage down i think much of our report and recommendations will be focused on how to be able to respond to an incident without being unduly specific as to what the details of that will be, because i am confident that unfortunately there will unfortunately be another oil-related accident, but it will be neither like exxon valdez or like the april 20 bp spell. host: mr. reilly, when it comes specifically to the management service, what will it be?

guest: with respect to the adequacy of the regulatory process, the training, the performance capability of inspectors, i think we can infer that we will have strong recommendations with the reform of that enterprise. secretary salazar has already undertaken some of that, and we expect some of the things that he has said to us, that there will be proposals for better training. it is extraordinary that on-the- job training have been on most or all of what the inspectors have ever had, with the most sophisticated technology of cementing and centralize servers and all sorts of things that the inspectors have acknowledged in interviews that they have not been trained to understand. we will have a lot to say about that. host: critics of this commission process are saying that these conditions do not have any impact, and looking ahead to the midterm elections, after the

midterm elections, people are saying republicans, people in your party, if they take control of the house, they're not likely to pass any of the reform suggestions that you all put out. guest: after the exxon valdez, oil pollution reforms were passed. the most noted recommendation was a new institute for nuclear power operations to serve as the best practice monitor, funded by the industry for the nuclear industry. so i think the homeland secretary and the department came out of the tom keane commission, the 9/11 commission, so i would be reasonably optimistic, certainly not at all our recommendations will be taken, but they will be taken seriously given the seriousness of this catastrophe. host: let's turn to phone calls. the two co-chairs of the national oil spill commission

are with us this morning. go to c-span.org, and in our featured links section, we have all of our coverage of the gulf oil spill. tennessee, you are first. caller: first of all, i would like to know what ties to the oil industry new board members have personally. if and when there is another horrific spill, the length of time to plug the hole is outrageous. nothing less than immediate stoppage of the spill is acceptable. host: senator graham, why don't you begin. guest:, we have followed all of the ethics rules. we all filed false financial disclosures. i'm convinced that the seven members of this commission -- we have all filed false financial disclosures. i am convinced that the seven members of this commission -- we have all filed full financial

disclosures. as to the need to have immediate response, i could not agree more. one of the things that occurred here was a deep water spilled for which there had not been much preparation, and took an indoor merely to long period of time while the oil was gushing into the of of mexico, creating serious damage immediately, and we do not know just what the consequences of the remaining residue of oil might be over the future. one of our recommendations will deal with how to move quickly to contain the spill and thus limit the damage. guest: i do in fact have a history. i have been a member of the board of comical philips company. not implicated or involved in any way in this issue -- of the nocophillips company.

not implicated or involved in any way of this, and i took a leave of absence. i felt i should decline because of that relationship. it turned out the president liked the fact that one of the members of the commission had a detailed background and history with the industry and knowledge of it. but with respect to the rapidity that we can expect next time -- should there be a next time or this kind of spill -- we are increasingly impressed, certainly informed by both the deputy secretary, david hayes, of the interior department, and bp indirectly, that they are much better prepared. the kind of experience that we just had would allow them to use the technology that they developed successfully to stop a still much faster with in the matter of a few days rather than several months. host: ron, on the republican

line, from wisconsin, go ahead. -- sauerbrey net, on the republican mike, from wisconsin, go ahead. caller: am concerned that you will do the study, make recommendations, pass bills. who will guarantee that these bills and regulations are taken care of and not just let it go by the wayside like they have in the past? host: mr. reilly, why don't you take that first? guest: i thought that senator graham would be the one to make sure that gets through congress. we have met with many senators, certainly from the gulf col, 10 senators from five states, and we will have a full-court press to make sure these recommendations are understood and that they are considered. i would be very surprised if there were not.

to the degree that which we are successful in getting recommendations which, while necessary, are also realistic and possible with respect to government reorganization, very sensitive matters with respect to new outlays, particularly for scientific research, which i think we really do need to have. we had it after exxon valdez, and provided baseline analysis that is now telling us how much continuing oil and the effect on wire life -- on wildlife has occurred. we will need that in the gulf of mexico, and that will take some money. some of these recommendations may be more controversial than others, but we will try hard on all of them. host: senator graham, after the 9/11 commission finished its work, it took years for some of its recommendations to get through congress. they wanted to create a homeland security committee, but other committees did not want to give up power, authority over certain

agencies. will you be recommending changes to that effect, and can americans expect that there will be more turf wars when it comes to this issue? guest: desk, and yes. we will be making recommendations that relate to government reorganization. we will also make recommendations relative to the restoration of the damage that has been done by this oil spill. those will both be very controversial. i anticipate that it will be a healthy debate, that congress should come in carrying out their responsibilities to the american people should give to these matters. you mentioned the 9/11 commission. it made its report in 2004, and by 2006 most of its major recommendations have been adopted by congress and were moving towards implementation. so i am optimistic that there will be a recommendation of the

serious -- a wreck ignition -- a recognition of the seriousness of this. hundreds of people lost their lives. this was a serious incident. it was in part the responsibility of the federal government to have appropriate standards and regulations and procedures in place, and the fact that those were not there contributed to the severity of this damage, and i think congress is going to step up and provide the kind of new era of offshore drilling that will be critical to maintain the public confidence that we can exploit this important resource in america and do it in a safe and environmentally. manner. host: how can you insure that you have gone the full story on this when you have not been

given subpoena power? guest: that is a serious problem and one that we have before the congress. the house voted 420 to one to give us subpoena power. and has been blocked in the senate. it will be reconvened -- it will be up again when we reconvene. thus far, we have had reasonably good cooperation from all of the stakeholders that we're trying to get the information from, but the reality is, if you do not have the ability to demand that documents be made available in a timely basis, if you do not have yhe ability to call kee witnesses, in a public setting, you will not get the full report that you would have if you have those authorities. i believe congress, in sharing

the desire to have the fullest and most truthful exploration of this tragedy, will quickly, after they reconvened, give it to us. host: mr. riley, -- mr. reilly, if the congress does not, will your report be undermined? guest: we have had the cooperation of companies thus far, and we will develop our own exploration of the catastrophe. i'm quite certain about it. there will be individuals whose testimony we would have wanted to have who in some cases would have been willing to give it provided that they were asked to do it under subpoena. if there is a non-cooperation, i think it will be a very significant clue about responsibility and liability. the justice department will take that very seriously. we will point our fingers at

those who have not elaborated or cooperated with us, and i think they will pay a price. host: that brings up a follow up question -- who has not cooperated so far? guest: we are not prepared to say that anybody has not cooperated with us at this point because we are trying to make sure that they do. host: next caller. caller: is a little bit of an off-the-wall question. i'm wondering as i drive down the streets and buy gasoline -- if his gone up significantly in western new york in the last few days. i have not had time to check the national average. now, this is kind of a conspiracy theory, and it is no reflection on your debts because they are not exactly involved with that, but is it possible these oil companies have a slush fund for such disasters over and above this type?

we will just raise the price for the consumer, and in a matter of months we will overcome these things? guest: well, oil is a global commodity. the oil that you use comes from about 40% u.s. sources, and 60% from a variety of foreign countries. i will not say that the zero market for oil is perfect, but i doubt that -- i will not say that the market for oil is perfect, but i doubt that it is as you suggest. there are a number of factors, including increasing demand from china, india, some of the disruptions of service from some african countries. other things that affect the day-to-day price of oil. if we find any activities such as you have suggested, we will certainly go after it.

at this point, we have not done so. we have not seen such actions. host: tom on the republican line in california. go ahead, tom. caller: good afternoon, gentlemen. in california we have been drilling off our coast for 40 years and we have not had a spill since 1969. oil traditionally historically has been very safe. i would like to keep that in perspective. the exxon valdez was because of an error on part of the captain. we had a technology error in the gulf. i would refer you to the university of southern california.

in 15 years, pretty much the oil had dissipated by itself with a spill off santa barbara coast. in passing new laws and regulations, i would like to refer you to that. host: do you agree with that, william reilly? guest: you draw attention to an important point. we have had top 10 oil spills in the last 30 years or so -- eight have been tanker accidents, one was a refinery spill caused by a hurricane. the other was the one that we are looking at. it is by and large an enormously sophisticated business, and i think the oil industry has a good record and a record that has got much better, as you suggest, and the last several years. the challenge right now is that we are pursuing oil and gas resources in more remote parts of the ocean, deeper ocean,

farther offshore. that creates greater technological problems, as we saw. you cannot send divers down to fix a blowout. it cannot go down 5,000 feet, so you have to use rollorobots. we were not doing 20 years ago what we are doing now, so the challenges to the industry are very large. the sophistication they brought to deal with those challenges is very impressive. the regular apparatus, the overseer, the security part, has not been adequate to understand those technologies, nor has the equipment to deal with the spill. the same equipment that we saw in the exxon valdez spill in 1989. i think going forward we can take some confidence that secretary salazar paz new regulatory proposals or rule -- secretary salazar's new regulatory proposals or rules now -- above all, i think the

increased consciousness of the industry and their own sensitivity to the disaster this cost to all of them in the gulf, not just to bp -- because 33 rigs were shut down of many oil companies -- we will see much greater attention to safety and environmental protection in the future. host: senator graham, mr. reilly made mention of bp. will your report bring more attention to bp and halliburton, and show what role they played? guest: we call these the root cause hearings that we will have on the night of november. we will go into what was the context -- on the ninth of november. we'll go into what was the context, what are the things that occur before the disaster? the relationship between the minerals management service and the companies in terms of

assuring that the equipment on board and under water was fully ready to perform in the case of an accident. we are also going to be looking specifically at what happened in the hours surrounding this explosion. i think we will know a lot more about the industry, government relations, we will know more about the activities among the private sector, such as the three companies that you just listed and how that might have either avoided or contributed to this accident. host: utah, john is joining us. go ahead. caller: i just wonder if you guys iare investigating exactly what this is doing to the gulf of mexico, not only whose fault it is, but what the millions of gallons of toxic chemicals they sprayed on the oil to coagulate it and send it to the bottom of the ocean -- what is that?

what is that going to do to the gulf of mexico, and is it going to travel into the ocean and cause more problems. this is the biggest oil disaster i think of all time, and it has been swept under the table, what this is going to do to our oceans. i wonder if you guys are investigating that. guest: we are very much investigating that. that has been a prime focus of our attention. there has been significant research, urging research done quickly, by a number of institutions into that. we know that there is oil in the sediment under the ocean. we know also that there has been a plume of very low concentration, parts per billion, a plume characterized as large as manhattan at one point. one does not know the consequences of that. it is a very slight dilution of oil but it could in fact get into certain animal populations.

we know that crabs have been at adversely affected by the spill. that is a set of questions that we will come to the extent that we can through the knowledge available right now -- that we will, to the extent that we can through the at available knowledge right now, attempt to answer. i mentioned a few minutes ago that we really do need resources to have continuing scientific research into, most important of all, the impact on wildlife. host: senator graham, we have a tweet here that says -- senator graham, what is your reaction? guest: we had almost no deepwater drilling in the united states 20 years ago. today, more than half, 80% of

our oil production will be at greater than 5,000 feet. the question is, how can we keep our safety and containment capabilities up to the speed of technological innovation that is going on in drilling in these deeper areas. i think that is the fundamental challenge to the industry and to the government's role in overseeing this industry. as bill has said a couple of times, one key to this is better science, which means a sustained, reliable investment in finding out everything we can about drilling in these deep waters so that when an accident occurs in the future -- and unfortunately it is likely to do so somewhere in the world -- that we know more about the nature of the event and can respond to it more effectively and certainly more expeditiously.

host: warren, michigan -- george on the republican line. caller: they need to start pumping on land. there is a large concentration out west of oil, which congress should be held in contempt and go to jail because it has been, what, 1973 since the oil embargo and stuff? and they still have not solved nothing. host: senator graham, are you going to do with how much of a presence companies have in our waters off of the coast? guest: my own view is that we need to answer the larger question of what is u.s. energy policy. is there some irreducible reserve in our country? the united states is using 22% of all of the petroleum listed around the world. we have something less than 5%

of the known reserves under our domestic control. i think that sets a context within the question of where should we go and in what sequence should we go to get the domestic oil that we feel we can lift without endangering our long-term national interest. whether that comes through the judgment that we need to rely more on offshore or more on on shore, i think is a question that we have yet to grapple with. host: let me go back to the process of the commission, mr. reilly, because a viewer was commenting on our twitter page of the subpoena issue. who is holding subpoena power and why? guest: senator cohen and senator

grosso. the senator -- they have proposed another commission alternative, a commission alternative to which they would give subpoena power. senator barasso said if that were to be approved, he would be in power for both commissions. that is not likely to happen, frankly, and we are the president's commission. to the extent that you cannot get a full panoply of expertise on the part of seven members, we have amplified that by having very sick the second -- very significant people -- richard sears was on our technology staff. i think we have more than adequately reassured or should have, people that we have all the expertise that we need to resolve these questions. we will have to do it

unfortunately without subpoena power, and we will see what the justice department makes of the kind of conclusions that we come up with in case there are people who withhold information from us because we do not have subpoena power. host: are you compelled to tell the justice department that the company has not -- guest: yes, everything that we have will be public. host: senator gramm -- senator graham, you have seven members. will you not have a unanimous report? will there be dissenting opinions? guest: we will learn that in the next few weeks as we move beyond our final public hearings and start the process of developing findings and recommendations. it is a very compatible group of people, even though they bring quite different backgrounds. we have people who are from the

region. we have people who are academics, including the dean of the school of engineering at harvard, and the chancellor of the university of alaska anchorage. we have people who spent their lives in various environmental activity, specifically reilly -- specifically bill reilly. i believe we are in a position to render a report that is thoughtful, that is recent, and will justify -- that is reason ed, that would justify the support of the american people and their representatives in congress. host: annapolis, independent line. good morning. caller: you believe that bp will follow the same legal tactics that exxon did after the exxon valdez spill, which was to keep

the awarded $5.5 billion tied up in appellate courts until two new justices were appointed to the supreme court 18 years after the fact, and then the fine was the crease to roughly $560 million? guest: it was a record breaking settlement at the time, more than $1 billion per day spent about $2 billion on cleanup, and i think exxon's view of that was that they had given at the office, so to speak, so then they got a $5 billion award in court in alaska entered against them, and they did in fact fight that and got it down to i think, with interest, about $1 billion. one cannot anticipate a legal recourse that a company might take, but given that we expect there will be funds -- there will be fines in the settlement,

and i assume it will be a comprehensive settlement that the government will enter into with bp to avoid the long-term mitigation delays -- to the extent that is satisfactory and all the key stakeholders are involved, then we ought not to seek retracted litigation. but it is hard to predict how the parties will make those decisions. host: bp has created a $20 billion compensation fund. $569 million has been to the vessels of opportunity participants. $396 million to compensate fishermen and hotel owners. caller: the previous caller to part of my question about exxon and how they avoided paying and what we can expect with bp. the american public is just being downed -- being dumbed

down and deceived. senator graham talks about the american public hopefully be accepting of this. we hear from the people on the scene in new orleans and the affected area that this is not the case. i would submit first that there should have been some way people on this commission -- some lay people on this commission so that it does have some form of legitimacy. anything that comes from politicians and ex-politicians, they have no credibility, it either party. for the last 40 years, our energy party has been so -- our energy policy has been so backwards and perverse.

guest: as i said earlier, i think the first step is going to be the quality of our findings and recommendations. i would urge that you might withhold final judgment until you can see what we have actually done. these issues in many cases are controversial. there are different points of view. we will try to sort through them and give what we think is the truth. often they are quite technical. we have, as bill has suggested, mr. sears and others, who i think are as good a people as you can find on the planet to help us understand the technology in this. our commission has a broad base of backgrounds which will collectively be used to focus on getting the troops -- getting the truth to the american people. you are our clients. you are the people that we are commissioned to try to help

understand and then suggest what we can do to reduce the chances of this ever happening again in the future. please give us a chance to give you that information and then make up your mind as to whether you think we were good stewards of that responsibility. host: mr. reilly, before you jump into that, does that mean the president, the democrats, congress is open to the criticism and blame in your report? guest: we are independent -- we are independent commission and we have already cast some blame on the administration, and that has not gone over well. i would say to the caller, with respect to credibility and trust, it is priceless. one reason the president appointed this commission and said follow the facts wherever they lead is because he was concerned that an independent

voice, an expert voice to get opinion, or rather get to the bottom of what caused this spill and make recommendations to make sure that it never happens again. or that if it does, that we have a much better capacity to respond to it. we are laypeople, all of us. i think we are very committed and probably already demonstrated that we are letting the chips fall where they make, and i think the report -- i would hope the voice that we use our best would be one that will not be characterized by the extremism and the anchor -- and the anger in politics today, that that will be toned down and we will see the facts as we find them. host: the estimations of oil

spilled -- "whitehouse downplays oil spill size," coming from your commission, it is said that you all thought the government from the very beginning was downplaying and underestimating the amount of oil put out there, and that that led to the american people seeing them as not credible on this issue. did either one of you are both of you call the administration, stepped in, and say, "book, we have evidence to the contrary of how much -- look, we have evidence to the contrary of how much oil was spilled and the numbers you're giving are not accurate"? senator graham? guest: we received this information from a variety of sources, some of it from the government, most from academics, who questioned the methodology being used to calculate the amount of oil coming out. finally that number was adjusted from the initial estimates of between 1000 and 5,000 barrels a

day to 60,000 barrels a day. because there was an under assessment, several things happened. one that bill just referred to was that there was a loss of credibility in the future in statements that were made wrapped into this spill. second, there were some decisions on the ground, such as the amount of disbursement to be used, the technology of efforts at containment, if they were predicated on a flow which was as much as 1/20 of the reality, then they probably were failures from the initial conception. so we pointed that out, and as bill said, it was probably not terribly well received by everybody who read it. and we think that is our

responsibility. host: but before you put out this assessment, as you were investigating and the white house was putting these numbers out, did you ever pick up the phone and say, "book, we have evidence of the contrary here -- "luck, we had evidence of the contrary here"? guest: i would just say that essentially what we said is three things happened that lost credibility. first was the flow rate, second was the amount of oil in the gulf. finally, a report from the oceanic and atmospheric administration was held up. we said it either bespoke a lack of candor or in confidence. now, this is a very big spill. we have not had anything happen like this before, and you have to understand and certainly have some sympathy for the people that were trying to deal with it on the fly.

but they are indisputable facts in reality, and the fact of them, the existence of them explains one reason why people do not trust seafood, were many people do not, coming from the gulf, even though the government assures them that it was safe. host: will you answer that question in your report, that this was either a lack of candor or a lack of confidence? guest: no, i do not think we will. host: we will have to leave it there, gentlemen. i want to thank both of you, william reilly, former epa administrator, and senator bob graham, former senator from florida. thank you very much to both of you for being on the program. that does it for today's "washington journal." enjoy the rest of your day. enjoy the rest of your day.