changes it it makes to current policy. "washington journal" is next.

it is saturday november 20. if you would like to get involved in the conversation regarding extension of unemployment insures 202-737-0002 for democrats much republicans 202-737-0001. independents and others, 202-628-0205. if you called us in the last 30 days today is your day to send as you mental electronically. our e-mail is journa journal@c-span.org. more from the item in bloomberg. blog.com. the 258-154 vote was short of the two-thirds needed under an

expedited approval process voting against the bill were 11 democrats and 143 republicans. aid is set to expire november 30 for some and with congress out of session next week lawmakers will have little time to find agreement before then. this is like -- this bill is like deja vu all over and not in a good way said one representative a louisiana republican. he goes on to say we all want to help those in need but the american people also know someone has to pay when government spends money and it shouldn't be our children and grandchildren. extension of unemployment insurance or reducing the defic deficit. chambersburgers pennsylvania on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, sir. one question, can you answer me does it say in the story how republicans can block something? in the house simple majority. senate has procedures but i

would like you to explain that later how republicans are blocking it. my main comment is when is huh-uh? you pay people not to work they are not going to work. many places, 99 weeks, almost two years, you can't find a job? i'm sorry to find heartless but if yo you can't find something 99 weeks you are not looking. host: next up, hollywood, florida, democrats. go ahead. caller: yes. we have been a country that helped others for years and we need to really think about his family on the holiday if he was one of those who didn't have a job and everything. but, to tell you the truth, like president obama, how he started working for everybody, well, in the years to come they are going

to be glad that he was one of the ones to really came out for the working class people. thank you. host: if you wanted to extend unemployment insurance how would you go about paying for it? caller: well, just like obama said. you go down the line. you find out what works and what doesn't work. but you can't out every social program that has been set aside for the working class people. if the working class people are the backbone of the country, besides the rich folks who have the money to trickle down their percentage to us like, you know, like we have to really sit here and beg for it. host: but to keep from extending t the, or increasing the deficit where would you cut the budget? give me a specific program you would be willing to cut to extend unemployment insurance. caller: start with the wealthy

and go after the ones who took their money and a put it into those offshore accounts, really go after them an everything. and -- and everything. and find a way to block this situation where they are taking jobs and sending them overseas. host: derrick out of richmond on the independent line. caller: good morning. i think it is wrong that what they are doing is cutting the unemployment insurance for -- hello. host: go ahead, derrick. you are on. caller: as long as they cut the unemployment insurance for the poor people, at the same time they are going to extend the tax cut for the financially elite. there have been so many times in the past two years where every time the administration does

somethi something, that the republics automatically say know n. is heartless, especially at christmas time to cut the benefits of people who are unemploy unemployed through no fault of their own. they can find the money to increase the deficit to give the financially elite their money, yet they can't find the money for the poor people and middle class families? i think that this has to become a class warfare thing and they are distracting things like sarah appeal tweets and people who will are iing second amendm rights but they won't help the poor and middle class families. thank you. host: scott in annandale, virginia, on the line of republicans. extend unemployment insurance or reduce the deficit? caller: do both. that is what the republicans are

trying to do. we should be extending the the unemployment benefits. but i think that it is important that on a tough call like this that the house republicans and spat republicans -- senate republicans take a tough stand. i really don't even think it is a party issue. i think both parties should be taking the same stance that we need to begin rein being in the deficit -- reining in the deficit and the only way is on the tough calls. there are a lot of important priorities and unemployment benefits is a priority. but you have to decide what things to cut as you do that. host: tell me what things should away cut it from the budget to pay for unemployment insurance? caller: i think it is good to ask each individual caller. but every american is not a budget expert on every. what we do know is that i think we need a balanced budget amendment and force the members of congress who work on all of

these programs to make those tough choices. host: i'm not asking you to be a budget expert, but you have to balance the budget in your household, right? > caller: absolutely. host: tell me where you would cut the budget to pay for unemployment insurance. caller: me personally, everyone would have a different type of program. i personally would cut farm subsidies. i think there are a lot of programs that we don't need to continue to be spending on. although i am a republican but a fairly independent thinking republican, i would be willing to even look at some of the tax cuts for the wealthy. there are a lot of things i would be willing to look at. but more importantly i would really look at a lot of government programs. i think that we have for too long just continued government programs without forcing them to be reined in. host: more from the article

representative chris van hollen said ending unemployment assistance will not only be devastating for those and families but will hurt the economy as a whole by undermaking consumer confidence and demand. about 8,400 americans will see their unemployment checks cut off by the end of the first welcome of december. by the end of the third week of december 1.36 million americans will be affected if congress doesn't act. back to the phones, newport news, virginia, ron, on the line for independents. caller: good morning. what you just read in the article is right. we can do some cuts and our defense budget is of mammoth proportions because they want to give tax breaks to the top 100%, that is $700 billion. where do we get the money to pay

for that? i'm trying to figure out what the republics mean when they keep saying the american people, it is not like you individually heard from every american in the country and they are trying to sway people's way of thinking. people have paid into the unemployment system via working but that is 15, 20, 30 years. so 99 weeks of unemployment doesn't exceed how long you paid into the system. so if they cared about the middle class they would extend that. they would find ways. again, cut on the defense budget. do away with the earmarks. make sure, show the american people that you are trying to do something for them. host: more regarding our topic this morning. extension of unemployment insurance or reducing the deficit. this from the atlanta journal constitution georgians suffer if benefits expire. they talked about congress failed to extend unemployment benefits which moves christa anderson one step closer to

sleeping on her sister's couch in smyrna. my shouse fixing to go into foreclosure. i'm in arears on oall of my bils who fretted thursday her benefits expired. legislators left friday without extending benefits for an estimated 2 million americans who depend on the checks to keep the lights on and food in the tpreupbl including anderson who lives in buckhead. you can read more about that in the atlanta journal constitution. elk hart, indiana. caller: good morning. i believe that they should extend the benefits. i was watching c-span the other day and i noticed the republican from louisiana said why don't they use money left over on the stimulus to help pay for the unemployment extension. and i don't see what the big deal is with the democrats not

wanting to do that. we are going into the holidays and i don't think there is no need at this time for democrats and republicans to be butting heads. if there is money left over on the stimulus why not use it to get the bill passed and let everybody have a happy holiday. host: asheville, north carolina, republicans line, brian. caller: good morning. i would like everybody to understand that nancy pelosi brought that bill to the floor under a rule that wouldn't allow any amendment and it would require two-thirds of a majority to pass. and she knew the republicans would not vote for that bill because it wasn't paid for. and she knew the bill would fail. this was just a political tactic on her part to make the republicans look bad. if she wanted the bill passed all she had to do is bring it to

the floor under regular procedures and the democrats had a majority and could have passed it with 218 votes just like they have been doing with everything else the past two years. they could have taken the money out of the stimulus, out of the tarp program where we have profits rolling in. what they say, i'm sure if they lacked under the couch and share cushions in the congress and senate they could have found loose change to pay for it. host: next up is winter haven, florida on the line for independents. mark. go ahead. caller: the previous caller summed everything up in one of my points. i believe if they wanted to pass that bill they would have robbed or extorted or did whatever they had to get the votes. and another -- and i have been on unemployment a couple of times and i may have to be on it

again next month. but i think it is good because then finally maybe there will be pressure to bring jobs back to this country and getting illegal aliens out of the workforce. host: how long were you on unemployment last time? caller: actually, i was on it twice. i was on it for four months once and six months the previous time before that. but ever since then i haven't worked but maybe 20 to 25 hours a week and my wages have been cut $7 an hour. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: construction industry, masonry and it has been overrun with illegals and i can't compete. i have to pay bills. i have a modest set of bills. i don't live beyond my means. i don't want the whole pie. i just want my little piece. host: more from the "atlanta journal-constitution." the extension debate, what next. they write on november 29 congress returns from the thanksgiving recess and november

30 president obama holds a bipartisan summit with democrats and republican leaders of congress that could produce a compromise on this and other issues. also on this date the last jobless benefits extension expires and on january 1, if no compromise is reached two million people nationwide including 84,000 plus in georgia could see their checks cut off. zena, ohio on the line for democrats. cynthia. caller: hi. the place we could cut is the defense budget and to do away with those tax cuts for the top 1% of the country. most don't see the faces tt are people that work in public service every day in financial institutions when you have numbers come in and they are talking about their finances. just yesterday i had a lady in my office that talked to me

about she had a job as a professor at a college, lost it, making over $60,000 a year, got a new job making $35,000. she said i can't make it. so, most people don't understand because they don't see the faces. host: the "los angeles times" blogs failure to pass unemployment insurance extension could cost billions reports say. letting the nation's unemployment benefits expire could drain billions from the economy and cost millions of jobs. according to two reports it week on thursday house republicans voted to deny an unemployment benefits extension unhappy with the method planned to fund it. ending federal extensions would drain the economy of $80 billion of purchasing power according to a report by the joint economic committee. every dollar spent on benefits increases gross domestic product by $1.60 the report says.

we will get back to more of that but naples florida on the line for republicans, tom. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i agree with a few of the other callers. the democrats still run the show by huge margins. they could pass anything they wanted to. all they need to do is bring it up under regular order. i don't think that the republican position is all that controversial. just pay for it. extend them. pay for it. you could extend them for 10 years. get rid of the e.p.a. host: tom, what do you think the strategy was by the speaker in bringing up the vote the way she did as opposed to a simple majority? caller: headlines. talking points and headlines. host: in your opinion it is better in the mind of the speaker to make the republicans look bad than to extend

unemployment benefits for people that are losing them? caller: absolutely. they could have tkodone the extension of the rates. they are going to raise people's taxes in less than a month, the 1st of january. they could have done something on that for two years now. for four years the democrats have held the house and senate. this is just parlor games. it is baloney. caller: more from the "los angeles times" business section. workers receiving unemployment insurance payments are typically cash trapped and will spend the benefits quickly. there is a report from the joint economic committee. they spend about $6.5 billion a month on the local economy to buy essentials such as food, clothing and utilities. the report goes on to say a failure to extend the unemployment insurance program could hamper the fragile recovery. it predict as it consumer spending will fall by $50

billion the next year if benefits are not extended. and that economic growth will be reduced by just about half a percentage point by february of 2011. smiley, texas, james on the line for independents. caller: good morning. in 1959, i was a 14-year-old boy and went to school one day. during the day my father was involved in a horrible tractor accide accident, and back in those days there was no food stamps, no section 8 housing, no welfare, no unemployment. and the next day, there was a family of seven including myself, i had to go to work. i got a job in a chicken house with a shovel and wheelbarrow carting manure out from underneath the chicken cages. and my family survived.

we made it. we didn't eat like millionaires. but i was only 14. and i was more of a man then than a lot of so-called men today. and now i'm an old man, i'm 65 years old. i have never had welfare. i have never had unemployment even though i was eligible for it. and i would go out now in my old age and flip hamburgers before i would take something from the governme government. it is not the raoeight that the people stay 99 weeks on unemployment. i can get a job today, in 24 hours. host: we will leave it there. in the "wall street journal" miami discovery delays house ethics trial. the house ethics committee said friday it was delaying the november 29 public trial of representative maxine waters to

review new materials discovered that may have had an effect on its investigation of the california democrat. the article goes on to say mrs. waters, who has maintained her innocence, said in a statement that the document does not provide any new significant information and criticized investigators for delaying her ethics trial, which she has welcomed as a chance to clear her name. we are going to take a short break and talk to you a little bit about news makers this week. house democratic whip james clyburn is our guest. he was elected wednesday to be assistant minority leader in the next congress. in the interview, which you can see on sunday he talks about his new job of assistant minority leader and how that came about. >> it would have been very simple. as everybody says, everybody just step back one step. you have been chair so go back to being chair, steny. you have been whip, you go back

to being whip and pelosi will go back to being leader. and i said that was not attractive to me. i felt that things that i learned out there could be put to great use in our lair discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. because i do believe we are in a different political environment and we have a caucus that is a ttle bit different from the republican conference. we have 42 african-americans, 21 or 22 latinos that make up the hispanic caucus, asian, blue dogs that are not much support trade and all of this diversity i thought i learned about and could bring discussions to that table and could take them away from the table into our constituency in a way that would

limit me if i were chair of a caucus. host: you can see the complete interview with representative james clyburn of south carolina, the new assistant minority leader in the house of representatives. that can be seen on sunday "news makers" 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and online and as an app for your >> phone. back to our conversation regarding extension of unemployment insurance or the reduction of the deficit in the "wall street journal" they have this article with the headline "states raise payroll taxes to replay loans, demands on depleted unemployment insurance led to borrowing of nearly 4 (100) 000-00$41 billion from the federal government. they are borrowing heavily to keep benefits and most states

are raising payroll taxes to pay off the loans. 31 states, their unemployment insurance funds empty, have borrowed nearly $41 billion from the federal government. california alone has borrowed nearly $8.8 billion as of mid november according to the labor department. a ca a caller from michigan on the line for democrats. caller: tuscola. host: i extend a heartfelt apology to all the residents there. tell me what you think of the unemployment insurance or deficit reduction. caller: i appreciate the heartfelt apology. all 14 here appreciate it. we have to extend the unemployment benefits. that is just the human thing to do. are you going to starve two million people? if we had job growth then the argument with the republicans would work that you should go out and find a job.

we do not have job growth. the deficit is something we owe ourselves. that is a nice figure and something to toss around and makes good headlines but it is something we owe ourselves. we can run a deficit all we want for a while. we have to get job growth is what we need. one way to look at this, there are a lot of things that money is spent on that i don't like. i could cut programs, too. but i also know we are all in this together and i look at it when i drive down the road, the last i heard it cost $1 million a mile to put in a road. i want to know how many miles of road people have paid for with their taxes. we have to do it together, folks. host: randy in tuscola on the line for democrats. next is jeff out of brandywine, maryland. caller: thank you. as far as the deficit goes, i would have to start extending,

instead of somebody joining the military at 18 and getting a retirement check at 38 you will have to extend the military stay for more than 20 years. i think th just starting this would cut the deficit quite a bit. host: did you serve in the military? caller: yes, navy. u.s.s. kitty hawk. host: how long? caller: i was two by six. went it two to see if i liked it and there were a lot of lifers, guys that just wanted to hang out to get a retirement check and i'm hey years old and been paying taxes all my life and i don't know of a war we have actually won since i have been alive. something has to change with the military. host: more from the "wall street journal" article talking about states raising payroll taxes to repay loans for their depleted unemployment insurance.

they write that the unemployment compensation system initiated during the great depression was designed so most states build reserves when jobs are plentiful and few workers are receiving benefits and draw tell down in bad times but few states were prepared for a recession as deep and lasting as the recent one with unemployment remaining at a historically high 9.6% a year after the economy resumed growing. back to the phones, sand kwry r shall south carolina, on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. our government has caused this problem. the government has caused the entire financial mess by instituting regulations that created a housing bubble and let people borrow way beyond their means. at what point is huh-uh?

i don't believe the economy will return the next two or three years? will we extend unemployment benefits the next two or three years? we are creating another bubble by giving people money to put in the economy. the economy is going to fail and going to fail miserably. as much as i hate to be so pessimistic about it, what ross perot said you will hear a big sucking sound and that is the manufacturing base going overseas. the giant sucking sound has subsided and most of the manufacturing base has gone overseas. and our government, our congress, our leaders, democrats, republicans, independents, have sold this country out and shipped all of this stuff overseas. host: what about the item in the "los angeles times" article with the report from the joint economic committee that said that every dollar spent on benefits increases the gross

domestic product by $1.60 and by cutting off unemployment insurance or allowing it to run out, they are taking upwards of -- consumer spend log fall by $50 billion the next year? caller: you are not talking about regular consumer spending. you are talking about money that the government is using through the consumer to keep the economy alive. it is not real consumer spending. it is their money going through my hands to buy food or pay for the light bill or whatever. host: how else would you define consumer spending? caller: i know that. but it is not look somebody going out and having a real job and creating real products or services and putting it on the street. there is a difference. i don't know how to define it

any more than that. it is really the government's money passing through somebody's happened. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania, deb on the line for democrats. >> caller: hello. good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i believe that unemployment benefits are being extended with no other choice. there are no jobs. have you ever noticed that the working class, middle class, whatever you want to label them, are fighting amongst themselves while the rich are just getting richer and they call and want to complain about giving unemployment benefits, yet they claim everyone should get tax cuts. so, 400, 700, whatever the billion is, to feed the wealthy is fine for the country and let people just starve. i don't understand it.

we are fighting against each other while the country is about to go overboard. you say jobs. but the republicans stopped jobs bills. you know they won't fund anything that will help working class people. host: in the "baltimore sun" this morning nato plans missile defenses russia offered a chance to join the european system. from lisbon leaders of 28 nat n nations committed to a system to protect the u.s. and europe from attack and offered russia a chance to collaborate. leaders who expect russia to react positively hope it will lead to cooperation in areas where they could benefit from moscow's help including the war in afghanistan, nuclear nonproliferation and their standoff with iran over its nuclear program. a different look on how that story is being covered comes from the front page of the financial times weekend edition.

nato in defense offer to russia. u.s. and nato allies will invite russia to help create a missile defense shield in a move designed to solidify the transform of relations between moscow and the west. medvedev will be asked to participate in the missile shield project at the nato summit in lisbon where he attends today. the project aims to protect the accountants involved representing more than one billion people from missile attacks from other states. the invitation to russia is certain to be made today after nato leaders last night reached agreement among themselves that the alliance would press ahead with its own plans to build the missile defense system. back to the phones, franklin, georgia, on the line for republics. randy is on the "washington journal." caller: yes, i'm for extending the unemployment insurance. i have been work withing at the same job 29 years and i am

thankful that i'm able to pay taxes. and i'm thinking anybody that need help should get help. there are probably a lot of people milking the system but it is going to be hard to weed them out but there are people that need the help. we had a shop teacher had high school who said you have a fence and on one side you have a bunch of people that is hungry and on the other side of the fence you have a bunch of people with a lot of food and if those people on the side that is hungry going to start jumpin over the fence. and if everybody goes out an looks, you look at how much money they are spending and how big a prisons they are building a lot of people are jumping that fence. host: "new york times" looking to in connection year republicans stymie democrats' efforts on top measures, talking

a little bit about the situation regarding extending unemployment insurance and vote taken earlier in the house. they write in the house republicans united to defeat an initial attempt to extend unemployment pay for the long-termen employed. in the national republicans used procedural tactics to force the democrats to consume much of the week inching head on an otherwise popular measure to improve the food safety system canceling a post-election meeting at the white house with mr. obama a move democrats viewed as a slight. it says what democrats see as obstreperous many republicans view as fulfilling the wishes of voters which is to limit the business during the lame duck session and leave the work to the 112th congress. back tthe phones, los angeles,

california, vic on the line for ends. go ahead, vic. caller: thank you for the opportunity to talk to you although i was going to work. first, i agree with the republicans and some of the independents in reference to the bill. you must say it like it is. let's not go down that road. the truth is the truth. she didn't do it that way. that is the start off. furthermore, as far as this part of your program i think it is worthless. the rest of it is great. have a nice day. host: los angeles, california, next on the line for democrats. lindsey, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a couple of points. i think we need to look at unions and the unemployment benefits we are paying to people who work for unions because at the collect hundreds of millions of dollars from the employees, from the government, from taxpayers and spend it on

political campaigns when they could pay their own unemployment benefits. i'm in california and we are collecting $40 million a day from other states, from your taxes and everybody's taxes to pay our unemployment benefits and, quite honestly, i have friends out here who are unemployed who refuse to take two part-time jobs or a part time job because the unemployment benefits pay tl more. they are living in the same home. i realize everyone is not in that situation. but we really need, instead of throwing monday out there -- and i don't remember how many billions you said we are spending on unemployment benefits. but for god's sake can't we give people business or maybe some of them could do a start-up business instead of taking a handout. i'm really afraid of the attitude that we are adopting with this constant handout from the government. i want a pony but who will pay for it. host: do you think it would be

more incentive for people to get jobs if the amount of the up employment insurance payments were smaller? caller: i think that obviously it has to be a case-by-case basis. i don't want any kids starving but many pool that get unemployment are gettinged if stamps and housing vouchers. they are going out christmas shopping. i am self-employed and my business is down to zero almost and i don't have -- i don't qualify for any government handouts. host: we will leave it there. florida, gordon sends us this twitter message saying that the previous caller was wrong about nancy pelosi. she reached across the aisle to allow a number of democrats to make amendments. this is a twitter message from florida. gordon. the next call is from oklahoma city, oklahoma.

kathy for republicans. caller: yes, i agree with the democrat that just called. what a good day. i was going to say an extension of just three months will cost us billions of dollars and if they have not found a job in two years, why are they going to find one in the next three months? i don't make $300 a week. and we are getting tired of going to work five days a week, giving up our time to pay somebody more than we make to get to stay at home? i want to stay home. some of the ways they could cut it is in the earned income cred credit. people get dau$5,000 returned? nobody pays that much. host: the "philadelphia inquirer" in the business section republicans weigh strategy to re-s&p financial overhaul. with house republicans probably block bid a democratic senate

and white house from making major changes to the financial regulation overall the g.o.p. is preparing tactics to how the new law is applied. the dodd-frank act requires agencies chug the commodities futures trading commission and fdic and s.e.c to craft hundreds of rules. the act's goal is raise federal oversight of financial services firms thus reducing the risk of meltdown like the one that shook the nation in 2008 and 2009. you can read more at w wfrpb wfrw .philly calm. tkpwaeurpy from los angeles. should away extend unemployment insurance or reduce the deficit? caller: i would love to be able to do both. i don't like to see americans

suffer, either. one thing that could stimulate the ecomy is you could make fu fuel, gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel from marijuana. that would create jobs all across merchant r america and -- america and the green waste we are waste going to the dump could be converted to gas. host: dave, from pennsylvania. extend unemployment or reduce the deficit? caller: actually neither. i will refer to the last caller about going green. i think that alcohol would be a good clean burning fuel. beside the point talking about the financial problem we have, i think it goes back to the u.s. constitution, to be honest with you. because in the constitution the government has the right to levy a direct and indirect tax. a direct tax would be the income tax. the problem is the government is

supposed to apportion it evenly as they apportion congressmen to the different districts across the country. if we did that, we could lincoln nate the unemployment -- we can eliminate the unemployment and welfare. but the problem is i think the 16th amendment changed that to where the government now gets all of the revenue from the taxes and have earmarks and spend it here and there and wherever they. . -- wherever they want. if we divided it evenly i think everybody would have a fair shake without having to worry about congress won't be getting mountain from lobbyists because the money is already going to be predetermined on where it will go. host: "new york times" lead editorial opt out i will laguna. texas and several other states are flirting wi the idea of dropping out of the medicaid program and trying to shift most of the burden of providing health insurance for the poor to the federal government.

it goes on to say the idea originated with analysis at the heritage foundation, a conservative research organization in washington. they argue many states would be irresponsible not to drop medicaid in 2014 and direct poor residents to buy commercial insurance on new competitive exchanges where told receive generous federal subsidies. a heritage analyst believes that 40 states and district of columbia could save money it way and estimated that texas could save $46.5 billion between 2014 and 2019. this may sound great writes t"nw york times." even assuming it is legal, but it would amount to a shell game. it may save money for some state buckets but only driving up cost for the federal budget about and poor and rural people who would have to pay more even with the federal subsidies.

back to the phones, clifton park, new york, on the line for independents. claude. caller: good morning. they should extend unemployment. am i on? hello. am i on? host: go ahead, claude. caller: number one, they should extend unemployment. as far as making our deficit, they should cut foreign aid, they should cut some of the money that goes to research because the pharmaceuticals haven't made anything that can cure you. everything is treatable. number three, some of the perks that washington gets they should give them up. and all of these ex-presidents

should hire their own security rather than be paid for by the taxpayer. host: steve sent this morning. in time of emergency unemployment insurance should be extended and cuts to pay fund. the bush occasitax cut and coal oil extraction subs. mike in baltimore on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, how are you in go ? i have been on unemployment here in maryland, i have exhausted my first 26 weeks. when the extension kicked in, you don't get the whole -- this business about 99 weeks is nonsense. your extension kicks in once you

have exhausted the state benefits, at least that is the way it works in maryland. as a result, i will only have a month's worth of the federal extension should they not epped it further tan november 30. and the holiday season i'm really worried. i have worked all my life, paid into the system all my hraoelif. there really are no jobs out there. you have to look for work. i have within -- i have been dill skwrpbtly looking and there is nothing there. host: we will leave it there. we will take a short break. when we come back we will talk about the republican governors, their recently completed meeting and big meeting in san diego. and the future of the republican party from the governors' perspective as we continue "washington journal." today is saturday november 20.

>> earmarks account for less than one half of 1% of the federal budget. they are part of the agenda for the 112th congress. find out what terror -- what they are on line. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, even

though they may give it up for principled reasons, they feel handcuffed when they give it up. >> in the final volume of theodore roosevelt edmund morris looks at the final years of his life that. is sunday night at 8:00. >> live this weekend join our authors as book tv heads to the 27th annual miami book fair international. follow the discussion and join with your calls, e-mails and tweets. that is on c-span 2's book tv. "washington journal" continues. host: jamie weinstein is deputy editor at daily call. he is here to talk about governors and the republican party. let's start with the completed r.g.a. meeting in san diego. tell us the overarching theme

and what the governors want to do moving forward guest: it was somewhat of a victory party considering how well they did in the governor races. they picked up six and one pending in minnesota bringing them to 29 governorships. the overall theme would have been, would be to display the diversity of their governors. they have two his tang r panic -- hispanic, two indian american, several women so they had a panel to try to convey the diversity of the governors across the country. i think the biggest thinking to come out of the r.g.a. was a report from a private meeting of governors that 80% of them raised their hands when the outgoing chair of the r.g.a.

asked whether they would be confident that michael steele remain as head of the republican national committee. 80% said they would not. host: we want to begin by looking at some of the new governors who were featured. first is the governor-elect from nevada. he spoke at a panel discussion on the future of the party regarding education reform. we will look at what he had to say and get your response. >> one of the hallmarks of my education plan was choice in education. something that has never happened in the state of nevada. i believe that every parent, every child, should have the ability to choose the school where at the want to attend. you mentioned accountability. i think it is very important that schools be accountable to parents throughout for the great state of nevada. that a patient should know how

that school is performing and if it is not performing that there will be a change with regard to administration. another thing in never that we have is teacher tenure. you can get 10 newer after one year. -- tenure after one year. i think there should be merit pay for teachers. we should reward the great teachers. they should be the ones that are given the benefit of showing the increases in test scores. host: jamie weinstein, tell us about brian sandoval and where he is getting such buzz. guest: they wrote in the papers in las vegas when he first announ announced to run that it is veried to see his name without rising star next to it because it has been applied to him for a long time. over a decade. he has either been one of the youngest person elected to a certain position in never or

first latino. he started in the legislature after beginning as a lawyer, went to be young egest head of gaming commission to attorney general and asked to be nominate bid bush but harry reid sucked his name and then he ran against an incumbent republican governor and against harry reid's son to win the governorship. he is one of the hispanic governors, latino governors elected for republicans. one of the two. he was talking about education reform there. that was another big issue that governors across the country, republican governors, have been trying to deal with. chris christie in new jersey taking on teacher unions trying to push back against some of the contracts. sandoval supports vouchers as one of his proposals or initiatives. host: we will throw out the conversation -- we will be talking about republican governors and which are

mentioneds -- mentioned in 2012. with it rising star a seems to be attached to brian sandoval is he one that the republicans are looking to see in the running in 2012 or will he stay in the state house in nevada? guest: i suspect he will stay in the state house but it is not implausible. hispanics are an important demographic the republicans need to reach out to and win and possibly using some hispanic governors that were elected this cycle or possibly even marco rubio in florida. i think he is the post likely to be one of the vice presidential picks but sandoval is probably somebody they are thinking about if not 2012 down the road. host: we are talking to jamie weinstein about the republican governors and future of the g.o.p. if you the to be involved

202-737-0002 for democrats, 0001 for republican and 0205 for independents. you can send us an electronic message by e-mail and also twitter. let's go to another hispanic governor newly elected, governor-elect suzanne into martinez from -- suzanne martinez. before we go to the clip tell us what some of the buzz is about her and how she's distinguishing herself from the other new governors. guest: she is both a woman and latino governor elected. the republican governors association spent a lot of money on her race wanting her to get elected. she partly benefited from the unpopularity not only of the obama administration, the cycle, but of the governor bill

richardson. at one point during the campaign she offered to debate him and not her opponent because he was so unpopular and she wanted to tie him as the person she was running against. but those -- as a woman and latina that is a demographic the republicans think is something that they can reach out to other groups that don't traditionally vote for republicans. so they are excited to have her as governor of new mexico. host: we will listen to what she had to say on immigration reform. >> it is not about the mexican population. it is merely about the mexican border which has been weak. it is weakened because people will be coming across that border because it is easier to do so but they are come interesting across t border from all over the word. we have arrested individuals in the last six months from jamaica, china, poland because they are coming to new mexico because if is an attractive state where they can get a legal

i.d. that allows them to travel the country without detection and they e provided sanctuary. we find out who you are, we arrest you, punish, send you to prison and you end up being deported because you have few prove yourself to be unsafe to be in our country. 45% of the population in new mexico is hispanic. but it is amazing at how well the message is received that we have to secure our borders. we cannot have comprehensive immigration reform without first securing the border. host: jamie, how well is she, her discussion on immigration reform playing inside and outside new mexico? guest: it is interesting that both she and brian sandoval the two latino governors were tougher on immigration. martinez has said she not only wants to change the law that allows legal immigrants to get

driver's license but revoke those that have been given them. so she did not campaign as someone who is open to comprehensive immigration reform or anything like that. she campaigned as tougher on immigration as did sandoval which is interesting for the latino governors that were elected. host: our first call regarding republican governors and fort of the republican party for jamie weinstein comes from san bernardino, california, frank, on the line for democrats. caller: yes. i understand the harshness on immigration reform. we do need some kind of strong immigration reform. for all the states. and, like martinez said, we have to find out who we have here first before we decide we will let anybody else in. another problem that people have been -- people -- go -- another

issue. earlier you were talking about unemployment and the deficit and things like at. a problem is we are paying a lot of politicians a lot of money, ok, to run our lives and they have healthcare that the taxpayers pay for. we pay for their driving around in fancy cars, flying in airplanes. why can't they take a three-year pay freeze where they don't receive anything? i'm quite sure if all the politicians did that we can break down that deficit pretty fast. host: go ahead. guest: well, i was interested in the last part of the question. it is a popular thing to want to freeze congressmen's pay but you have to mess with entitlement reforms to get anywhere. host: the caller mentioned in his discussion about

unemployment benefits and earlier we were talking about loans that some of the states are to take from the federal government to pay the state unemployment insurance benefits. tell us how some of the republican governors are talking about dealing with that situation? guest: that was another big theme during the r.g.a. conference was the situation which they found themselves in. celebrating that they won state houses but when they get in they will have a lot of work to do to bring the state back to financial health. they are taking a line from chris christie the superstar in new jersey and going in there and ready to cut and find places to cut back on spending. post of the governors said they do not want to raise taxes, refuse to raise taxes. it will be on the spending side. host: governors in some of the harder hit states especially cot walker in wisconsin, rick snider in michigan and john kasich in ohio are looking at heavy job

losses, high public employee payrolls and having to slash budgets, cut taxes. this is what governor-elect john kasich republican of ohio had to say about curbing government spending during his portion of the pam discussion. >> i think -- panel discussion. >> i think the key is you have to make changes and shrink government. we know that all over the country. we know that in our states and federal level. the first thing is you can't play favorites. you have to take a look at programs and figure out whether they work. if not get rid of them. or if they are necessary you have to fix them. i'm not a huge believer to go out and cut. cut is not very attractive. it is reform. make things work better. guest: kasich is one of those rising stars but he has been risen for quite some time. he was elected to the house of

representatives in 1982, chair of the budget committee and was discussed as early as 1996 as possible vice presidential candidate. ran a short lived campaign in 2000 before dropping out endorsing george w. bush. and went on to host fox news shows, guest host and now he has been elected governor and he is someone who is a fiscal hawk and will be looking to cut spending.

. host: as a resident of louisiana, what is it pacifically that you think can take him to the next level and make him president of the united states? caller he knows how to manage a budget and knows how to make cuts. he has taken heat from the unions and other things. when it comes to raising taxes, he says a note. we have to reduce the number of states and workers, the number of costs and higher education and other things. a title see how states like new york and california -- if we could continue to run these huge deficits. host: jamie weinstein.

guest: he went to ground at 16 and was a rhodes scholar. at 25, he ran the whole hospital system in louisiana. finally becoming a congressman and the governor. he is someone people are looking to as a possible presidential candidate. it does not look like it will be 2012. he says he is not interested. he will be running again. if he is running for reelection in louisiana, it will be hard to turn around in november and start the presidential race. he has a long future ahead of him at only 39. host: car line for independen ts. caller: it seems to meet the future of the gop is up for

grabs for anybody that wants to get a piece of it because it it has been hijacked by the two- party. i don't think the gop has a very big future because they seem to have a one-size-fits-all mentality about social programs and grandchildren paying for things that we need now. that is how we have always been doing things like that. if you have a group of people -- i could be converted to a republican. and i am an independent. it is a lot of the allegations that republicans make. they do not have a lot of proof. people who are against minorities driving a greyhound bus not too many years ago, now the president has to deal with the fact that he could beat somebody they feel they could drag down with a pickup truck. i think the gop really is up for

grabs. host: we are going to leave it there. guest: in one sense, he is right. the gop nomination is up for grabs. a lot of candidates -- i did a list of the other day. people are pushing them to run for the gop nomination. host: there was a lot of discussion regarding of the tea party influence in senate races and house races. did you see a significant influence in the governors' races as well and will that influence carry through to the guest: 2012 presidential: i think we did see an influence in governor's races. a lot of people knew brian sandoval before he ran and thought he was more moderate

than he campaigned as. the influence was probably to appeal to the tea party of voters. i do think it had an influence, and will that last to 2012? i think it will be around until 2012, but for after 2012, that remains to be seen. host: jamie weinstein is the deputy editor for the daily caller and is with us for another 25 minutes. our next call comes from vermont on our line for democrats. caller: i am a guidance counselor at a public school. i wanted to talk about how glad i am that we have a democrat for up.rnor, n coming douglas was holding on to the

stimulus money to give to continue to have their jobs. now there is a program that is being implemented. basically, they are going to cause schools to cut all of their funding and lay off people so the schools cannot be run properly. we need public education. the problems are poverty and escalated numbers of children with trauma and all of the social programs are being cut at this point. it puts pressure back on teachers, and teachers need support. guest: what state did she say she was from? host: vermont. guest: the purpose of the stimulus bill was to save the jobs that would be cut, but one

of the points that republicans brought up at the time that had the teachers' unions compromised with their state, other governors, and there may years, and had a salary freeze, a lot of the jobs would have been saved. host: radford, va., is our next caller. caller: we have a republican governor here in virginia. he had to do some cutting. bob macdonald was one of the best governors we have ever had. we had these rest tops down on 81. he shot most of them down but they are opening a backup. we had a big job loss in this state. we had one plant here in radford and it is open back up.

i want to know this man's question. we do need help in finding jobs. but we need to go get them. is there are so many people. this is the lowest poverty area where i live. i want to know if we can find jobs for people. host:is the caller still there? guest: a was interested in and who was elected as the vice chair. he has some criticism from democrats of the state already. he is going to be out of the state campaigning for other people. this is not very good for the state. i was wondering if the caller liked the idea of his gov. being the vice chair. host: how much of this meeting

in san diego was a laying out the basis for the foundation for getting someone elected in 2012 as opposed to laying out some sort of road map for how to get the state's back on track? guest: i think it is a mixture. i think the 2012 outlet was taken care of the michael steele discussion. on the other hand, it was a showcasing of the new talent for the gop, as well as from of the -- from of the clips they have shown. many governors want to try to seek to appeal health care. host: what is the governor's it

displeasure with michael steele? at this point, we have 29 out of the 50 states are governed by republicans. they have just taken over the house of representatives and they narrowed the majority in the senate. what else do they want the guest: chairman to: i compare the situation to howard dean after the 2006 election. it is hard to criticize after a great success. they did that with howard dean. he might have impeded some of the success. in the same cases, they are saying about michael steele. a letter was written suggesting he spent too much money to raise money. they were not using the money affectively and other charges to the fact that he has been seeking the book deals. instead of focusing on the vital

things to organize and get out the vote campaigns. that is where the banks comes from, whether it is legitimate or not. haley barbour himself was the head of the rnc back in the 1990's. they are trying to push one of the executive directors of the rnc as a possible candidate, a young guy, 28 years old, but they think he is pretty competent. host: new york, mark is arlen for independence -- market is on our client for independents. caller: as far as balancing the budget, i would at least cut the

education department in half. since it was inspected in the early 1960's, he spent $110 billion on it. as far as test scores go, there has been a flat line for the last 40 years. the department of education is useless. i would cut the epa by 25%. the republican party is going to be around for a long time. the tea party has had a great influence on it. more and more people are getting into the tea party every day. with all of the new governor's who are republicans and the redistricting coming up, it is going to be tough for any democrat to hold office. thank you. guest: one of the big victories for republicans are benefits of

winning all of these governorships, and it will have a big role in the redistricting after the census. it is going to be favorable to republican candidates, and that will have a big affect in the united states congress. host: fort worth, texas. caller: the future of the gop and the republican party "agenda" of creating an environment for a distress will not succeed if the general public or the people with money -- let's say people [unintelligible] hire their own. stop giving the gop of the control and power that is an illusion. they only have control because

they are allowed to keep it. no one is dependent on the gop for jobs. no one is dependent on them for anything because they can be easily bypassed by millionaires and players and everybody that has millions of dollars. take the power away from the gop agenda because everything they are doing is creating several distressed. guest: i think that is an interesting job proposal, where a nba players create jobs. if the government does not have to put out money to do that, i am sure they would be happy creating jobs. host: you mention gov. barbara of mississippi is the outgoing

chairman of the rga. describe for me if you can the possible shift in focus under the perry administration from the barbour administration. guest: he once said if the government continues to hamper them and over regulate them, texas still has the option to succeed. he will probably provide a lot of color for ". i am not sure the change in direction that will happen strategically. they are keeping on heavy barber to create a new role for him for the rga. i am not sure if they are looking to make a drastic change. host: pensacola, fla.. caller: good morning.

i had a simple question. it has been bugging me for a few days. when you have the congressmen, senators, and president of the united states take an oath to defend the constitution of the united states, like you had rockefeller the other day saying he basically wanted to get rid of the first amendment, what happens when they break the oath of upholding and protecting and defending the constitution? guest: i think they can be impeached, but i do not think rockefeller -- i strongly disagree with what he said. that was his free speech presenting. i don't think it will take any action to take him off. host: jamie weinstein was a columnist with the north star national and has worked as a fellow at the world called

newspaper and was an assistant to executive editor. one of the speakers at the panel that we covered at the governors -- at the republican governors association meeting was a governor elect from south carolina. she talked about creating jobs. let's see what she had to say. >> i think we have to create a small business environment. the way to do that is to understand that when you give businesses cash flow, profit margins, what is the first thing they do? they hire people. it comes down to a tort reform. it is understanding that when you give them profits, they will hire people. so the smaller you can make government, the more you can create jobs and improve economic development. host: your thoughts about what the governor elect guest: had say? to

guest: she was someone who wanted to break up the network to cut spending, so i think she will be a fiscal hawk like all of the other governors elected. she has the potential to be another rising star in this party. host: she also got some help from sarah palin who has been out helping various republican candidates in various positions. how long will folks who got their help from gov. sarah palin be able to hold onto that and a ride that wave before they can stand up on their own 2 feet and the government and do for the people what they were elected to do? guest: she got a lot of help

from the endorsement from sarah palin. she was down in the polls and the republican primary. when sarah palin endorsed her, she'd shot up like a lightning rod and won the race. sarah palin said the endorsement was very significant in that race. i don't think the endorsement is going to last much longer after now. she will have to govern. they are going to want to see her govern the way she said she would govern. host: bill is on our line for independents. caller: the government does not have any money. the only money they have is the money they take from us. we are fighting two wars that we are not paying for. we need to drastically reduce the size of our military and bring all of those people home.

alan greenspan and ben bernanke had been keeping rates artificially low, and it is just propping up the system that actually needs to fail to rebalance the system. that would allow capital creation and jobs to be created because of entrepreneurs would go out and create the jobs that need to be created. the government cannot create a job. all they can do is take money from the people, and it is the people who create the jobs. not the government. host: chris from alabama sends us this twitter message. guest: i think he has part of the message. the other part of the message is the idea of people creating jobs, not the government.

i think this is a message that a lot of the newly elected governors would subscribe to. host: will they be able to create the jobs on their own or will they need the help of the federal government for subsidies or tax breaks or incentives of some sort to try to bring jobs to their individual states? >> i think they would like the government to back away a little bit. that is what they say rhetorically. some have criticized the stimulus package that president obama past. i think some rejected all of it or much of it. so i think in the way they would like the federal government to back off on some of these issues. caller:hi. i would like to say that the american people can bring back america by stop buying products made anywhere else but the

united states. if the american people -- i want american made products. our big corporations that are over in other countries hiring people for the fraction of a cost, they have to know that they have to come back to america. a second thing i would like to say is about the illegal immigrants. host: we are talking about republican governors and the future of the republican party. it taught me about your governor and what he has done with the budget. caller: he sold our toll roads. ias out on my toll road coming home from work the other day and i did not know where i was. i was baffled. it was pouring down rain so bad nobody could see in front of you.

i got up to eight gate. he took away those jobs. those jobs -- now you put in your change and you have no one to talk to. mitch daniels did not do anything for us. host: an article last week -- one of the governor's features was in fact gov. mitch daniels of indiana. guest: he says heot $4 billion back. he would probably disagree with the purpose of tollbooths of having psychologists to talk to when you get up to the gates. he is supposedly favored by bush and the people around him. he was the omb budget director,

so he will be somebody interesting to watch. it is not clear if he really wants it or not. i guess we'll find out soon. host: ron is on "washington journal." caller: deducing michael steele was going to step down? -- did you say michael steele was going to step down? i think he should step down because he is physically irresponsible -- fiscally irresponsible. i do not think he is conservative it. i just want to know -- did you say he is going to still be there or not? guest: he has not said if he was going to step down. at the conference, 80% of the governors elect that were at a private meeting -- i think there

were about 26 of them down there said they would hope he would step down. they do not want him to remain as chairman. host: jerry is on our line. caller: thank you for c-span. i am an independent. i recently watched -- i don't understand the republicans at all. i think they never seem to support any type of program that helps the people. they seem to be -- their philosophy seems to be just against everything. they are still angry at obama for getting through health care. they will not help him at all. they are not doing their job. host: tell us a little bit about

rick snyder, the governor of your state. what are your thoughts about his election? caller: i just do't know. nobody knows him. we will have to give him a chance to see what he can do because his opposition who was a democrat -- nobody ever heard from him. the campaign here in michigan did not make any sense. host: apparently enough knew about rick snyder to elect him governor. caller: he had about a year advance over everybody else. he went through a primary and came out and everybody was wondering who is this guy? where did he come from? guest: i think rick snyder has a job ahead of him.

michigan is one of the hardest- hit states during this downturn. he is going to have a job on his hands. host: what was it that he talked about that he would do differently as the governor of michigan from the outgoing governor? guest: i did not follow that campaigned as closely as the others, but i think he rode the anti-obama waves that was going on. host: how significant was that in getting a lot of these new republican governors elected and getting the number of republican governors up to 29 out of 50? guest: it is not necessarily people are voting for republicans. they did not like what was going on and you were voting out to the incumbent, so i think it played a role in the races. host: do you think that has made

enough oan impression over these newly elected republican governors, that the people who are going to the polls are not necessarily voting in support of what they do but voting them out of office if they are dissatisfied? guest: that has been clear in some states where people have been elected. mark rubio gave a speech that said this is not a referendum for the republican party. this is giving us another opportunity, so is a better grasp of their opportunity or they may find themselves out of a job in a couple of years. host: san antonio, texas, on our line for democrats. caller: i have two questions, or two things to say. are they trying to create jobs for illegals or americans?

the people who pay taxes and have their children go to the military and protect this country? everywhere i go, they do not want to hire people from here anymore. what about the companies that left us when we are most needed them? all of a sudden, they turned on us? what about us? we need to know -- guest: i don't think any governor ran on creating jobs for illegal immigrants across the country. but they certainly hoped to create jobs and some of those could go to the legal immigrants depending on the state. host: this op ed --

who do say is going to be the first one out of the block? guest: i think haley barbour has been talking to people about it. so many others that have talked about it among the governors, those two seem to make a run at it. i think there are four out there that her being discussed or hinted at, but we will see. i think it will make a run or at least part a committee to look into it. host: you can read jamie weinstein's work at thedail ycaller.com. thank you for being on the "washington journal." we are going to take a short break. first, a look at this week's

news through the eyes of some of our political cartoonists.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me in. host: an article was written and the hill -- in the hill. what does president obama have to fear more?

republicans are disgruntled democrats? -- republicans or disgruntled democrats? guest: i think this country has a serious unemployment problem, and we need to find solutions that work. the public does not care whether the solutions come from the right to left. they cared whether they impact their lives in a meaningful way. the point i made in that article is that it is not a matter of being far left or far right. it is a matter of being effective. if he is affected, everybody will be happy. l. not, nobody will look prett host: recent polling, arguing there is little evidence that much of what president obama views as areas of compromise,

cutting the deficit and tax cuts, would appeal to independents who are fixated on jobs. he wants to move a free-trade deal with south korea even though many voters questioned the wisdom of free trade policies. guest: i think if you polled the country right now they would say that nasa has not been a good thing for the country. they have been responsible for sending their jobs overseas. the democrats did bad this year when they were campaigning on keeping a free-trade deals from happening. there were 211 ads, but the democrats saying they would support legislation. to cut a free-trade deal with korea i don't think is a popular program right now. st: it is not liberals that obama is having a clash with, it is a reality.

guest: i think that is pretty clear from the election. i don't think that is a contentious statement. host: where did the president sort of go astray as far as the progressives are concerned? how does the move back into a position where he is going to have their support moving into 2012? guest: you can talk about progresses and what to do to appease them but i think that is the wrong conversation to have it. i think progressives would be happy if the employment rose and if productivity rose, job creation, if the economy got better. you can only do that by pursuing the things you believe work. if you believe -- if you don't have any confidence they will succeed, i am not sure what you have accomplished. host: so in order to get with

the president wants done, if he has to make compromises, and then that is going to not be something that disturbs or upsets people on the guest:: i don't want to speak to everybody on the left. and i know they have taken a very hard line in the house, that it will only extend them for those making under $250,000 a year. i think that happens to be a recipe of making sure the republicans get them all. i would support extending the threshold to $1 million and putting unemployment insurance extensions instead. i think that is a practical thing to do. you can put the republicans in a position where you can say look do you want to hold out for people making over $1 million a

year? or do you want to help 2 million unemployed people? that is a good fight to have and that could potentially get through. i think that is a good compromise, but to do that, he needs to step up and explain to americans what the political situation is. host: we are talking about president obama and his relationship with progressives and those folks on the left. the founder of the blog is our guest. give us a call. the numbers are on your screen. you can also send us an electronic message by twitter or e-mail. the bigger concern is whether or not the president is going to

move to the middle as a result of the elections. is that a concern for you? or is it about getting done what is on his agenda? guest: he is recently making noise that he wants to continue the war in afghanistan. that has become unpopular for the majority of the country in recent polling. it is hard to justify spending money on an unjustified work with people unemployed here. we are talking about cutting social security. it is becoming a more and more tenable position. i am not sure that is a centrist position to do that. it is about what is best for the country. host: annie is on our line for republicans.

caller: any president can become popular by understanding to things that most conservatives understand. one, the very rich do not pay income tax. if they invest in things in it dividends that are attractive by promising no income tax, or they pay about 15%. two, they need to understand that if you increase taxes on businesses, which taxes affect businesses, and if you increase regulations, they will either increase the price of the services, which hurts the poor the most, they will cut people's employment, hours and wages, or they will send jobs overseas where there is no income-tax that they have to pay, or they will go out of

business. when they understand that and agree with republicans on jobs, and then they will be popular. guest: you are talking about trickle down economics which really has not worked. when the tax code is adjusted to put more money in the pockets of the wealthy, they don't actually spend it. the people that are most likely to spend it on the bottom of the economic ladder. a new study indicates that if you cut unemployment benefits, they don't extend them, they will actually cut a lot of money from the economy, i think about $1.60 for every dollar allocated. host: otis is on our line for independents. how are things in the prosperity of? caller: i have not had a problem

finding a job. host: what is your question or comment? caller: how does redistricting affect my vote as an individual? i also would like to say i agree -- the point she made earlier about taxes and helping -- actually soaking the bridge, they don't reinvest their money. they keep their money. raise gas prices, raised insurance prices, raise health- care. you had to spend money where you had to. that was my comment. i would like to first find out about the redistricting. guest: i am not entirely sure how it will affect you personally, but i do know there

will be redistricting done because of the fact that republicans took a lot of legislatures. it will probably mean republicans will gain 10 to 15 seats for the next election. depending on where you live and how they draw your district, that may impact you and it may not. host: the house democratic whip elected last week for the next congress is going to be or is our guest on our newsmakers program this week. he talked about the future of the democrats in the elections this month. let's take a look at what he had to say. >> when i saw the attitude, i was extremely disheartened by -- remember, some of them barely won. we have done the calculations.

255 in total. 1200 votes per year. it comes to less than 250,000 votes. just like a lot of people barely one, a lot of people barely lost, a lot of people will barely stay on the field. i guarantee you, if we speed up this recovery from 25 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour and we keep going in the private sector, we will have the wind at our backs two years from now, and i can tell you a lot of these people will be back. >> rematch city. >> absolutely. or rematch country. host: jane hampshire, do you

agree with the representative? is it going to be rematch city? guest: i absolutely think it will provide a lot of people lost their seats in the 2006- 2008 wave so i think a lot of democrats are looking to have a rematch. if the economy is good, things will be good for people in charge, and if the economy is not good, it will not look so pretty. the main goal should not be pursuing it a right or left policy. a should be pursuing -- it should be about pursuing the right policies. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i don't really know who jane is speaking for.

she is saying president obama needs to move to the metal. every time he moves to the middle, the tea party people and the republicans people do not act. i have never seen and the president and most this respective -- i have never seen a president disrespected so much. they don't even call him president obama. they just call him obama . i don't know who you are trying to help because you talk about president obama more than you help him. he is trying to help everybody. not just one set group of people. he had to do what he had to do to get health care. we can always go back to get the public auction. i cannot see how you support helping him. you never talk about all the

lies that fox news was telling. host: we are going to leave it there, mary. guest: the health-care bill was extraordinarily unpopular in this election and that was largely due to the fact that people -- the only evidence they sought in their own lives was getting a bill from the insurance companies saying their rates were going to be raised because of it. if it actually gotten help to the people who needed it is now, he would have had a powerful argument that no matter what the policy was, it actually brought help and relief. that did not happen. i believe that was a mistake in the crafting of the bill, and they paid for it this time. there was a lot of secrecy and lack of transparency. that causes mistrust on the part of the public. president obama campaigned against it but he knew the

danger of it when he was trying to seek office himself. i think there were problems, and i hope that going forward they will learn from those lessons and be more transparent and really focus on trying to bring jobs to the country and really show people that government can operate efficiently and make a difference in their lives. steve is on our line for independents. caller: a the problem with obama's campaign, he said he was going to do all of these things and fight for the people. now we are seeing him a compromise on those principles. who is out there fighting for us? no one right now. it is going to take all of those people to stand up and demand

this. people need to contact and lobby their representatives to do this. guest: i agree. as unemployment rises and people find themselves in more precarious economic conditions, they are going to be taking a more active role. we are already seeing it with the tea party on the right. they have stepped in and say they are going to vote them out. i may not agree with their philosophy of government, but to their credit, they did that. the more response of that government can be to the public 's expressed sentiments, the more successful they will be. i think we are seeing a problem right now with the tsa screeners. there is a tremendous outrage over the policies that have been adopted. these vary in evasive screeners

who do not work. you want the government to come in and say look let's make this better and changed this policy. did we need these screeners? why did we spend $25 million in stimulus funds on those screeners that created one job, when actually hiring people in treating them well to work in airports and spot terrorists is what the israelis do? the goal of the stimulus plan would have been the thing that worked in that situation. i think of like to see the president stepped forward and a lead in this particular situation. i think that is what people want right now. host: jane hampshire wrote and produced "natural born killers" among other films. he is a graduate of southern california's film school. how did you go from a film

background to a political blog and political writing? guest: i would say it was because of media cannot basically. i was interested in the way people communicate online, in the blog world. it stops media from being a one- way street. people could talk and interact with the people who were making political decisions or those that were creating the climate in which those decisions were being made. that really appealed to me. the more i got into it, the more i got excited about the possibilities. what if we did this or this? i just decided the that it was a more fulfilling place for me. host: the president has been criticized for not communicating his message what he is trying to

do and the successes that the administration has had. he has said as much. how does the president better get across his message of what is he is doing in the the successes that he and the administration have had? guest: with the tax cuts as an example, people want someone to be straight with them. they want someone who will say this is what i believe is the best thing for the country. this is what i believe is possible. this is what i am going to do. i ma lose but i am going to pursue what i think is right. instead, we are getting a lot of mixed messages from the president. they had a communication from the david axelrod when he came out. everybody in the media knew

about it. when that blew up, the president came out and said it in korea that is not what we were going to do. now he is in a situation where they have the house looking to the senate. the senate has a three-hour brawl basically this week. the president has taken the position of well we would like to have this but if we are forced to take something else, i do not want to go out on a limb and say anything. you are -- you wind up with a rudderless ship. coming out and being clear and being honest about where we are and where he stands i think is the best policy. host: roger sent us this e-mail and ask --

guest: idols see how anybody challenges the president -- and i don't see how anybody challenges the president from within the party. the power of the democratic party has been very secured by the president. when other candidates could arise within the party, i don't think that is where we are at right now. in terms of an independent race, it is hard to say. if mike bloomberg runs, we are already in a three-way race. i think it is going to be a situation where somebody has appended at the chessboard. i still do not know who that might be. host: christopher is on our line

for republicans. go ahead. caller: how are you? a high and very angry with obama -- i am very angry with obama. my thing is -- i loved him during the campaign. i thought he was practically a hero, like a malcolm x or martin luther king. lived up to anyt of his promises. if he failed on everything he did, but he tried as hard as he could, why would still love him. i had pictures of him upon my wall. he has not been giving in the effort i thought he would. guest: i think that here again

we are getting into the communication problem. president obama did promise a lot of things on the campaign trail. if people really did think he fought for their values, they probably would not feel as cynical or betrayed as they do at the moment. i think there is a problem however with people who look up to political figures as idols and expect them to deliver in a system that is not really set up for that. rather than explain the systemic problems keeping him from fulfilling his goals, -- i don't think he did an effective job of that. there are systemic problems in washington, d.c., and in our political system that made many of the things he promised in possible. but instead of fighting the fights he could and going

forward and saying this is the fight i am fighting, i cannot do this because this is happening over here and using the pulpit to explain those systemic problems to people, it lost a lot of support and made him seem compromised to people who thought he could deliver things he probably could not. host: daves sent us this e-mail -- guest: i disagree with you. i do get that. the president did a campaign on reversing the damages of nafta

and not entering into any more of those free trade agreements. that is why i question the wisdom of going to korea and attempting to execute this deal with the koreans. that is not what he campaigned on. it is not a liberal position because clearly there are conservatives who support it, too prison it is a broadly on popular sentiment disconnected from what the government feels that. if you are surrounded by people telling you it is a good idea and you are not collected -- connected with the public who don't agree with this, at the very least, you have to explain to them in a persuasive way why you are doing it and i don't think that happened. host: a lot was made out of the money spent in the 2010 campaign. in the washington post this morning, democrats plan to fight cash with cash. they write --

your thoughts about how much money was raised, where it is coming from, and what do you see as the future of cash in political campaigns. guest: boy, that is a hornet's nest to get into. karl rove was able to go out and raise tens of millions of dollars. i think he was going to raise $50 million to have independent expenditures. he spent a lot of time convincing rich people that the tea party candidates did not know how to run campaigns so he

should get the money instead. that very well may be true. but he spent the money on national tv advertising. what that meant is there was no money for field operations. i think he was trying to borrow $10 million to run field operations. they could not execute a field opations so they could not turn out the vote. meanwhile, karl rove put $6.5 million into michael bennett's race, which he lost. the second biggest aid he dumped money into was misery, i believe, which was a landslide -- was missouri, i believe, which was a landslide. i do not think that would be the most efficient use of political funds. i believe the republicans could have taken a lot more seats if

they had an efficient field officer. a lot of the races were very close this year. if they had actually done that, they may have taken 100 seats. so, thank host: back to the funds. brooklyn, n.y., on our line for democrats. caller: good morning to you both. i was wondering if you knew about the 99ers. they're talking about the 2 million newly unemployed. the statistics show is closer to six with four million who are long term. what about the people who have been out of benefits since march for april? hard to support them? guest: i am sorry this is happening to you and i think it

is deeply, deeply wrong that we're not trying to find a way to help people who have been chronically unemployed. it is criminal. this is not what a just society does. we have denigrated people who have been unemployed for a long time and treated them as if they do not want to be employed. we cannot and clue them in the unemployment statistics. we say they stopped looking for a job as if it is some choice to sit on the couch in poverty. the productivity they could be contributing to the economy is lost. they are losing skills over time that will start to affect their ability to ever be employed again over time. it is a terrible, terrible problem that politicians are facing when they should be facing this with courage,

compassion, and leadership. i wish that we would stop focusing on a deficit, and i understand the frustration and that the problem, but we needo put people to work. we need to find them good jobs. that, i think, must be the first goal of any politician, democratic or republican. host: if we are going to extend the unemployment insurance benefits, as we spoke about earlier, how would you go about paying for those without putting the country further behind and increasing the deficit? guest: i believe they are talking about, but is it, to $0.5 billion in order to increase -- $12.5 billion in order to extend unemployment insurance. you talk about extending bush tax cuts and not paying for them either? that is $4 trillion.

where are our values? and do we care about extended tax cuts for the wealthy saying these of the people who make over $1 million per year should have tax cuts? or are we saying that the people at the lowest end of the economic scale who would use that money and put it back into the economy and need this to live on, that is a drop in the bucket in comparison. i think we have our priorities mixed up here. we're going to apply them, let's go across the board. those tax cuts for the rich get paid for by extended the deficit, too. host: anthony in indianapolis for jane hamsher, the founder of firedoglake.com. caller: been morning. i am a conservative republican. i run the household around here. eight years ago with the bush,

obama is spending our national treasure on bills that go overseas. it does not matter if it is for war. they just spend money overseas. then they have the earmarks in the same bill where a little portion of money goes to the united states citizens. it does not matter who is in por, the other side will just call that a pork bill. the way i see it, all of the money going overseas is the "pork." and the poor people of the united states, they cannot even have on employment. they cannot have any help because we give all of our money to everybody overseas. i cannot, for the sake of me, figure out why anyone would give

all of their money and not to care of their own. host: anthony in indianapolis. guest: he identifies himself as a conservative and republican, and i do not think there is anything i disagree with. there is a breaking down as you see people who believe that the government is not operating in a way that benefits the people. it is operating in a way that benefits the big corporate donors and sponsors. brad miller, a democrat from north carolina, gave an interview to my blog yesterday saying that the number one priority of the treasury is it to protect the banks at all costs. this is not with the american public -- i do not care if you are right, left, or center -- this is not the american priority.

when that is the message coming through and you have a congressman in your own party saying so, you have a messaging problem and an actual problem. host: in "the washington post" this morning they have an article on michele backmann -- bachmann. is there someone on the progressive side that has the "kind of influence among democrats -- equal kind of influence like michele bachmann? guest: i do not think there is anyone on the them -- democratic side who has that kind of galvanability he has been a very vocal in dealing with the tsa. who writes for my block,

has a story about how he sent a letter to the tsa saying they have not done the studies necessary to make sure that these "porno screeners" were safe. they did not do a civil liberties impact assessment before putting them in the field. we are now in a situation where they are being very invasive to pregnant women, dangerous levels of radiation for breast cancer survivors, those at risk for cancer, the elderly, children, the handicapped. i think that he has shown courage that certainly no one in the senate on the homeland security committee has. there are people doing remarkable things, but it is being eclipsed by the news cycle. host: another eight minutes with jane hamsher. cleveland, ohio, on airline for

democrats. caller: good morning. i have waited all day to call you. i retired last year. i worked 39 years. i paid it -- into an employment benefits the whole time. there'd been people who worked 20, 30 years. decondition of republican governors and the republican party. i think obama is weak in the way he handles his agenda. he could do this stronger. the republican party sticks together when they go against obama. we need to support our

constituents within the democratic party. we may be able to get more things done. when we try to get things passed, the democratic party is in one single file. host: did you vote for the president in 2008? caller: yes. i campaigned for obama. i made phone calls and went out to solicit to get him elected. host: will you campaign for him again in the 2000 well? caller: yes, i will. i think he is kind of week, but the genesis -- host: we will leave it there. jane hamsher burdocks -- jane hampshire? guest: i would like to see him

stand up for unemployment benefits and i think the party would stand behind and on that. host: redmond, ore.. good morning and welcome to the program. caller: good morning, sir, and good morning ms. hampshire. it is amazing to me how short our memories are. if we look back at what happened when ronald reagan came in, if those policies were so wrong, why did we have 8% growth? to ignore the deficit is really going to be our peril. we can pay. the republicans want to support this. the stimulus still has not all been spent. the democrats refuse to pay for it. we have stimulus money just sitting in the white house for

god knows how long. the way that this government has been run, that is a fact. you cannot vote for half of the country and beat the other half silly. guest: ronald reagan enacted enormous tax cuts and found that he needed to scale them back in order to be able to close the deficit which is what the president is advocating to do now. if we are talking about short memories and you use ronald reagan as an example, than in this particular situation you would be doing when you do not want to do. host: why does the obama administration years when you call "hippie punching"? guest: i do not know. it does not seem to be a particularly popular thing to do. they did not do populism well.

obama comes out to explain things in technocratic terms. he has a habit of going to fund- raisers in gated communities at $30,000 per plate. he talks about how the professional left are being unreasonable. i am not sure what they think they are accomplishing, but it seems to have stopped. robert gibbs is giving to your press conferences these days. host:what is "hippie punching"? guest: the comments about the professional life and being this respective -- not respecting your party.

to end the wars, fight for health care. these are things the base cares about. when your cavalier of those and you dismiss them, it does not seem like it is the absolute smartest thing to do. host: louisiana on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal." caller: i want to let this lady know about the reality of government subsidies. after katrina, outside of batterers reset up 500 -- baton rouge we set up 500 fema trailers. one -- not one would take a job. liberal ideology causes that. he wants to cut social security

and defense. the conservatives do not want to cut anything. those are the only things we do not want to cut. let's cut food stamps. let's cut government housing. give the people in reason to live. give them a reason to get a job. it is the liberal ideology that causes these rules of engagement. we do not have a problem with japan. let's get real. host: we will leave it there. guest: i disagree that americans do not want jobs. we have people calling in today that have been chronically unemployed that would love to have jobs. i do not agree with you because of one anecdote that it is not true. when you talk about cutting things like put stamps -- food stamps, that is one of the most efficient way to stimulate the economy. the poor people spend that money right away. it would be disastrous,

according to a republican economist right now. that is when people start putting ideology in front of pragmatism. that is when we get in trouble. that is not a pragmatic solution to our economic woes. you may believe that it is, but it has bad incentives for people, but right now is keeping people alive and it is good economics. host: our last call comes from new york, marie, on our line for independents. marie? go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a comment. under clinton, the tax rates worked out just fine for rich people and there were jobs created. to the caller for, a lot of working people get food stam. if we'v are a party of the famiy

values, people have lost their jobs and need those benefits. my main problem with the democrats to why i am an independent, and is the do not stick together. they did not have a backbone to argue. people vote against their own interests. the previous caller, i do not understand where the message is or anything about how republicans can get out on their high horse and say we need these taxes for rich people yet they did not speak a word about extending unemployment benefits. they obstruct and obstruct and get rewarded for it in this last election. there is a problem somewhere with the democrats either not sticking together, their message is wrong, and basically that is what i wanted to say. i cannot align myself with the party as long as people did not stand up for what they believe in. guest: i think that was very well said. i wholeheartedly endorse every

comment that you made. you know, people do want to see someone stand up and fight for what they believe in. if that is why you are the president, in the senate, in the house, why you ran for office, you believe and hope that the things you said when you campaigner the best solutions for our problems. you are not just giving talking points for polling numbers. people want leadership. fight for what you believe in. but that, i think, is something that the parties need to do. they need to not be afraid and go out and say, "this is what we think will work," even if it is unpopular. if you go out and it does not work, you have not really gained anything. host: if you want to read which she believes in, you can go to her website, firedoglake.com, and take a look at what she and others are writing about.

jane hamser, thank you for being on "washington journal. in a few minutes we will talk about you'd save the registration -- food safety legislation. you are watching "washington journal." >> along with coverage of the miami book fair, watch "afterwards" tonight with mit professor emeritus john dower talking about the attack of pearl harbor. "culture of war" was a national

book finalist this year. get the entire schedule on line at booktv.com. >> in taxes, women still are not able to receive abortions from licensed doctors because doctors fear that they will be prosecuted under the statute. >> this week, part two of our roe v. wade, argued in 1972 and still considered one of the most controversial decisions. listen to a at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio, nationwide on xm 132 and online at cspanradio.com. tune in as an "american history tv" offers a daylong symposium prominent historians getting a new perspective on the domestic impact of the civil war. coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern, telling the american story every weekend only on c-

span3. "washington journal" continues. host: sandra eskin is the project director at the q charitable trust and is here to talk about food safety legislation. they voted to end the food safety bill but left the final vote until after the thanksgiving break. tell us about the bill and by the senate was not able to pass it before thanksgiving. guest: the bill would signal the biggest change in the way the fda insures the safety of the food supply. the law, which has not been changed since 1938, would shift focus and not simply be concerned with going after companies that have put adulterated, contaminated products in the market, but it will try to prevent them from doing it in the first place.

that is the main focus of the bill. in terms of the timing, we have had a very big agenda in this congress and, unfortunately, the food safety bill, a bipartisan bill supported by a wide group, has been pushed to the bottom of the pile when we have had other priorities like health care legislation, financial-services reform. and unfortunately had to wait in line. host: let's take a look at some of the key issues. the first is giving the fda mandatory recall authority. tell us how this differs from the way the fda operates right now. guest: people do not realize the fda can require a food company to recall a product. it can only ask them to voluntarily. there has always been a concern that, perhaps, not while many companies have refused, but

there are instances, it takes to much time to get food off of the grocery store shelves. that is the main focus here on mandatory recall authority. it is the last line of defense when there is a food problem or contaminated food. it has not been prevented. it is out there. people need to know that as soon as possible. host: the bill requires more frequent inspections? guest: that is true. people are shocked to learn that on average, and this is the fda's statistics, they are able to inspect a food-processing plant on average once every 10 years. the bill contains a mandatory minimum inspection frequency based on the risk of the product being produced. host: once every 10 years because the fda does not have enough people to get around every 10 years?

or do they think that is all they need to do is to drop by once a decade to think -- to see how things are going? guest: i think it is the former. they have not had the resources that they need. the number of companies that produce food grows continuously, both domestically and internationally. that is different in terms of inspection, but so many things have changed including the number of facilities making food that the fda just has not had the resources. we have given the resources they have to focus in other areas of food safety, protection, besides inspection. host: another highlight of the bill is requiring new prevention plans and record keeping. guest: right. this would shift the focus. the way that would work is that it specifically would require

food facilities, the processors, to look at their operations and identify where there may be contamination problems, to take steps to try to eliminate or minimize those problems and monitor that. fda and their inspectors will be doing oversight over that process and they will be able to hold companies accountable not just that they put contaminated food out into supermarkets but if they have not follow the steps necessary to try and prevent and minimize this kind of contamination. host: finally it adds new rules for food importers. guest: it would set up a system that would require, in some instances, other countries and in some instances third-party accredited bodies to look at the food safety systems the other

countries have and to make a determination if the standards are more or less the same. we have no such system right now. the only real protection we have in terms of food imports is border inspection and right now the fda says they can only inspect -- the fda and customs -- only inspect 1% of the food coming into this country. host: we are talking about food safety legislaon with the sarah eskin of the pew charitable trust. if you would like to get involved in the conversation, give us a call. you can also send us an e-mail or tweet. there was an article in this morning's talks "the neyork

times," called "how safe is that she's -- cheese"? a farmer and award making cheesemaker in the bend of the wynoochee river --

her family creamy after they found -- how is the oversight of small operations like this cheese producer will be affected by this new fda regulation if it is passed and signed into law by the president? guest: i want to _ but you just read in the that the cheese produced at this operation, they found cheese that had deadly listeria bacteria. half of the people that get

sick from that bacteria die. in this instance the government should not have to wait until people get really sick, or in this case, died before taking action. second, the legislation in its current form as it will be voted on in the senate on november 29th includes provisions aimed at helping small farms, small processors and there are a number of provisions. one in particular as far as facilities that process food like this cheese factory have the option for opting for modified requirements. we mentioned the food safety plans. they can be required to develop food safety plans. there is a concern that will be onerous in terms of paperwork

and cost. there will be a long process of rulemaking to try and address some of these issues. host: that was the amendment sponsored by john tester? guest: yes. it would require a process like this one, as long as they are in a certain distance of their customers, in this case it would be a 275 mile radius, they have an option of using more streamlined, less burdensome requirements in terms of food safety in meeting these requirements. the goal is to find the right balance between helping small businesses who are not a burden, balancing that with public health. it is a very delicate balance and there are many people who have concerns that this provision will have serious public health implications. like every piece of legislation,

i think we are dealing with lots of different interests. we are confident there are other protections in there that still allow the fda to take action when there is a serious problem. host: linda from claremont, fla., is our first call for sandra eskin. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i am a very outset american at the fact that we are being experimented on like a guinea pigs by our food producers. i would like to know who and what are the people who stopped the bleeding -- labeling of genetically modified food and cloned meat. we do not know when we are eating. as an american, i want to know who is doing that. thank you. guest: thank you for your

question. the sheet you modified, genetically modified food -- the issue you mentioned, modified its genetically food, the senate food safety bill does not address those issues, but you raise very important questions. and what situation should the government be taking action to prevent some threats? at the same time, if there is no clear need to prevent or ban certain products, when do consumers have the right to find out how these foods are made and not just what is in it? that is ongoing debate. in some instances, it is with the government requires. in some instances, the company can and cannot say. it is an important question that

we will continue to debate going forward. host: on our republican from birmingham, alabama. you are on with sandra eskin. caller: my father is retired. he has a large garden and he grows okra, squash, and takes it out to the local farmers' market. i have heard this bill will affect people who do that. guest: thank you for your question. as was just mentioned, there is language in the bill voted on by the senate that would likely exempt your father from some of the regulatory requirements of this legislation. i'm want to make clear, and this is important, the legislation does not affect any one who has a backyard garden who produces their own vegetables. they do not sell them to others. that is not effective at all.

however, someone like your father who does produce fruits and vegetables for the farmer's market will likely be exempted provided he meets the other criteria. host: what are some of the other criteria if they will get a break on these safety requirements? how then does the fda and shore -- ensure that what this woman's father is producing and selling is still safe? guest: farmers, growers, producers, food manufacturers of a certain size, there is a 275- mile radius that is registered from the place the food is processed to where it is selling. it has to be within a radius.

you also need to have a more or less $500,000 per year or less for the monetary value of your annual sales. that is in other criteria to apply to you to take advantage of it. i want to make clear though if you are a farmer or processor and the take advantage of the regulation, you still need to make sure that your food it does not contain, as best you can, contamination. the fda will still have the authority if a problem happens that they can take action to protect consumers. they're still the overall, underlying authority to make sure that producers and processors produce a safed product. -- a safe product. there is still protection. host: arizona on our line for independents, you are line with

sandra eskin, the food safety campaign partner and director. caller: good morning. how do consumers go about getting their money back for these products that are put out on to the market? one thing that i can recall is i had a dog that really got sick and we had to take her to the that -- to the vet. two weeks later, i find the dog food she was eating have been recalled. how do you go about getting your money back just like during leave -- during the egg recall. i paid for them. someone is responsible, you know? but who? guest: in most cases, the best thing a consumer can do when you

learn that a product you have purchased is subject to a recall, take a back to the store where you bought it and ask for your money back. if you have already eaten the food or turn it out, that will be harder, but if you have your receipts, go back and ask for a refund. unfortunately, many pet owners of were in the same situation that you were in dealing with very sick animals when there was tainted dog food. in that instance, i would contact the manufacturer and tell them your dog ate the food. here is my veterinarian bill, and i think you have every right to ask for money to cover those costs. generally, if you learn your food is subject to recall, the back to the store you bought it and ask for your money back.

host: "schools cannot buy local vegetables or grow their own. they use what he calls "crap from a can." is there anything in this bill that encourages institutions like hospitals, schools, whenever -- whatever, to purchase food that is grown locally, produced locally as opposed to getting more processed foods? guest: this legislation is focused only on setting up authorities, safety, standards, enforcement tools for the fda to try and prevent a suit -- food safety problems. the issue of greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables in lunchtime at schools is an

important issue. the pew charitable trust and other groups are working hard to increase access and improve quality of school foods. we share your goals of allowing those foods to be a part of school meals. a lot of that work is being done with the u.s. department of agriculture. the department of agriculture is responsible for the food served in schools and setting the nutritional standards. our organization and many others are working hard to make sure that the quality of food, as well as the safety of the food, rved in schools is as high as it can be. host: producing food for profit necessitates absolute safety and cleanliness. this does not affect the bottom line. your thoughts? guest: we want to make sure that

the concept of food safety is not a marketing tool. i agree with the last questioner that food safety should be a given. it is in the interest of every food producer to produce safe food. when annie food producer does not -- when a food producer does not, be it spinach, peanut butter, subject to a recall or an outbreak, producers are harmed across the board. it is bad business in terms of the bottom line for food companies not to do everything they can to make sure that the food is safe. host: this legislation deals not only with food but the containers they come in. this is an amendment that was it written by senator feinstein

banning the use of the bpa's. guest: this is a chemical widely found in our society used in many, many plastic products and used to line cans. senator feinstein has been pushing for an amendment that would ban the use of what is called bpa, specifically in products used by children. it is controversial because there are many senators who do not approve of this approach and has said that they will block the bill if that amendment on bpa was included. unfortunately, for those who support senator feinstein's position, she announced this week because they were unable to come to an agreement acceptable to all sides, that she would

reluctantly withdraw her amendment. the bpa amendment will not be included in the bill voted on november 29th. hopefully for those people concerned about bpa, there'll be another opportunity in this congress or hopefully next year to address this at the congressional level. the fda is re-examining the science supporting the concerns about bpa. hopefully it the senate does not address the issue the fda will take action sometime in the near future to address this issue. host: the senators who said they would not support the feinstein amendment, where they questioning the science related to the studies of bpa? is that produced in their state? why would they not vote for that? guest: there is a ranger of

reasons why the senators may have been reluctant to support this amendment. one is perhaps a question about the science. some believe the fda should be allowed to continue what they're doing right now which is going through the scientific evidence. i am sure that some of this are concerns that are reflected by some of the businesses in their state. i cannot really say which senators are concerned for which reasons, but there was enough of a concern that it just could not go forward on this bill. again, our position is that we do not want to see any amendment, and we continue to oppose amendments, that would either -- essentially prevent the bill from coming to the floor. there are a lot of issues that can be addressed and some of them are controversial. we would like them to have an opportunity to be heard and considered, but it is absolutely

critical that this did save the legislation in the past when they come back. that is the only way we can ensure that it will be signed by the president after it is voted on by the house. host: on our line for democrats from connecticut. thank you for holding. you are on with sandra eskin of the pew charitable trust. caller: thank you for your c- span -- your efforts, c-span. we do not buy any products from another country. my wife and i do not buy products from another country. when there is a recall on products made in the united states, we switch brands immediately. the companies that produce these products that are causing these issues, they are only hurting themselves. again, i applaud you for your overall efforts. guest: thank you very much.

when consumers have the information they need on the source of the product, they are better informed consumers and they are able to exercise their rights to choose what they want to read. the caller mentioned that he and his wife do not buy any products that are produced abroad. unfounately in our current situation, people do not know if ingredients in the products they buy were purchased abroad or produced abroad and purchased by domestic companies. there are countless spices, for example, that were put in the processed products that have been imported from china. there was an example in number of years ago and in which a popular snack food was linked to a salmonella outbreak. it was discovered that it was in the spices that were

manufactured abroad that was the source of the contamination. this legislation, ai mentioned, will give the fda more direction and provide a process and approach to dealing with the safety of products both individual products and ingredients that are imported into this country. host: put the border, fla., for independent-- orlando, florida. go ahead, otis. caller: i find this bill that you were trying to promote to be probably the most dangerous bill that we will face. i strongly suggest it be voted down. the reasons i will give our, you say this is about food safety

yet there is nothing in there about the labeling of genetically modified foods. there is nothing in there about cloning. right now, if the legislation is written so broadly, -- you were also disingenuous about the production of the food and the number of places producing them. the little farms, those are the ones this bill would stop. we have, in actuality, four major producers of food right out in this country. just four. we now have swat teams rating organic food source -- raiding organic food stores. they are raiding the amish farmers for milk.

they are drawing guns on small producers of food. this bill will do nothing but give those goons more power. host: we will leave it there. guest: obviously, we all want to make sure the food we eat is safe and that we have access to food that is produced by local processors, small companies. there is no question about that. i would direct the caller to the language of the legislation. i want to make a note, again, that there is an amendment offered by senator tester that would make sure that small farms and small processors are not unduly burdened by any of the requirements in the bill. unfortunately, and the bill cannot address everything. i am understand there is a great

concern among people in this country about genetically modified foods, about cloning. i share some of those concerns, but one piece of legislation cannot handle everything two quick points, there is specific language in the legislation that says the government cannot add any standards or requirements that conflict with organic foods. that is important to know. this will not ban raw milk. this is a controversial issue and it is handled at the state level. i understand there are concerns, but there is also misinformation about what this bill does and does not do. i want to encourage everyone to find out what exactly is in the bill. if the bill is passed, i want to

encourage you to get involved in the process of rulemaking. there is a lot of things the fda has to do in the next few years. there is always an opportunity to weigh in. host: have you ever heard of a milk farm in homage country to be greeted with guns drawn -- amish country? guest:no, i cannot. pew did a series of discussions around the country with farmers all over from upstate new york, georgia, the midwest, the california. the session that was here in the washington, d.c., area was widely attendant -- attended by amish and menonite farmers. they do a lot of the things the bill would require producers to be done. i am not aware, nor have i seen

it, any reports of guns being drawn and farms and stores being raided. host: our next caller's from mount clemens, michigan. go ahead. caller: first of all, i thank god that you are trying to look at the food. i watched the program where they had mice in hot dog farms. they opened up a can of string beans and there was a rat's head in it. i watched another program which said flour we use that the government cannot control food products with rats, mice, bugs. i do not know if this is connected or not, but the same

thing is happening to the old people for getting stuff. the reason i probably feel like of this is because a lot of this is going on in the detroit area and it is owned by arabs or whenever and those other people are. guest: we are very lucky that the type of incidents that the caller was mentioning are relatively few. by and large, the processors and growers in this country work hard to make sure their food is safe. incidents of contamination, be it a bacteria, chemical, or in this instance animals, we have to make sure the government has

the authority to try and prevent that and take action when there is a problem. unfortunately, these incidents happen. they also happen at restaurants. there are few and far between. we should do a better j of minimizing them, but again hopefully that continues to happen. the other point the caller razors -- raises, we want to encourage the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables from the country not only in roadside stands, farmers markets, but also larger retailers that are providing a lot of fresh fruit like wal-mart. what is happening unfortunately is that we have created what is called urban desert where we do not have access to fresh foods for people who live in inner cities. this bill does not address that issue, but it is certainly an

important issue. the first lady has identified this as an important issue. more needs to be done to velop policies that would increase availability to encourage processors and producers to provide fresh fruit of of the country including in urban areas. host: punta gorda, florida. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for looking into our safety. my concern is, and i wonder if this is included in the bill, the fact that when i grew sri stopping -- when i go grocery shopping and they have all the nice fresh vegetables laying out and then the package ones that are wrapped in saran wrap and styrofoam. they look all beautiful. you get them home and the top

half is beautiful and underneath it is all moldy. i do not buy packaged "fresh vegetables" anymore because of that. is there anything in the bill that will prevent the grocery stores from selling produce this way? guest: the legislation, broadly speaking, tries to prevent product contamination, conditions, or anything to encourage contamination. it does not exactly prohibit, for example, that kind of packaging for fresh fruits and vegetables. there will be a requirement that food production and distribution trains every person, every entity involved to take steps to try and prevent

contamination. in that situation, perhaps what happens is it was packaged and transported and it was not kept refrigerated or there was something wrong with the packaging that allowed the mold or problems to happen. again, it does broadly address prevention and to the degree of what have mentioned has an impact. vegetables and food that look rotted may in fact not be contaminated, but there is still one obligation to make sure that the producer, the holder, the packer, the transporter does when they can do to minimize the problem. host: we have an e-mail from chris in new haven, connecticut.

your thoughts on this? guest: what happens in washington in this context, in terms of legislation, is we have two steps. the first step is our bill which is called an authorizing bill that sets of standards and requirements. the second process is the appropriations process which is to provide funding for the new requirements. hopefully after we pass this legislation our coalition of consumer groups, public health groups, victims of food borne illnesses have worked hard to get this legislation where it is. once hopefully it is passed, you will have to get involved in the funding process in

appropriations. given the climate, there is a lot of pressure to keep spending down, to address the deficits, not to have government over- regulate, but people across this country, regardless of their party persuasion, believe that there are essential functions that government must do. we now have to defend us from foreign enemies, but overwhelmingly, and we have done polling on this issue, people want governments to ensure safety in the food supply especially when you are dealing with things like bacteria which we cannot see, taste, or touch. you do not know if your food is contaminated. there are certain essential functions provided that food is safe, drugs are safe, other products where we cannot protect ourselves is one essential function of government. host: if you want more

informations about the food safety campaign project, you can go to their website, pewtrust.org. here is the last call from champaign, ill., for independents. caller: yes, i just looked at their website. it is a $1 billion and down trust. where there is money, there is power. if anyone saw the academy award nominated "food, inc." we understand the vast power the global food industry has. i am involved with my local food co-op that this may have detrimental effects to local farmers and local food artisans. that film changed my life.

in fact, i wonder if the woman could answer this question. since the majority of deaths and illnesses have been called in late -- caused by the global food controlled supply, why is it this focusing on smaller production? this is the united states of america and we are down for food production. i can barely buy soy nuts that are not imported from china. why this focus? why now? guest: the requirements in the legislation would apply across the board to big and small entities, growers who are organic, conventional. the bottom line is to it should be safe no matter the source. "food, inc." is