davenport on new epa rules on a greenhouse gas emissions. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal" this thursday, january 6, 2011. the president meets with his advisers, the vice-president and treasury secretary timothy geithner to reshape his team. over on capitol hill, day two of the 112th congress, and today a reading of the u.s. constitution. virginia congressman bob good lap will lead the life reading on the floor. -- bob goodlatte. how do you view the

constitution? a living document or do you follow the original intent, believing the founding fathers laid out what is needed. we have special phone lines set up -- you can also find us on email and we are on twitter. you can send us tweets that we will read on the air. this brief piece from "the washington post." representative robert goodlatte who proposed this -- expected to begin at 11:00 a.m. this morning.

there is a piece in "the wall street journal," and editorial talking about is reading, sort of a tongue-in-cheek peace pretty much praising the reading but looking at it from the perspective of why people might be criticizing its.

our question for the it -- for you this morning is how you view the constitution. let's go to keith who subscribes to the living document philosophy. tell us how you view the constitution. caller: i believe the constitution should be a living document just based on the fact that you have new innovations, things like technology. not just technology but other things as well. things change, and you have to have laws that meet those changes. host: let us hear from another keith, this time in myrtle beach, south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. host: how do you interpret the constitution? caller: exactly what it says. the founding fathers created it to be what it is. they did not say we are going to create this document for just this era. they said this is what it means and what our country is based

upon and that it should be what it is. i often get confused when i hear certain, like, congress people talk about defending the constitution and yet they pass all of these laws that a totally against the constitution. host: can you name some, keith? caller: for instance, certain government programs -- that is not what our -- we are a free people. we should not be a hearing -- adhering to the utopia that the government owes us anything. let us continue reading this piece.

that is "the wall street journal" defending the reading and also taking a conservative view of the constitutional reading. let us go to new york, new york. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. you know, the creators of the competition could not possibly have imagined where we would get to all these hundreds of years later. so, you have to look at it as a living document. and i think that it is really grossly misinterpreted and mishandled. for example, two quick points, with health insurance and immigration. health insurance, this reform that the tea party and the republicans, now they want to rescind -- item sorry, the entire health care legislation, is preposterous.

what has to be done, of course, is to go forward and make the health insurance situation improve upon it, and not rescind it. a i am not going to get to my immigration. but chris matthews said something very interesting. how can the government tell private companies who they can sell insurance to? basically making the case for a single payer buy in to the medicare option. host: let's look at the comment on twitter. let's look at a clip from the supreme court justices breyer and scalia speaking at american university. >> i regard the constitution as having set the floor to american society.

that for says nothing about abortion. it is not of it -- the job of the constitution to change things by judicial decree. change is brought about by democracy. abortion has been prohibited. you want to change that? american society thinks that is a terrible result -- fine, persuade each other about that, past a lot and prohibit -- eliminate the laws against abortion. i have no problem with change. it is just that i did not regard the constitution as being the instrument of change. >> if in fact you give judges too many open ended procedures, rules, practices, what you will discover is a man, a woman, who suddenly has this power, for better or for worse -- may be unconsciously, maybe not even wanting to -- will substitute her judgment, his judgment, for

the judgment of the legislature. that is wrong in a democracy. everyone recognizes that that is a problem. but there is a divergence as to how much we can do about it. some say that the price of trying to cabin that with very strict procedures, legal rules, and processes, is not worth the candle. you can control, but the law will become too divorced from life. host: justice breyer speaking at american university talking about the constitution as a living document. but for him, justice scalia talking about interpretation as our original intent. we have a comment on twitter. fred rightsw fredrites -- let's go to towson, oklahoma --

tulson, oklahoma. caller: i think we don't have to look at the problems -- when you have supreme court justices who insist on calling our system a democracy when in fact we are not a democracy, we are a republic. what i would say is our foundations are clearly, clearly easily found in our libraries of congress. the founders took elaborate notes. it is obviously clear to look and say what their intents were, and from there it is certainly a living document. it can't be sated -- stated that it is one or the other. but to say it is a living document, does not cut the legs out from under the fact that it has a well established roots and those intents of the founder

should be followed. host: alfredo from albuquerque, new mexico. caller: it is like living the life, with the life was created. our life was created how? trying to make the good, but not actually making our water, our soil, our air, oxygen -- there is a bad deed and a good deed. good people and bad people -- there are certain people -- so we were -- what is our purpose

here? host: let's go to donald from michigan. our question is how do you view the constitution, donald? caller: reconstitution has to be a living, changeable document -- in the constitution. the people who wrote the constitution were all white men of property. if you say the constitution halfs to be followed as to the way it will -- has to be follow the way it was written, women could not vote, blacks would be enslaved. you have to have a changing constitution as times go on. you don't want to live back in those centuries back then. we've glorified of those people thinking they are just like we are, and they weren't. they were only people, males with proper id. host: let's look at something that is in "the washington

post." a quiz test your knowledge of the constitution. you can find on the website. who was called the father of the constitution? and which amendment gives a 18 year olds the right to vote for president? some of our callers can take a stab. florida, good morning. caller: i wanted to share with you a conversation that my grown son jimmy and i had in the car yesterday. he felt that it was too bad that we could bring back to george washington and the benjamin franklin and some of the men of old that could speak for themselves in their own words as how they interpret the constitution. that it was living and a real proclamation of what we stood for. it doesn't change. in the bible does not change.

that interpretation and people who want to change it into something that is totally against the or original intent. it is not exactly where america needs to go we don't need to grow into a socialist country or into a whole different government. it was built on something that was so precious and god-given that it is something we need to stand for and believed in. host: what do you think about the amendment process? had that been successful and growing the constitution? caller: i think there are a lot of things that really we need to pray about and just hold to the of original intent and stick with that. that is all i can say. i am very upset because i feel like america has been on a tremendous change that was not ever meant to be, and it breaks

my heart, whether it is in the court system or in the schools. there are a lot of things that we've neglected to honor god. host: let us look at some of the major newspapers. what washington is reading. images from yesterday's start of the 112th congress. this picture from "the new york times." the new house speaker john boehner took the reins from nancy pelosi on wednesday. let us look at some other papers, how they are interpreting that. this is from "the wall street journal." in comes the republicans and out comes john boehner's handkerchief. many montages and images of yesterday -- pictures of family,

families and friends of representative dan quayle, republican of arizona, making their way through the capital. the capital had so many relatives and friends to witness the swearing-in. pacifica, california. good morning. caller: i would just like to say that obviously it is a living document, that is why the amendment process is part of the constitution. so that changes can be allowed for. i am not quite sure what people mean when they say that it is not a living document because it has changed and will continue to change. host: some people who subscribe to the idea of our original intent say, yes, amendments are a way to grow the constitution with time but otherwise it should not be interpreted by judges, interpreted by the

legislatures. what do you think about that? caller: they are not sticking to what the constitution says because the constitution says that those things shall be considered by judges and that legislate wars shall legislate -- legislators shall legislate. it really does not make sense. if you are talking about the constitution -- which i guess they are going to read today -- you will find that there are built into the constitution allowances for change. and all of this other stuff is really to me nonsensical. host: let us take a look at a common from twitter -- comment from twitter. atlanta, georgia. james joins us. caller: good morning. host: how do you view the constitution? caller: my background, but once

noble trade of building and construction. host: james, i think we lost you on a bad phone connection. we have to move on to michigan. sorry about that. randy. caller: i look at it as a living document and my reason for that is i am on the school board and we have no one alive to tell us what the original intent was. we did have a challenge of one of the things we did on the board that was through the contract, and we had to bring back the original negotiator to let us know and tell us what the intent was on the article that was being discussed. you had to do that to follow the contract and stay within the law. you almost have to look at this as a living document because you have no one alive today to tell you what the intent was at the

time of the signing and negotiations. that is the way i look at it and i thank you very much for your time and have a pleasant day. host: let's look at "the washington post" lead story. changing of the gavel. striking a tone at humility at swearing-in, the republicans said, it is still just made. -- me. and thes this gavel sacred trust that goes with it to the new speaker. god bless you, speaker boehner. [cheers and applause]

god bless you, congress, and god bless america. [cheers and applause] our question is how you view the constitution. we have a full set up. -- phone lines set up. let's take a moment and talk about some of the changes going on at the white house. mark joins us from "national journal." white house correspondent. thank you for joining us. talk about the big thing that happened, press secretary robert gibbs saying he is on the way out.

guest: somewhat expected, although a bit earlier than we had hot -- had thought. robert gibbs is probably the white house aide who knows the president's mind the best and most ferocious and publicly protecting his brand and his image and really has been that way for the past, well, more than six years now since he has known obama. so, the loss of day-to-day contact between gibbs and obama is going to be very interesting. although i expect that he will still play a very significant role in determining the course of a virtually everything the president does. host: in reporting yesterday you call begins -- called him one the most influential press aide in modern history. host: has the president complete

trust from the very beginning. and help -- as giibs himself said yesterday, there is very little that happens that he did not know. several press secretaries like to be kept out of the loop so that they don't have to stand on the podium and tell reporters that they don't know. gibbs was the opposite. he liked to be kept in the loop. obama was happy to keep him in the loop. in fact, he was one of those who created the loop. which meant that the frequently from the podium what you heard from gibbs was, well, i would get back to you on that, or i have nothing to say on that. gibbs was a press secretary who pretty much knew everything that happened in the white house. and therefore the challenge for him was figuring out how much to

disclose and how much of it to keep to himself. that was very frustrating at times for the press corps because we knew that he knew quite a bit, given his access to the president and the trust the president placed in him and his role in making decisions above and beyond that of the president's. calledt a segment revolving door of the white house. do not host: you've got a segment called revolving door of the white house. talk to us about some of the other positions at play, including chief of staff. guest: the chief of staff position is expected to be filled probably by the end of this week, if not early next week. the two candidates are the interim chief of staff, a very private man who is beloved in side of the white house for his

informality and low-key style. and was president obama's chief of staff. and then william bailey, the former commerce secretary who visited the white house yesterday. who is seen as the type of cheap of staff the president would need over the next two months -- or two years, given the priorities he will face heading up to his reelection. potentially it is this -- the white house staff and president are being deferential to pete rouse, but in all likelihood, probably 90% charity, he will take a senior advisor position or go back to it senior advisor position. the president probably either today or early tomorrow will formally offered mr. daly the

position of chief of staff, and he will accept, and a formal announcement will be made friday or monday. again, the change -- and if you subscribe to the metaphor that form follows function, the change here is meant to prepare obama for the challenges of the next two years. there are a variety of reasons why william daley is it inappropriate chief of staff, at least in the mind of obama and his advisers. host: we will also hear about the council of economic advisers. is friday still the day that we will hear more about that lineup and how significant is that? guest: friday is traditionally the day employment figures are released, and usually the white house does not have -- not necessarily the best news day for the white house given how anemic the job gains have been

over the past couple of months. but this friday the white house plans a rollout potentially of his new economic team. we will see the head of the national economic council under president clinton reprise that role for president obama. his deputy will also be announced. as well as several other deputies for key positions in the economic team throughout the government. a we will -- we will also see a new member of the council of economic advisers announced and a deputy for the office of management and budget. essentially the president will appear at a manufacturing facility in landover, maryland, with his new team on the day some job numbers are released, to say this is a team that is in place that will help us create jobs over the next two years. that is the picture he wants. that is the message essentially he is going to try to get out tomorrow.

host: finally, you reported in "national journal" that as many as eight senior staff positions could open up in the next few weeks and he wants to get the team coalesced before the state of the union at the end of the month. guest: at the state of the union the president will begin to make the outline for the fiscal year 2012 budget. it will be significant because budget documents are political documents. this fight will percolate sometimes very intense, sometimes not so intense, throughout the entire year, the groundwork for the political environment heading up to the reelection. it is very important that the president's team is on board, working efficiently and effectively. host: thank you so much for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: my question for you is how

you view the constitution. let's get back to some of your comments. we will hear from jamie in raleigh, north carolina. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: what is your view? caller: i believe that we have to go with the original intent, mainly because of the foundation it said. -- it set. i know some of the listeners saying we did not know what they believed. the original founders, they left the journals, they left letters describing what they believed about the constitution. it does have the allow for amendments because things and times do change. but it does not change so that we go away from the original intent, which out -- is our foundation. just like a house. if you build a house with a good, strong foundation, and in

the rest of the building you put inferior products on there, that could fall but the foundation will still remain standing for you to build back onto it. host: would you like to take a stab testing your knowledge of the constitution? would you like to try testing and knowledge of the competition? we have something from "the washington post." itler: well, i don't know verbatim -- i know bits and pieces. i have listened to several things on the founding fathers. one thing i was listening to that a lot of information was a iece -- piece from coral ridge ministries who gave a great dvd -- and i would not advise anyone to figure out what our founding fathers believed in and what the constitution was all about to get back. host: i will throw this question

out and you can answer it and it's not we will move to something else. who was called the father of the competition? madison, monroe, jefferson, george washington. caller: i believe it was thomas jefferson. host: john, who you think was the founding father of the constitution? caller: yet met -- madison. host: you are correct. caller: james madison. from ohio, good morning. -- host: from ohio, good morning. caller: the caller before -- he said it correctly, a strong foundation of when the constitution was born. i believe we should keep that foundation and never lose track of it. of course, times change, so there are going to be changes. but the original constitution is our strong foundation and people can't forget that. host: what do you think about the act of reading the constitution on the house floor.

are you supportive of that? caller: -- host: i think we lost it. the next call. eric for west virginia. what do you think about the house reading the constitution? caller: i think there is only one party that truly believes in the constitution, the tea party. there are ways of changing the constitution, and then minutes. anything other than that is a violation -- ways of changing the constitution, amendments. anything other than that is a violation. it is being violated by the executive branch quite often. there was a guy calling and talking about the people who wrote the constitution were people of means who owns property. that is true. but also they were willing to forsake everything they owned, up to and including their lives, to write this document and make sure it is implemented and i am a firm believer that the

constitution is etched in stone. host: another interpretation from chris on twitter -- let's go to tallahassee, florida. james. good morning. caller: what was your question? host: how you view the constitution? caller: it is a document not and tinstone because it is devised so it can be changed as circumstances become new -- not etched in stone. it takes a very separate group of people to take on the task of redoing the whole constitution. i don't think the tea party is in doubt with any wisdom or even several brought or the academic training to take it on -- cerebral or academic

training. i would suggest that anyone who would have any normal intelligence would not undertake that task lightly. they are a very dangerous group of people. we can hope that their presence will be temporary. host: let's take a look at some other stories in the news today. politics on capitol hill. this from "the washington times." centrists likely to sway priority issues on the hill.

looking at who some of those centrist people might be, it talked about joe manchin of west virginia, a democrat who might switch allegiances depending on the issues. eyes will be on senator lisa murkowski of alaska, as well as others like the two senators from maine -- collins and snowe. chantilly, virginia, where we are joined by our caller. mauricio? what do you think about the constitution. caller: it is one of the best -- it is the best competition on the plan. unfortunately we are not using it. why are we not using it? it was intended to protect the liberties of the people. and to have a government that works for the people.

unfortunately nowadays, the government is not working for us. we are working for them at the end of the day really. paying taxes and everything. and everything is going up. if we read the constitution, if you guys read the constitution, it is for that, to protect you from the government, from a corrupt government. that is what it is for. that is why the founding fathers wrote the -- constitution, for protection for the people. host: let us look at a piece from "the washington post" in the politics and nation section. ruling on birthright citizenship. state lawmakers launching an effort to deny automatic citizenship to u.s. born tillage and of undocumented immigrants -- u.s.-born children of

undocumented immigrants. looking at one of the constitution's amendments and how it is pulling out right now. florida, where paul joins us. welcome. caller: how are you? listen, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out as far as how the constitute -- where the constitution is concerned. all countries have -- edicts,

whether totalitarian. our constitution and the up being the greatest constant -- country in the world, most powerful country. it is what makes this country great. just because liberal jerks' don't agree with one and and and or another that does not suit their purposes, want to declare the whole constitutional and void and say that it is no longer a good document because this is 2011. host: let us hear from gene will believes the constitution is a living document -- jean. caller: good morning, and i am a female. i believe it is a living document. the second amendment, the right to bear arms. this amendment was constructed because in the 1700's, people

live so far apart, they have little protection. there was no strong military. there was no law enforcement that they can see. we have that today. and each -- in each town and city. i believe this amendment has been exploited by the people like the tea party and most southerners. this amendment would not stand today of the founding fathers were alive. thank you. host: let's hear from darrell in michigan. as we do that, we have an image of the constitution. we can look at that second amendment. all right to bear arms is there. you can see other amendments. first and then it, the right to religion and expression. third amendment, ordering soldiers. four, search and seizure. fifth amendment, the right of persons. how you view the constitution? caller: i believe the constitution is a sacred text ordained by god to give us an

elite bowl -- inalienable rights. the fact is under discussion is appalling and i did not believe the american people are buying it. thank you and have a good day. host: north carolina, joan. she believes the competition is a living document. caller: hello? i can't believe i got through. host: welcome. caller: i have been trying for years. host: glad to hear your perspective. caller: i think some of the callers must never have been tuesday the jefferson memorial in washington, d.c. on one side, thomas jefferson in a letter in 1816 states, i am not an advocate of a frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and

institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change with change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. we might as well require a man to wear still the coat that fitted him as a boy for civilized society to remain ever under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors. i just -- the constitution has to change as a society and people change. i am sorry, i am so nervous. host: you did not sound nervous.

thank you for sharing your perspective. let's take a look at a comment from twitter. mike writes -- we have been talking a little bit this morning about this quiz in "the washington post" asking about your knowledge of the constitution. there is a sample of one of the questions. what are the first and constitution amendments called. peter in memphis, tennessee. caller: you are talking about the bill of rights. host: good answer. caller: the constitution, i think, it is almost laughably simple to prove why it is a document etched in stone, the foundation, it is, because it is meant to only be changed by the amendment process which by

intent was meant to be difficult. that is why it has only been amended a short number of times. the founding fathers believed you needed a solid foundation that was etched in stone, not that you can turn it upside down every time at the whim of some liberal that was upset because they cannot get what they want through the legislature. i think that the fact that it is etched in stone is that it can survive through all times and changes. to be able to apply at all these times, centuries later, that is the whole point. not to alter it at a whim. host: let us look at some other stories in the news, positing a bit from this topic. from "the financial times." system failures of management

from bp and other companies led to blow out of the gulf of mexico. that comes to us from a 48-page chapter from the national committee -- commission set up by the president that was released this morning. looking at some other pieces in the mood -- news -- health spending rose in 2009, but at a slower rate. the slowest rate in increase in 50 years as people lost their jobs, health insurance, and deferred medical care, the government reported yesterday. taking a look at something else from politics. former senate candidate christine o'donnell pocket campaign promised a top to bottom look through the books

and recent reports to the fec. our question is how you view the constitution. we've got a lot of comments coming by email as well. michael writes -- another email coming from suit in new jersey. -- sue in new jersey. let's go to athens, georgia, where chin joins us. caller: good morning. i think the constitution is both a living document and original intent. you cannot box it in either one. one of the first callers said something about congress not adhering to it. i would like to call the constitution almost a dead document. an example -- the patriot act.

guts the bill of rights, fourth amendment, eighth amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. how can you justify were boarding in an american prison and say it does not violate the eighth amendment? federal reserve act. congress has the power to coin money, not a central bank that does not answer to the boulders. supremacy clause, means all acts of congress stand below what. a federal reserve would need a constitutional amendment because it contradicts the enumerated powers. if you are going to make major changes, you just cannot pass an act. the reason why the amendment process was so important is

because it required three- fourths of the states or the majority of the american people to make that change. i think our constitution -- unless we repealed the patriot act and get rid of some of these things, it will not last much longer. host: take a look at an email coming to us from jeffrey. will this section be read? looking there at the original document. chuck writes from west virginia. let's hear from kristin in new orleans.

caller: good morning. nice to talk to you. really, i think it will be very hard for me to follow the last caller you had. he met -- hit the nail on the head. the patriot act pretty much got our constitution and bill of rights. the federal reserve act takes all of the power away from congress which, of course, is the power of the people, to control our monetary system of our country. of course, just getting back to 1913 when the federal reserve act was passed. it took just 16 short years to bankrupt this great country. but i just want to go on to the question you posed and just say that this question is a bit misleading. because for the people who do not understand the constitution, they are going to think that they can change and interpret the constitution how they want and for the people who want to change the constitution,

it leaves a huge loophole for these people to come in the, dismantle, and change the constitution which, of course, would change our country. look at the traffic laws. you cannot enter but the traffic law to what suits you. you cannot run a red look like because it is to o'clock a.m. in the morning and there are no cars. it is written to be followed to the liver -- letter of the law and that is how our constitution should be. or it is supposed to be paired -- is supposed to be. every proposal we have four amendments in the constitution cannot and must not be changed by an amendment that is brought on the books after the fact. host: we will leave it there to get on to our next segment. thank you for all of your calls. , not later we will talk to

congresswoman barbara lee of california -- coming up later we will talk to congresswoman barbara lee of california. first, republican perspective with congressmen walden. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> moving ahead to repeal what is called the job killing health care law. debate begins this friday with a vote scheduled wednesday. watch live coverage of the house debate entire vote on c-span and view the bill on line at c- span.org. >> i think news organizations have adapted.

the public bears some responsibility here, too. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday, abc news senior foreign affairs correspondent looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan on the political, strategic, and personal level at 8:00 on "q&a." >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. available on television, radio, on line, and social media networking sites. find our content any time through the c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus, local content of the accord. it is washington your way. the c-span networks. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: representative greg walden joins us, republican from oregon's second district. let's pick up what we were talking about. a reading of the constitution. what is the value? guest: it is really valuable. first of all, it is unprecedented. second, it speaks to one of the messages of the american people in this election. it they felt that the government in washington straight from the underpinnings of our country, and the constitution is clearly the underpinning the gives us the freedoms and rights that we have -- whether the first amendment that gives us the right to be here today and have this discussion, or any of the others. i think it is important as a reminder to legislatures -- legislators that everything we do is restricted or granted by the constitution and that it is a document that preserves the people's rights, the people's freedoms, and limits the power of the government.

host: we had one comment on twitter asking how you make that come into play as you legislate over the coming months, rather than a symbolic moment. guest: a very good question. part of the transition, which i lead, and developing the rules package which we approved yesterday, is a requirement that all legislation coming to the floor had a reference to its source of authority through the constitution. so, this is a new requirement. some members are grousing about it -- it will not be that hard. that is why, okay, we will read the constitution and get you started. everybody's got a copy. this is a very important part of reforming how congress operates, and for some of us who believe that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and reach, this is a good reminder as you are writing legislation to make sure you are living the constitution. host: you are chairman of the

house republican transition team. tell us about the work you have done coming in here. if you actually had a commentary here on politico just yesterday talking about how you organize a team of 22 lawmakers to rewrite the rules that govern the white house does business, to scour capitol hill operations for inefficiencies. guest: we found a few. a first of all, this is part of the new speaker's vision. he asked me to do that job and he cut me loose. that is what you will see it as the committees get organized and function. he really believes in strong committee process. he asked me to lead the transition, reforming the house based on his vision and the principles we wanted to see and heard from the american people, which, of course, to the end of that point, figuring out how to run your own shop ultimately leads to more transparency and accountability. we assembled abroad cop -- cross section of our conference. in a unprecedented move we reached out to then speaker

pelosi and asked that she designate members who would not necessarily be on the gop transition team but with whom we could interact on a very formal basis to get input from the democratic caucus. that had never been done before. we also survey every single member of the house, chief of staff, and the office managers, if you will, what ever the title is. having been a small business owner for 22 years, on i brought -- i brought to this job the experience that taught to me if i got down and understood and talked to the people online the woodwork, i would find from the great ideas on how to do things better and more efficiently. we also provided an online ability for all americans to weigh in. we had more than 2000 suggestions on things we should look at. we had a lot of internal suggestions from staff people on the hill of ways to cut costs.

that would be an ongoing process. first and foremost today, we are going to start with ourselves. leaders need to lead. this place is bloated. we have a resolution i am sponsoring that will be up on the floor this afternoon that would reduce our spending by 5% right off the top. this is just a starting point. the leadership offices, every member of congress's office budget, and the committee budgets will all be reduced by at least 5%. if you are on the appropriations committee, they came forward with the ability to reduce at least 9%. we will save $35 million from the get go. that is just a start. there are other things we will find over time that the house administration committee will pursue in coordination with our leaders of these various entities on the hill that manage the security and operations, where we think we can find additional savings. host: how do you make sure you pay your employees sufficiently?

in these tough economic times, how you make sure everyone from capitol hill police officers that protect you, to your staffers the work around the clock, get paid enough? guest: that has not been an issue. if you are not paying enough, no one shows up. i will tell you, from a district like mine, where we have well over 10% unemployment, some counties, 15% or 20%, i did not think the average taxpayer is worrying too much of that staff of members of congress are underpaid. in fact, not. although our salaries have been frozen and will continue to be. but when you've got a deficit that is averaging in the last couple of years well over $1 trillion added to the debt, this whole paradigm has to change. i think the two messages out of this election were, cut spending and start with yourselves. get the government back to an affordable position that really

deals with the issues and problems that are paramount to citizens, and no more. and create jobs in the private sector. these are huge challenges. they will not be built -- without controversy but they have to be done or else we will look at these countries in europe that are on a perilous course due to over commitments by the government promises to the people they can no longer keep. the story just in from the ap regarding the new congress and deficits. democrats accusing house republicans of the granting more than $1 trillion and proposed tax cuts from a promise to cut in -- the extension to include a bill to repeal the health care legislation as well as gop- backed proposals extending tax

cuts for upper income filers. guest: it is predictable. it they still don't get the message. here is what i would say. there is a philosophical difference between republicans and democrats. this does not apply to every single republican or democrat. but on balance. that is this notion that you have to offset tax cuts. our view as republicans is, it is not the government's money. it is the people's money. i was a small business owner -- but my wife for 22 years, i have been out of the private sector. you are working day and night and trying to figure out how to keep your business going, complying with all the rules and regulations, and it is hard, especially in this economy. i come to this position with that experience and velocity that says, wait a minute, this is not the government's money to decide how much i get to keep, this is my money as a taxpayer, as an earner and i should be put

to decide how much the government gets. that is the philosophical rub. when you listen to the debate when we extended the current tax code at the end of the last session, there were some on the other side of the aisle who felt pretty strongly that it was really the government's decision first to decide how much money you get to keep of your money. i think that is the whole different attitude and philosophy. both sides have their supporters who believe one way or the other. i happen to come from the side that says, actually, it is your money first and we need to constrain the growth of government spending. it is not a lack of revenue, it is a lack of will by both parties, frankly, to get back to the government that we can afford, and that is all about spending. every american family out there today is having to say, what can i cut back to survive. and many of them are losing their homes. they lost their jobs. or they look up the street and say somebody will look alike may who was in the same

circumstances lost everything. they are having to cut back. a government has to cut back. host: representative greg walden representing oregon's second district. as we have been talking about, he chaired the republican house transition team. he is also involved with the national republican campaign committee where he served as deputy chairman. and now on energy and commerce committee. and sharing subcommittee on communications and technology. -- chairing the subcommittee on communications and technology. bud, where are you calling from? caller: bloomington, illinois. we have a problem with the gop. we are supporting legislation that benefits global corporations and those corporations are taking the

profits and investing in foreign countries, countries that often don't share our values. it is as why are we doing that? guest: i am not sure i agree with your premise necessarily, but let's look of what we face internationally. we're in a competitive environment worldwide. there was a day where we called all the shots in the world economy. we, alone, had incredible superiority. we are still incredibly strong, multiples of china's economy, but the world has caught up. i want to have a structure that tries to encourage them to stay here, that encourages them to grow, and compete internationally. if you just put borders up and say you cannot do anything

outside here, you cannot make money there or we will double tax you, the jobs will leave. we need to ask, how can we make things so competitive here that they want to do work here? that is affected by tax rates. we avoided the highest corporate tax rates in the world, so it tends to push money offshore to other countries. look at caterpillar in illinois. they are a huge employer in illinois, and a global player that creates jobs here and elsewhere, and also does a lot of sales elsewhere. my hometown of oregon, nike and colombia are located there. they do a lot of international business. we want to create the high-value jobs here, so we have to work to get a code in place. host: rob on the democratic

line. maryland. good morning. caller: i cannot recall -- you're just, congressman walden, when you were talking about the help that you solicited from the other party across the aisle, what was the word you used to describe them? guest: i do not recall. i can tell you a couple of things. we reached out to speaker pelosi, and she recognized two people of her progress to be the connection people. i also sat down with the congressman from massachusetts who did their transition when they diwent back into the majority. we had a great conversation over lunch. what would you do differently, what should we do? it was a frank and open

discussion. a number of occasions with the congressman from washington. caller: you just used it again. that is one thing i have noticed in terms of the terminology -- host: what were you talking about, rob? caller: i notice that a lot of the republican party members refer to their members as the democrat party. host: tell us why that is important. please share with us why that is important to you. what is the distinction? caller: to me, this is something that you often hear on fox,

limbaugh, these other guys. instead of indicating there is a willingness to work with the other side, there is the description from the other side that the republic party with a to call the other party, and it is more like a dig, a burr under the saddle. if you were truly looking to solicit ideas from all americans and not just the american people, which is another term that just sounds very totalitarian to me, to refer to americans as the american people. i am an american, i am not an american person. listen to and watch the news reels from the 1930's. those totalitarian dictators

across the atlantic, they tend to use things like the russian folk, the russian people. guest: i do not spend much time watching newsreels from the 1930's. democrat, republican party, those names are not the point i am focused on. host: some democrats take offense when you call in the democrat party, it is the democratic party. guest: i apologize for that. host: independent caller in arizona. good morning. caller: representative walden, congratulations on your victory in the house and everything. now that you have the ball in your court, what are you

planning to do? i can think of several things. why don't you forgo your salaries and turn it over to the deficit? it is not that much money to you because you have special interest helping you out. it would be on a merit system. you are asking a lot from the public. guest: first of all, the ethics rule would preclude us from what you suggest. we are starting with our own expenditures on capitol hill. i have a resolution that would save $35 million as a starting point by cutting our office expenses, committee leadership expenses, all across the capitol. if you roll those savings forward, it will accrue much more than that. that is just a beginning place. we recognize there is a long way

to go to get to $100 billion, but we have to get there. when you are facing a trillion dollar deficit each year, the $900 billion a year the that is projected for the next 10 years, we are going to go broke. it is not the thing we are going to let happen. but i will tell you, it will not be easy work. i have never had anybody come into my office and say, cut my budget. and we all see waste in somebody else's spending but not in our own. as americans, everybody has to share in this cost-cutting, and we have to get back to our main priorities. we cannot keep on doing everything we are doing without ending up with huge deficits and a growing this enormous debt. we need to get jobs going in the private sector and cut the deficit. one of the things we changed in

the rules, we for change and a former gephardt rule which said you automatically increase the debt limit for the country if you pass a budget. this congress failed to pass a budget. we never had a vote on the house floor. there was a vote on the debt limit. we have changed rules to say regardless of whether or repass a budget or not, you will have an up or down vote on the debt limit. this is getting to a more transparent, chris. nobody is going to vote to increase the debt limit, but it is time to be honest with the american people. absent a debt limit, you bankrupt the government. you end up looking really bad. in 1841, a number of states ended up bankrupting themselves. it is a serious issue. host: you would vote to raise it?

guest: and eventually, you will have to. you cannot function as a government because you do not raise the debt limit because you default on your securities. host: will that be a hard message to send to the tea party? guest: our message leading up to that is getting that deficit reduction. we have to make sure that we put this country on a new path that cuts the deficit spending, get it on the right step. that is why we are starting with ourselves, and why we have to go forward on a path that will get us to a manageable debt, back to where we were in the early 2000's and pay down the debt. it was an unprecedented time when we were paying down the debt. there were stories being run, we do not want all the debt to be paid off because of the bond market.

we have sure come a long way since that. we have to get the economy going to produce activity in the private sector as we reduce waste and cost and get the government back to an affordable side. host: greg walden, chairman of the transition team with republicans. also a member of the energy and commerce subcommittee. let's go to ethan in washington. caller: thank you for your time. as a republican, i am wondering how and where the republican party is placing themselves 10 years from now? we hear a lot about emerging markets and globalization. i wanted to get your views on where we could stand, especially

coming out of a recession? guest: thank you. i really enjoying serving with your new member of congress, congressman herrerra. i will try to speak -- i am not the chairman of the party -- but our vision would be that america is the place for an entrepreneur is, innovators, and really expand our ability to be on the cutting edge of leading technologies and do what we do best. how do we end up in that positive position? people have the ability, under the way government was structured, to take a risk, get a reward. and if he did not succeed, you

failed. we kind of got away from that in recent years. we have propped things up that probably should not have been, and we have made the system so complex with rules and regulations, a lot of which are coming from this administration, in a job-killing way, and we need to reverse that. i think you will see republicans in the house lead an effort of oversight policies coming out of the administration and their effect on jobs on the real world. it is essential we do that. we have to get back on track. we need to get american people back to work and back on their feet. we look for the input of american people, as we did on the transition team. as we have tried to do that as well through the pledge to

america. if you want to know where we are headed, look at the pledge to america, which you can find online. host: talking about the republican effort in the house to cut spending. "the new york times" says -- guest: as i said earlier, no one has ever walked through my doors and asked me to cut the budget. it is not easy but it has to be done. but we have to do it in an open and transparent way. most americans get it. this government is spending more than it takes an by an enormous

amount. even when you have the old pay- go rule, neighbors still spending a trillion. americans understand that. i hear it from people in my district that say, just stop the spending. i heard it two years ago as well. a fellow said to me we have to get back to where we are sustainable locally and stop turning to washington to solve our problems. i thought he summed it up right. and the sugar daddies are gone. we changed the appropriation process so there would be no earmarks coming out of the house, so we are changing the way that we operate. we want to change the way congress functions, to put the taxpayer first, not the spender.

but these are going to be hard decisions. you see what happened in europe when they tried to adjust the retirement age. they have rights in the street. people getting attacked because prices are going up at the university. the options are even worse, if you look out far enough. we need to be more statement and less politician here. we need to focus on what happens in five, 10 years, if we do not take action now. if you think it is tough now, look out 10 years. it is brutal. host: a story today from poland that they have done. -- polling that they have done.

cutting education budgets in a time of tough deficits is something that you're looking at. guest: let us talk about that. 90% of education funding comes from where? it is local property taxes and state government. the federal government is around 10%. in discussions with school board administrators, teachers in oregon, they will tell you, 90% of these regulations coming out comes from the federal government and it eats up a lot of their time to comply with federal rules and regulations. and they do not get much for it. tell me we cannot come up with a more simplified system that would free up their time.

what does it take for a teacher have more time in the classroom to teach? in new york. republican line. caller: good morning. i am trying to find a consistent philosophy in the republican party and i do not see one. what i see is the republicans are, have been for the last 30 years, fighting the class war. during that time, middle-class wages have declined while the wealth in the top 1% has increased dramatically. to say their government is evil, i take great offense in that. this is my government. every decision made by the government is supposed to be made by my representatives for

the benefit of the country. it appears the republicans, rather than acting for the benefit of the country, are acting for the benefit of their special interest groups. rather than having a consistent philosophy makes decisions on a case by case basis, using as a criteria only what will help their special interest. guest: i do not know where you are going with all that. having grown up with depression parents -- parents who survived the depression, having paid my way through college, working weekends and nights -- it took seven years to do it. literally seven days a week with my wife to take over a business, grow it and work it every day with terrific people -- the small business world -- representing a district. in your state of new york, where you have lots of farmers and

ranchers to feel pressured by this administration. you talk to the cement workers in oregon who fear for their jobs because of deregulation coming from the epa. in washington, one company wants to put in a very efficient wood chipper-producing energy plant, and now the government is making burning wood chips seem like burning coal or other types of energy. they are still trying to figure out what the epa wants to do next. i did not call the government evil, but i agree, it is the people's government. that is why we are starting today to read the constitution on the house to read the

limitations of the government. the power remains with the people. the people spoke clearly in new york and every other state that they wanted reform in washington. they want private sector jobs, not growth in government, and they want to cut back on the deficit. they also want to get back to open this. it is your government, our government, as americans. we have the ability to turn this around and get us back. but i am not into class warfare. i despise it when either party uses it. we hear it usually on the tax issue, how pitting one group of taxpayers against another, to the benefit of the growth of government creates the jobs in the private sector. i do my job as how do we get the economy growing in the private

sector, where we have sustainable jobs, and we have a government that does all of the basic things that we want them to do. take care of those who cannot take care for themselves. i have always been supportive of that. anyway, we have a lot of work to do. we have tried to create a process in our new rules package where everyone the voice will be heard. host: greg walden, a republican from oregon. chairing a subcommittee on communications and technologies. we have a view were asking -- viewer asking -- guest: we are still getting the committee organized. democrats have not appointed their members to the committees. their organizational effort takes place now and they have started to select their

leadership. so we are waiting to populate the committee. the republicans have just about finished their work. once that is all done, which should be by the end of this week, next week, the full energy and commerce committee will set a date to meet. then there will be plenty of notice. this is another example, in my opinion, where federal agency on a party-line vote began to decide to regulate the internet. i think it is an answer in search of a problem that does not exist right now. i want to keep the internet as free as possible. i do not want some fairness doctrine apply to the internet, as they did with broadcasters. we're going to have oversight hearings, -- and first of all, whether or not the fcc has

action on to take the this. i do not know if congress granted them this authority. these commissions did not speak well to openness and transparency. they had 2000 pages, i believe, of documents that came in in the final week before they made their decision. tell me the public's input was really a sort by the commission? . the ruling that came out was significantly written the night before the rules were distributed. this is not how the people's business should be conducted. host: next phone call. nick, good morning. caller: i have an idea and i

would appreciate your response. politicians, and in the past, were part of a fascist state. people from your second district would labeled it as terrorism. if that is true, theoretically, politicians are a national security potential threat -- host: any response there? guest: i have no idea. we are elected by the people every two years. they do not like what we're doing, they have the ability to get a new representative. host: josh from arkansas. republican line. caller: hello, mr. walden. very interesting guest. i have been enjoying the show.

first-time caller. i noticed a lot of talk about the philosophy of the republican party, education, the constitution. i wanted to hear your thoughts -- well, the media calls it the tea party. the republican party, can you tell me the difference between the tea party and the republican party? we kind of want to put them together but i believe there are different philosophies. guest: thank you for your call and for watching the program. i have not spent a lot of time trying to differentiate republicans with the tea party, what ever they are. i tried to look at it and say where do we have common ground? i think where we have common ground -- i think i am probably

misquoting here -- but ronald reagan said that the government had gotten too big in our lives. that is the philosophy. we want respect for the constitution, basic values, respect for individual freedoms, and that the government has gotten too big and has cost too much. my hope is, at the end of this congress, we will look back and say republican did what they said they would do in their pledge to america. second, that we were able to address and reduced deficit spending, we were able to bring openness and transparency to the people's work, and we are doing that in the way that the committees will operate, and that the economy began to turn around and we started to create jobs in the private sector. if we can start to achieve those goals, we will have achieved a lot because we are changing the direction of a very large ocean

liner here. the american people have given us the tools and responsibility and they expect us to lay our partisan sorts by the side. now we have to work together for the best interest of the people of the country. it does not mean that we all share the same philosophy, but when it comes to tea party republicans, i do not care what your label is. if you want to make the government more transparent and more responsible, and at less cost, then come help us. host: next democratic caller. springfield, missouri. caller: good morning. there is an old saying in the country, keep it close to the ground. there was an instance in oregon where a school teacher was hit by an illegal alien. he was in the hospital for six

months. the judge deported this mexican fellow. the insurance and his family paid for this debacle. it cost him somewhere around $1 million. this person is back to work, back on his seat, but he is pretty well laid up. that is just one instance -- not talking about washington -- i am talking about decisions made long ago. my niece has been out of work for over six months. they are hiring filipinos. none of them have citizenship. guest: i appreciate your call. my own view is, a country that does not have control of its borders the top have control -- does not have control of its citizens. i spent a lot of time working

with local law enforcement officials, anti-drug officials. there is an enormous amphetamine distribution network based in mexico, organized crime, which distributes drugs up and down the coast. they come right up 395, i-5, into the tri-cities of washington. we have incredible law enforcement issues on public lands when it comes to growing marijuana. my view has been, for our own safety, we need to get control of the borders. we have made progress but we have not gone far enough. it is hard to address all of these other issues that people want us to address when it comes to immigration until we control the inflow. we have to get control of the borders.

host: kelly, a republican calling from greensboro, north carolina. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call something to america's attention. you are correct using the word democrat. anyone who looks it up in a ninth grade civics class dictionary will find that a democracy is a form of government. a republic is a form of representative government. democrat with a capital d is a political party in the united states. host: we will leave it there. democrats do prefer that they be called the democratic party. guest: i appreciate your call. certainly, i know there are people who get sensitized by that. i do not go out of my way, the

labeling issue. we have other issues, i am not going to get bogged down. host: 1 last article from "politico" looking at the health care repeal effort that is what to take place next week. guest: in the pledge to america, we said we would have an up or down vote to repeal. that is all this is. this issue has been well debated and discussed across the country in the last year. the real issue here though is we have an obligation after the

vote to then go to work in an open and transparent process on the alternative. we had 80 amendments to the health care bill, that the rules committee proudly announced that not a single republican amendment would be considered on the floor. this congress that just concluded under speaker policy, with then-chairman slaughter, set a record for no open rule opportunity on any bill. not every bill comes to the floor under open rule, but certainly, we will have open

rules on appropriations, where money is spent. that is what used to be done. boehner, theredange will be a return of legislative authority to these committees. so they can bring their brains to the table, regardless of their political affiliation, to build up the country in a positive way. if there are issues that are still unresolved, they will have the ability to offer amendments. host: greg walden, representing oregon's second district. he is the chairman of the transition team for house republicans. coming up next, we will hear from barbara lee. we will also be talking about the new epa rules with the "national journal" correspondent

nathan davenport. >> the pentagon is sending 1400 more marine combat forces to afghanistan. a spokesperson said marines are now being notified and are expected to go within weeks. defense secretary gates approved the addition of forces yesterday in the hopes to consolidate gains already made in the troop buildup in afghanistan. president obama plans to begin withdrawing troops from afghanistan in july. meanwhile, defense secretary gates will announce the latest round of cost-cutting measures for the military, including a plan to do away with a new, amphibious vehicle that can ferry troops ashore while taking fire. later today, the labor department will release information on new on the

climate claims. analysts are looking for an increase of 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 400,000. finally, economists say the shopping holiday season splurges were likely a preview of what is to come in 2011, and that shippers with companies to do more expanding and hiring. americans spend more in the 50 days before christmas than analysts expected, the sharpest increase since 2006. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that over all, organizations are not doing as much for domestic news? the public there's some response ability too. the public there's the responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> a look at the wars in iraq

and afghanistan on a strategic and personal level. host: representative barbara lee joins us, representative from california's ninth district. we are starting with the reading of the constitution today in the house of representatives. what do you make of that effort? guest: what is important is to recognize the constitution needs to be a living document. the provisions of the document should be adhered to every day. often times, and i will give you one example -- we passed measures such as authorization to use force, in terms of going to war, in situations where the congress has the power to declare war.

in 2006, we never had the debate to go to war. we just gave the president the authority to go to war. republicans are doing all kinds of pr gimmicks, but what is important is to look at how the constitution has or has not been lived up to. host: your book is a memoir of political and personal courage. utah calotte about your stance against the iraq war, against the war in afghanistan. that set you apart at a time when early on there were not too many voices dissenting. how have you seen that play out and what does that mean to the future of funding the war effort? guest: of course, after 9/11, the entire country was angry.

we lost thousands of people. naturally, revenge and the rush to war was on everyone's mind. after that, a resolution came through congress, one which i could not support. what it did was authorized president bush, and now any subsequent president, to use force. basically, anywhere, anytime, anyplace, as long as it was connected to 9/11. i thought it was too broad of a measure to introduce without debate. it was not a declaration of war. here we are 10 years later in the longest war in american history. look at the trillions that are being spent, not to mention the lives that have been shattered. we need to bring our young men and women home. we need a foreign policy that

recognizes diplomacy should be central, and also recognizes our national security has to be central, but in doing so, we cannot create more hostility toward the nine it states. also, when you look at the deficit, we are talking about extreme budget cuts. -- toward the united states. when you look at what got us to this deficit, we had two wars that should not have been fought. tax cuts for the wealthy. we cannot let any administration cut entitlements, medicare, social security, when, in fact, that is not the reason for this deficit. the poor, low income, senior citizens, should not have to pay for the misplaced economic and military policies of the past a administrations. host: what is the strategy of the democratic party?

is it playing defense or ways to find collaboration with republicans? >guest: we have to do both. in terms of what republicans want to do to repeal health care, we have to make sure that that does not happen. we have heard many stories of young people who could not have gotten help care -- health-care who can now get it because of pre-existing conditions. when you look at what had taken place in terms of health care reform, the fact that health care will be and is now accessible -- there is no way we can allow republicans to repeal any provision of that bill. but we have to create jobs and economic opportunity. we have been very involved in that from day one. i hope we find areas to cooperate on job creation. especially when you look at the

unemployment rates, particularly in minority communities. 16% in latino and african- american communities. i hope that the republicans can find ways to work with us to create these jobs that we desperately need. of course, has a woman and an african-american, we know what it means to be a minority. we helped to pass legislation to help multiple children. we have a bill related to hiv aids which we worked on with president bush and republican congress. we have many examples of how we can work in a bipartisan way to move the country forward. but when it is time to fight, we are ready. host: barbara lee representing the ninth district of california.

the numbers to call the conversation are -- the congresswoman is also the author of "renegade." you gave over the gavel yesterday to representative cleaver of missouri to chair and cbc.e i want to thank the representative. he is a moral and the local leader. i think the congressional black caucus will soar to new heights. on each and every piece of

legislation, we weighed in, had things included that would never have been previously if it was not for the congressional black caucus. low income communities, minority communities would have been left behind, had it not been for the black caucus, making sure that provisions were included in the bill. there is no way that in the energy legislation, provisions which are energy taxes, included had the black caucus and other members not made sure that we impacted lower income communities. on the economic recovery package, we made sure teachers were included, community clinics. all of those services and jobs that would have been lost were not lost because of what the

congressional black caucus wrote in an shepherded through the economic recovery legislation. we have 18 subcommittee chairs. on each and every bill, it was amazing how members of the caucus thought to broaden the debate. not just the debate, but fought to ensure that the leverage of our members, our power and clout, was used so that we could be affected legislators to include those provisions. when you look at minority- serving institutions, we were able to work with the obama administration to make sure we could increase funds for our minority-serving institutions. there were so many provisions in each bill that passed last year that the congressional black caucus weighed in on. i am very proud of their work the.

they worked 24/7. this is now the 40th anniversary of the congressional black caucus. we have always been known as the conscience of the congress, and the past few years have reflected that. host: the congressional black caucus gets its first republican member in a while. alan west of florida. he made a decision different from that of tim scott of south carolina. he decided not to. what does it mean to have a republican among your ranks? guest: as you said, it has not happened much in history. i think those two members made their personal decisions. we look forward to the participation of mr. west, who decided to join. host: let's hear from our callers.

ernest, south carolina. a democratic caller. caller: thank you. i have always wanted to get on the program. host: we are glad you are here. caller: you just said you just had a republican on your committee. i would not have him on there. when george washington was there, the first man who died was a black man. let's get history right here. george washington told them, if he helped them, and he put set them free. they have been lying from that point on.

you talk about the 14th amendment. that was introduced so that black kids in america and everyone else that was not a slave in this country -- i am a black native american, which is not recognized. then you talk about 9/11. 3000 people killed. all of a sudden, the country goes crazy. as far as the president goes, when it comes to money, i do not see anybody in his cabinet dealing with the financial discourse in this country. host: you have brought up a lot of issues. guest: you are talking about the unfinished business of america. it is important that we not sweep race under the rug, because there is business yet to be completed.

again, going back to members of congress, members of the congressional black caucus, we need to show how this national dialogue on race -- which we must have -- is extremely important. we need to move forward to address many of the issues that have been swept under the rug. i can cite the economic disparities, how financial institutions targeted minority communities. when you look at the huge educational gap in our country in terms of resources, where those resources go. you look at health care disparities, economic opportunities and the lack there of. the systemic and institutional- types of biases and inequities, many of them have a racial component, and we cannot deny that. we have to look at how we can address this in a healthy way.

host: sarah. republican caller from north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. there is too much race. we should all be one america. she talked about social security. i am 78 years old. it has been two years since we have gotten a raise. insurance premiums have gone sky high. how can we afford to pay our bills? i am paying for my own grandchild because he is on medicaid. i do not mind. i worked 40 years for the public at rdu airport. i supported my family. now you are giving away earned

income credits. what is fair about that? guest: i have an amazing 86- year-old mother, a 99-year-old on. i am blessed to hear from them every day and hear about the unfairness that has happened in terms of social security. in the last congress, we tried to pass a $250 proposal for senior citizens. this formula related to cola is not fair. we could not get the republicans to agree to that. i think that is unfair. i think we might see more unfair policies towards social security and medicare, and that is one area where the democrats will continue to fight for. no more cuts to social security

and medicare. we need to make sure social security is not privatized and remains solvent. host: next phone call from yorktown, virginia. caller: it is hypocritical for you to talk about jobs, medicare, medicaid, when the health care bill is going to cut things. if we were not aiding and abetting the legal people in the country, things would be better. illegals are bankrupting -- something like 80 hospitals in california shutdown. a lot of that was largely due to the illegal immigration population. it is frustrating. i know when i get off the phone you are going to make a ton of excuses. but is it not true that the

health care bill is responsible for cutting half a billion dollars of aid to medicare? guest: that is absolutely not true. you can contact your member of congress or you can contact me, and we will give you the details on why that is not true. we have been fighting for comprehensive immigration reform for many years. we have to continue to fight for that. we have undocumented workers. they are not the problem in terms of the economy. we have a huge deficit which is the result of huge tax cuts for the wealthy and two wars that should not have to be fought. and when you look at the recent tax package, which i did not agree with, we have another trillion dollars of deficit spending that we are going to have to address. i hope that you will take the time to call your member of congress or myself so that we

can show you the bill in detail, how medicare will not be cut, but how medicare recipients will actually be helped. host: this story in "the hill" -- is it nancy pelosi the right person to lead the democratic minority? guest: absolutely, she is the right person to lead the democratic minority. when you look at how she led in the past -- going into social security is a good example. there was a major effort to privatize social security. can you imagine, had hours to as low security -- had our social security been put at the whims of wall street? she made sure that did not

happen. as well as many other battles she has bought. we need a leader who can work with republicans in a bipartisan way to move the country for to create jobs and to turn the economy around for middle and low-income individuals, to make sure people have the quality of life they feel they deserve. we need a leader who knows how to fight and who knows how to stop these terrible things on the table that could hurt a majority of americans. host: dan millberry writes -- do you think she brings particular skills that will help her in this position? guest: she was a phenomenal speaker. when you look at the legislation that was passed, it was

unprecedented in terms of the cooperation, by partisanship, the unity that speaker policy attempted, in many ways, accomplished, with the democrats. i think she brings remarkable skills, both as a minority leader, and as a speaker. i think she is the right person for the time. history shows she was an effective minority leader and speaker. host: let's listen to comment that then-speaker nancy pelosi made yesterday at the congressional black caucus. >> we will not rest. again, we extend the hand of friendship to grow jobs, grow the middle class, and reduce the deficit. we look for common ground to solve the problems of the american people. their health, housing, jobs,

children, savings educations. but where we can not find common ground we must find -- stand our ground on behalf of the pledge we take every day, with liberty and justice for all. and that includes economic justice. host: democratic leader nancy pelosi speaking yesterday to the congressional black caucus. deion is calling us on the democrat's line. maryland. good morning. caller: i am calling because i noticed the other representatives there talked about the repeal bill that will be brought up in the house this week. i was concerned he did not let any democrats bring up any amendments to it. the hypocrisy is the last time democrats ran in the house, when

they did not do this, they would say the same thing he said about the bill or whatever was being brought up, had already been debated for numerous years. health care is another example. it had been debated for many years. everybody knew what people wanted in the bills. at that point, democrats put forth just amendments that republicans did not want in the bill. now he comes into office and the hypocrisy, they do the exact thing that they said they would not do. host: we were talking earlier about this piece in "politico." even though they made promises to put bills through the committee process, they did not plan to put the health care law through committee, and they do not plan to allow many amendments to come forth.

guest: they did not do it then either. this is not a surprise. they say a lot and do something else. the public has to recognize this is a political environment, and they are going to do the things they want to do in the way they want to do it. they have the votes for that. i have to say, our health care bill went through several committees. many republican amendments were adopted in the health care bill. in fact, the president, administration, congress, our leadership, reached out to try to work with republicans to garner votes for the bill, even after their amendments were accepted. i think the process was very open during the health care reform bill. i really believe now what we see in terms of this attempt to repeal it is just another example of what the next two years will bring. host: what are your impressions

of speaker boehner and the gop agenda? are there just, sort of broad impressions of what they will bring? guest: it is hard to tell what their agenda is, other than trying to take down and unravel any piece of major legislation which president obama had supported and signed into law. i want to see their agenda. i want to see how they are going to craft an agenda to take us out of this recession, to create jobs, stop the foreclosure crisis, create more educational and economic opportunity. i want to see how they are going to deal with climate change. i want to see how they are going to deal with criminal justice reform. i want to see how they are going to address all the issues that

are of concern to the american people. melvin, republican caller in statesboro, georgia, good morning. caller: there is more money in our defense then all of these nations in the world. i will make this analogy. my grandmother developed this all my life -- and this is just an analogy. bye-bye 15 guns every month. uy 15 day, i say, -- i b guns every month. one day, i say, if i have got to cut back on some of these guns

that i am buying. i tell her, i do not need all of these guns to protect myself. the american people at some point after wake up and realize we are spending all of this money on defense, get, the first place we want to cut is -- and yet the first place we want to cut in social security which is not fair to people who have paid in the, to it all their lives. -- have paid into it all their lives. guest: i think you're absolutely correct. i serve on the appropriations committee and for years i have been trying to build momentum, really come on the outside for a push toward cutting this defense budget. i believe we need a strong national defense. but you can't talk -- cannot tell me that there is not over

$100 billion that can be kept i would not affect national security. and when you look at waste, fraud, and abuse, when you look at a missile developments that -- i think it is important to recognize that the public has to demand that we cut the military budget. every year, the progressive caucus, of which i'm a former co-chair, we cut from the budget, $80 billion to $100 billion our defense. what the problem has been is members of congress have not felt the political push. they do not have political will to do that. but i'm going to tell you that with this huge deficit now, with the pentagon and with social security on the chopping block, i think the public needs to tell

members of congress to support many of the proposals that many of us have put forward to begin to cut defense. host: a recent "san francisco chronicle" article says this is going to be a tough fight when it comes to looking at the weapons systems. there is republican support, but we have got to have a stronger coalition. how do you build that coalition? guest: it is going to be difficult. i'm not saying it is going to be easy, but we have got to make sure that members know that there are strategies in place to retain jobs where these missile systems are being built. part of the fear is job loss. nobody wants to see people lose jobs. we have to work on economic strategy to ensure that no one loses a job when we begin to cut some of these systems and defense programs. that is the first thing.

secondly, all i believe when people see how their quality of life is going to diminish as a result of this deficit and these huge cuts that republicans want to make, they will say, not on my block to a want these cuts to take place. and we are going to have to say, yeah, but they are going to take place unless you work with us to make sure that we can begin to cut where it will not impact your daily lives. it is going to be difficult, but we have to have this coalition. that is the only way we will begin to address the deficit in a direct way and reduced defense. host: there is the story in the associated press. more people applied for unemployment benefits last week. the labor department says applications rose by 18,000. what do those numbers mean to you? guest: those numbers are very sad to me. it means a lot of people are suffering. more people are suffering than not. it means that we have to first

of all, make sure that unemployment compensation continues. 13 months is not enough. in fact, there are a category of people who are chronically unemployed who have hit a wall at 99 weeks. we are trying to build support for what is called the 99ers. it is a very sad day. we have to begin to look at how to create jobs in a very real way, sustainable jobs, jobs that pay well, jobs with benefits. and in no way can we allow the country to continue in this direction. many businesses, mind you, are spending with lots of money. they do not want to loosen up their financial reservoir to create jobs. we give these companies huge tax breaks. some companies have gone nevada arm of our government and it is

time that they begin to -- some companies have gotten a lot our government and it is time that they begin to create jobs. our job is to extend unemployment for those who have hit the wall, but also to extend health care -- instead of health care reform or repeal, create jobs in a meaningful way and help people become employed once again. host: representative barbara lee, calif., and author of the book and " renegade for peace and justice." let's go back to the phones. call from oklahoma. caller: as usual, just laughing at the republicans, and now, of course, berber lead. i'm one of those who was lobbying when liberals such as

barbara lee was trying to shut down new gingrich. -- new to mckeown bridge. -- new gingrich. all of this waste and bureaucracy is not foreign to help the country do anything other than create a lot -- going to help the country do anything other than create a lot more government jobs. " we spend twice as much as anyone else does in the world on our students, but we have gone from the top of the list in the mid-1960s to the bottom of the list of so-called educated people of the world. that is what our department of education has done. if i know that you and other liberals will not like this, but when you talk about the constitution as a living

document, then my record is, if you really believe that, then i demand a blue ribbon commission. i can go on and on and on about where government should be cut. host: we will leave it there, gerd, with your ideas that you put on the table so far. guest: i agree that we need to look at ways, fraud, and abuse in any federal agency, and we should cut that. but i do not believe that we should cut government. this is a garment by the people, for the people off, for the -- a government by the people and for the people, for the common good. we have to make sure that everyone is afforded the opportunity to live the american dream. the federal government is a government that is supposed to

ensure that. when we begin to dismantle government is a free-for-all. i do not think our founding fathers want a free-for-all in this country. we have a national government that is responsible for civil rights, for ensuring the protection of minorities, for insuring all of the constitutional rights that have been giving -- for ensuring all of the constitutional rights that have been given to us. if we start to dismantle all of this, that we really do have a problem. i do not subscribe to that at all. next host: call from georgia. -- host: next call from georgia. good morning. caller: everybody is talking about the health care bill and everybody is in need of insurance. i feel if they read the pages, they will understand this bill will help so many people. i heard the congressman say that people who could not get insurance before will be able to

get it, and that will be true. i do not understand the opposition. i say to those who are opposed, read the pages. it will open the doors to so many people to have health insurance, to be able to go to the doctor, if to keep people from suffering unnecessarily. guest: thank you very much. you're absolutely correct. if we are the only industrialized country in the world that has no system of health care for our citizens. it is very important that we recognize the benefits of this health care bill, and in fact, understand there is another provision. young people who do not have health care can stay on their parents' health care until they are 26. that is a big deal. it will benefit many people. if i hope the department will read the bill, understand what is in the bill, and not listen to the political rhetoric of the republicans as they begin to try to repeal this bill. this is a bill that is benefiting not only democrats

and democratic constituency, but this bill provides health care for republicans and republican constituencies. this is a bill that should unify the country. it is a political agenda that is being run by republicans. host: your book "renegade for peace and justice" is now out in paperback. originally published in 2008. and in it, you talk about your own political awakening and everything from becoming the first african-american cheerleader at your school and then onto your political activism. in college, you were not even registered to vote. what sparked the political consciousness for you, got you involved, and how do you get more young people to pick up like you did? guest: i was a student in the early 70's at a great institution in oakland, calif., a woman's college. i was president of the black student union.

i had never been registered to vote. it was not that i was apathetic, because i was very active in many organizations and in the committee and raising my two small children on public assistance. i was there. i had a course in government and had a requirement to work in one of the presidential primary campaigns as part of our field work. it is a phenomenal institution that requires students to do field work. i said, no way, flunk me. i told my professor i was not going to do this because the candidates do not speak to the issues that i think are important terms of of economic security and war and peace. the agenda wasink broad enough. i was the -- i worked for the

first african-american woman elected to congress. i invited her to speak to the students union. the lo and behold, she is running for president. i told her after she spoke, i was ready to flunk. but you talk about bilingual and poverty employment and health care. you want a national security policy and foreign policy. i said, i may go to my professor and tried to reconsider if you tell me how to work your campaign. and she looked at me and she said, the first thing you must do is register to vote. if you really believe in the causes and values that you are talking about, you have to get on the inside and participate. she took me to task. i went back and talk to mark professor and what happened is that i've ended up helping -- talked to my professor and what

happened is that i ended up helping to organize her campaign. i called a friend of mine, now a state assembly members saundra swanson, and eastern crotty, vice-president and we actually organized the campaign out of my class. we took 10% of the vote. she became such a close friend and mentor and she continued to help me to my political career. she always said that she would come to congress. i had no notion of that. she was a mentor. i could relate to her. she was an african-american woman. she was tough, smart, sensitive. and she always said that you cannot just get elected to go along to get along. newhart to get in there and shake things up.

you have to -- you have to get in there and shake things up. to make a difference. when i was first hired on capitol hill, there were very few african-americans and very few women on capitol hill in the 1970's. i was in graduate school then. koran carefree has made to work 11r him and i worked for him i years. he and surely rendell where some people who saw something in this young african-american woman and encouraged me to be where i am today. host: young african-american voters, how do you keep them involved and voting be on the

grass roots? -- beyond a grass roots? guest: i knew that i could not just work that one campaign and stock. that is why when the mayor afforded me the opportunity as working as an intern, we have to keep young people working and get them on key committees. also, help them organize. the young people have the energy and the spirit and the clarity of purpose. but maybe not the resources. as adults and as people who want to see this movement continue, keep young people engaged by helping them to do their thing. they are the future. and they are leading, and they did help elect the first african-american president, barack obama, who is doing and then a dozen job as president. they need to stay engaged and involved, because if they do

not, others will soon push in the opposite direction, and they will not be happy there. but i think it is important that congress woman chisholm rondel and others encourage these young people and afford them the opportunity to work with us. they need to be paid. we need to make sure that their education is addressed, that they have the opportunity to work in different campaigns and that they get these scholarships and grants and loans that they need for college. and that we support the nonprofits or whatever organizations they are involved in, because they after survive, too. half host: representative barbara lee from california -- host: of representative barbara lee from california's ninth district. thank you for joining us. coming up next, we will talk about epa regulations and new clean-air rules was a national

correspondent -- national journal correspondent coral davenport. but first, here's a news update. >> more people applied for unemployment benefits last week, one week after applications fell to their lowest level in more than two years. the labor department says applications rose by 18,000 to a seasonally adjusted 409,000 in the week ending january 1. analysts say that fewer than 425,000 people looking for stock jobless benefits does signal modest job growth. but it has to fall consistently to 375,000 or below to substantially bring down the jobless rate. president obama is expected to decide in the next few days to his new white house chief of staff will be. rahm emanuel left three months ago to run for mayor of chicago. and the well-respected pete rouse has been interim chief.

also leaving the administration, senior advisor david axelrod, and press secretary robert gibbs. in tehran, a state newspaper reports american detained for spying, entering that country without a visa. if reports that she has buying equipment on her body. she is the fourth american that iran has accused of spying in less than two years. and finally, the former borscht top economic adviser, treasury economicrmer bush topi advisory panel, henry paulson, sold his house for one third less than his asking price and more than $1 million less than what he paid for it four years ago. >> house republicans are moving

ahead to repeal what they called the job-killing health care law. the debate begins this friday with a vote next wednesday watch live coverage of the entire vote on c-span and view the bill on line at c-span.org. and listen to historic supreme court cases on c-span radio. saturday, the court considers the definition of "independent ," end racial discrimination. -- and racial discrimination. you can listen on line at c-span is based radio.org. -- c-spanradio.org. host: quarrel davenport is

joining us. -- coral davenport is joining us. the epa has new regulations. tell us about what they represented. guest: this is basically the administration's first foray into regulating the industrial greenhouse gases that cause global warming. as you recall, there was an effort by democrats in congress last year to pass a broad climate change law, some kind of legislation, which failed. this is the administration moving ahead, using the epa, using the executive authority of the epa to start regulating those industrial pollutants, and without action from congress. host: and your report in the national journal this week that there are several high-profile committees.

guest: yes, this set of regulations is almost tailor- made for the incoming republican house majority. it is a new set of regulations on industry it is coming from the executive branch. it is very environmental. it is environmental regulation. the incoming republican majority in the house has made it very clear that this is going to be, along with health care, one of their absolute top targets as they look at pieces of the administration's agenda to attack. it is going to be sort of blown

up into this political, symbolic kind of fight. several leading members of the new house majority and these new chairman have made clear it is a top priority and we can expect to see that event unfold quickly. host: what do the new rules are actually mean? i have a story reported by npr. jeffrey holmstedt, who worked under president boris, predicts -- -- under president bush, critics -- looking for what technologies to cut pollution. guest: it is interesting under the new roles. if you look at the political osterman rang that is unfolding, they do not with the matchup.

the big political fight does not match up with the practical changes that will have to be made. in the first year, not that much has to happen. these roles first apply only to the very largest polluters, only industrial e. knitters that emit -- industrial emitters that emit thousands of tons. it is really big power plants, really big oil refineries. in the first year, the only entities double how to do anything different are if you are building a new power plant or new oil refinery. existing refineries and plants will not have to do anything that first year. if you are building a very large scale oil refinery or coal-fired power plant, you will have to go to your epa in your state end

get a list of raw pollutants. there is a new permit that you'll have to get and in order to get that, you basically have to show that you will use the best available technology to reduce your emissions. it is not that hard. there are no caps. host: no set numbers. guest: no set members. but it is not necessarily clear what those available technologies will be. the state agencies and environmental technologies are trying to figure out what those will be. but in their early years, vba indicated that it may just be operating with the best -- the epa indicated that it may just be operating with the best available technology. many companies are already trying to do that. if you look at what companies actually have to do, it is not a lot. although that will scale up as

your escalon. , host: we are talking about the political battle vs -- although, that will scale up as the years go on. host: we are talking about a political battle verses industry. guest: correct. it is something that lends itself well to a big political fight. the practical changes -- i have talked to a lot of state environmental agencies about this and they say, we do not see this as a big deal. we feel pretty ready to go. for the first couple of years it will not be a huge change. host: coral davenport from the national journal. we're talking about the epa and the new rules. the numbers are on the screen. we are talking about a stationary sources, which means

not cars, not moving vehicles. critics haveeeeee said hospital, other big facilities that are not necessarily generating power as their primary responsibility, but they leave a large footprint. guest: this is a talking point in this political fight. the initial wave of these roles would be interpreted, once -- the initial way these rules would be interpreted, it puts the government in an awkward position. greenhouse gases are ubiquitous throughout the economy. our houses, schools, churches, hospitals, cars -- anything that runs across on some kind of heat or uses electricity. that would put the epa in the position of potentially having to regulate 6 million polluting entities, including all of these small businesses. the epa itself, the federal

government realized that was a nightmare scenario and did not want to have to do that. most of those small sources are not major contributors to pollution, so it issued a rule known as the tailoring rule where it scaled back. it said that the regulations will only apply to stationary sources that emit more than 75,000 tons of co2 per year. it scaled that back to those major sources that are the major sources of pollution. you do see a tax saattacks sayit will regulate the whole economy, but the way the rules are written right now, not so.

host: overall, that applies to 15,500 polluters. the supreme court in a 2007 ruling, found that the epa has to regulate greenhouse gases. this was thrown into the administration's lack guest: yes, there was -- into the administration's cloulap. guest: guess, there was a case in 2007 and the supreme court ruled that the epa had to determine whether greenhouse gases were endangering human health. under the clean air act, which is 40 years old, anything that defined as a pollutant that how endangers human health the epa asked to regulate. how the bush administration in 2007 did not act on it. when the obama administration came in, they took up the

opposition and in 2009, they made the finding that scientifically we determine that co2 our greenhouse gases at endanger health. as a result of the fighting, the epa is legally required to regulate these greenhouse gases. hope of the administration was that congress would act before the epa was obliged to do these regulations. but since that did not happen, and this is one of the political arguments, too. this is not necessarily the administration wielding executive authority out of its pocket. there is a set of legal requirements that make it better if it does not do these regulations, it is in violation of the law. host: let's hear from our callers. kenneth on the democratic line from virginia beach, virginia. caller: happy new year. .edu host: as well. you are on with coral davenport.

caller: thank you. this is an example of the republican administration of george bush selectively enforcing the laws and statutes of the united states. i do not think they had any intention of following what congress has historically said the epa up for, and that is, to protect the citizens and the environment of this country. they just chose to ignore it and they did a jock -- a fine job of ignoring many laws in this country without any, any consideration of the effects it would have. guest: it is interesting. when you talk to some people who have been working within the administration within the context of the epa and environmental law for many years, they say that there is a

traditional pace of environmental regulation that you see you're in, year out, particularly with the clean air act regulation. within the 40 years -- has existed. basically, they said -- within the 40 years that the law has existed. basically, they say that the version administration slowed the pace. new environmental laws, enforcement of regulations, it really slowed down. with the advent of the obama administration, you know, the way some folks see it is that they seek the flood gates as being released. -- they see the flood gates as being released. it is certainly true that there are many environmental regulations being rolled out all at the same time, not just these greenhouse gas roles. industry is not very happy about that. but within the administration

you have people saying, no one had been doing this for the last eight years. the we are catching up on this a little bit, on that pace. .com but it is true -- but it is true that it is a challenge for industry as well because they are getting a lot of regulations at once. host: the tir from to buy as in georgia. -- let's hear from tobias in georgia. caller: call in washington d.c., one minute the republicans are running things and that the democrats and then republicans. my question is about the epa and all of these regulations come out and we start taking care of the environment, which is important for the whole world. staff will happen in 2 tauzin 12 if we get a republican -- what will happen in 2012 if we get a republican president?

are they going to try to do everything that he is -- to pull back everything that he is doing? guest: definitely, the epa regulations could evolve into an attack. and we will see that in 2012. we will expect to see that in the republican-dominated house, they will almost certainly enact legislation to veto or roll back these regulations. it is possible that the senate may follow. there are a number of moderate democrats in coal and oil and rust belt states that are uncomfortable with these tha regulations. correne know, we count as many as 59 votes in the senate already. -- right now, we count as many as 59 votes in the senate already. if the congress does vote in

both chambers to veto this legislation, i would put the administration is a very uncomfortable situation -- that would put the administration and very uncomfortable situation. with the republicans administration and congress, these would be taught on the list. it would be a big political target. host: said in georgia, republican caller, good morning. , caller: good morning. is that concerned about they are trying to stop global warming. 90% of the people in the united states done very seriously of quebec there is global warming. there may be global change. -- doubt very seriously there is a global warming. there may be global change. i am in my 60s and i've seen very little of that in my life there is concerned -- in my

life. there is concern about overpopulation. i can hardly breathe with all of the people that we have now. is that our goal in the united states, to just fall of the country with people? -- fill up the country with people? guest: i cannot imagine it is a political goal of anyone to contribute to mass overpopulation. to the callers first point about the science of climate change, certainly, pulling of the public has shown that -- polling of the public has shown that -- i think last year 70% of the public believed therefore global warming -- believed there was global warming. within the scientific community,

an intergovernmental panel of climate change, which is an international body of scientists, it is very clear. the majority of those scientists within the scientific community show that there is greater than 90% certainty that the fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions produced through combustion and energy production to contribute to a broader global warming. and it was that science that the epa's use in making its endangerment findings. it is interesting that we do see a change in a u.s. public opinion that does not records on with what we see in science. host: and what we see from the "new york times", the six gases that contribute to global warming. some of them include carbon dioxide and methane. let's continue with our calls. from wilemon, good morning. caller: i was calling about these birds.

that a very serious thing these birds are dying. they need to find and what is going on with them. and another thing, mr. obama is a very intelligent president. i was always told to keep the law of the land, instead of trying to fight against a law that is already past. guest: it is interesting that the caller talked about the movements in congress to undo existing law. of course, that is going to be a big theme that will be in the coming months. we will see a movement to undo the health care law, and after that, these federal regulations. but certainly, that is the prerogative of our elected officials and our legislative bodies, to dismantle a law that

they think is not appropriate. but it is a difficult process to do legislatively, legally, politically. we will definitely be seen these fights, these efforts to undo existing law. how do not know if anyone in congress will be addressing the sudden death of the birds in arkansas. but i do know it was a topic of conversation yesterday at on the first day on the hill. host: let's go to brian in arizona. and good morning. host: good morning. i do not believe the environment is a threat to america. i do believe the epa is a threat to america. the epa had a purpose in 1971 it was begun. and when it was begun -- in 1970 when it was begun. and when it was begun, there was smart and it was tangible and you could see it and smell it. and they finally got rid of it.

i think it is now just a bunch of people that i do not want to see. guest: the caller raises a point about the nature of pollution and the political will to go after it. one of the great difficulties that the administration has had in trying to create political will to address the issues of global warming and greenhouse gases is that online small, you cannot see it. you cannot smell it. it does not really affect your day-to-day life at all. when you have small or sulfur dioxide, you can immediately -- when you have small the, or sulfur dioxide, you could immediately smell a smell. we may not see or experience the tangible effect of it for another 50 to 100 years. it is very difficult for a lot of people to wrap their heads around what this pollutant is

and what it does and why there is an effort to control or regulate this particular kind of pollutants. it does not lend itself well to regulation and political understanding. host: a comment on twitter, address how coalitions and powerful groups like national petrochemical and refiners association shackle epa. what about the relationship between some of the big lobbying groups and what is happening on capitol hill? guest: most of the major industrial lobbying groups are fighting against these new regulations to enable. they are taking two tracks. on one hand, -- are fighting these new regulations to the tooth and nail. they are taking two tracks. on the one hand, they're hoping that democrats will line up

with republicans, saying, these regulations are onerous and will hurt us. you hear those concerns and those talking points from republicans were working against this. you also see the major industry groups are suing the epa, suing the government. how this is probably one of the most complex, biggest and most complex cases in environmental law that we will ever see. it will certainly be a landmark case. we will see that going through the d.c. circuit court of appeals this year, a battle between the government and environmental groups in several states -- and several states who are also fighting epa regulation. they are investing in fighting these regulations on every flight and front possible. host: let's talk about the states. 17 states are suing over the new rules, but all of them will go

along and start the new process except for texas. this is setting up a potentially big battle between gov. ray perry and the obama administration. -- governor rick perry and the obama administration. guest: yes, texas gov. rick perry seems to have no qualms. he seems to almost be relishing during down the gauntlet and having this fight. it ties in nicely with a potential presidential bid ambitions. 17 states are fighting these regulations. they do not want to go along with them. but 16 of them at the same time are saying, until these lawsuits are settled, we will go along and work with the epa. we will try to comply so that if the lawsuits are settled in the favor of the government, the states will already have their regulations in place. those states are kind of walking the line, going both ways. texas has absolutely refused to

comply. and we are looking at a situation where the epa will probably end up stepping in and taking control of part of the texas state environmental agency and running the greenhouse gas permit program within the state. the state of texas and rep. are sort of throwing down and saying, don't mess with texas. the state government is taking over. all of this response to this new regulation has been very public. even if you read the letters back and forth between the texas environmental agency and the epa, usually, those are very dry and bureaucratic. these are full of language that chastise and slam the federal government for taking over. they are kind of fun reading

and, actually. obama vs. texas is definitely a theme that will play out. that will be an interesting fight to watch. host: james on twitter writes about this very topic. what would that actually look like? what would it mean for the epa to take over that role? guest: once again, this is a situation where the political objects of this -- the political optics of this are probably a dramatic than reality. if you are an oil company in texas and you are building this year a new refinery, you need to get some kind of permit to emit co2. if you do not, you can't be sued. -- you can be sued.

you will get your permit from the epa instead of the texas state environmental agency. you will write a big plan saying, i'm going to build this refinery. this is how i'm going to use energy-efficient technology to keep my missions off to a minimum. the epa will looks at it and give you a permit to pollute. this will come out probably in 2011 to maybe a dozen new entities, maybe more. texas is obviously a heavy oil states. it is the epa doing what the state agency would typically do. but no one is going in -- i do not think we will see a situation with federal agents going in and strong army in the state bureaucracy. ing , the state bureaucracy.

host: let's go to new york. anita on the independent line joins us. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i would like to make a brief point and then in in question and then i will let her respond. first, how is it that we could feel that either the obama administration or the epa when -- for our right to travel we are being told that we need to experience radiation and a type of white down of our dignity. carbon dioxide is what is in plants and trees. it is a cycle. it went from global warming and then to climate change because in the last 10 years earth is actually cooling. the son has to be factored in. host: you see this as a violation of rights? caller: i see things that the

mainstream media did not recover. host: there was coverage over the last year. at guest: yes, it made quite a media sensation. so, the question was how about an infringement on at our -- host: we have lost anita, but yes, climate change regulation being overblown and needing to do regulation. guest: there needs to be consistent. -reviewed science. the e-mail's -- consistent peer-reviewed science. the males between the scientists, they have -- the e- mail's between scientists, they have been acquitted. certainly, the records show that the last decade has been the

hottest on record. scientist.i'm not a but a report closely on what these scientific reports find. but anita brought something up. within the climate science and environmental community, there is great concern about the message of climate -- that's the message of climate science has got lost. that has further inflame this debate. there will be an effort within the environmental and climate science community to do a reeducation on climate science basics. i think we saw a lot of the climate science committee assuming that they did not have to sell this to the public anymore. we will see them coming back and trying to bring that message back and put that data out there. in order to tamp down that piece

of the debate. host: let's hear from charles in arkansas, a republican collar. good morning. caller: good morning. i've got a quick three points and being that i'm paying for c- span, i would like to get those across. host: c-span is not actually publicly confirmed dead. caller: do you want to listen to me? i pay my -- c-span is not actually publicly funded. caller: do you want to listen to me. i pay my cable bill. it is just money. host: what are your comments? caller: i will give you an example. the epa forced a mistake to have the local people send me a note in my water deal that something changed our%. -- 5%. the epa does not drink our water. a local people take care of it. they drink it.

i have all of these -- i will take care of what we have here. i believe what they do is very important. i do not need the epa. and by the way, young lady, you have learned your talking points pretty well. what are you going to do about china and russia? china is opening a coal plant once a week and that is pollution according to you. guest: the caller makes an interesting point about china and russia. china has become the number one polluter in the country and is driving its economy forward by, indeed, its huge investment in coal-fired plants. it is very difficult for the administration. the one of the reasons why these regulations are so difficult politically is the international negotiations, the international

effort on the ground. the united nations has been trying unsuccessfully for a number of years to come up with a new coloma -- global climate pact in which the world's biggest economies, commit to putting their carbon emissions. it is very difficult politically within the u.s. to commit to any kind of legislation or policy or law that would cut back on the u.s. climate the missions and potentially constrain some elements of the economy when china is unwilling to sign on to such a pact. how china says we have a growing economy and we are bringing people out of party and we need energy to do that. it is certainly true that china is growing in emissions, growing in its economy, unwilling to commit to the kinds of cuts that the administration is trying to enact here. it has been a very difficult political problem.

a many people on capitol hill and throughout the country are increasingly uncomfortable about this dynamic with china and the process of cutting carbon emissions and limiting industry has to china is not limiting its industry. host: judy on the democratic line. caller: you already covered all of the points. i was going to tell you about texas, but you already covered everything. as a texan, i wanted you to know -- i am so nervous. 40% of us down here are democrats, but we will never be the majority. i do not want the united states to think that all texans are like that. and what can we do? we cannot do anything in texas. again, we know that rick perry is doing it for money. that is it. guest: she brings up a point about what is happening in some

of the southern states. also, some western states. there are politicians who will be on -- under the microscope here. senator jay rockefeller democrat from the west virginia spoke of a two-year were delayed. who are some of their congressman who might get stuck in his push and pull? guest: certainly, democrats from industrial states, michigan, carl levin and debbie stabenow out. coal states, senator rockefeller, congressman mayhall. -- rhey hall. states that are so dependent on coal, is really difficult for those lawmakers to feel comfortable signing onto a policy that absolutely will change the future of use of coal

as a generating source. if you are representing coal miners, is very politically difficult. some of the other -- max baucus in montana, that is a cool stay. -- coal states. bob casey of pennsylvania, another call stay. meckler mccaskill, from missouri, nelson from nebraska. -- claire mccaskill from missouri, nelson from nebraska. it puts them in a difficult position with their constituents to be seen supporting something that is so -- that the talking points against it is that it potentially harms industry. hi there is a group in the senate, i think about 10 or 11 democrats, who will be in a tricky position on this. host: let's hear from new york state. a republican collar. caller: i want to explain to

this little lady that the epa is putting our country out of business. it takes 20 to 30 years to get a permit. build a plant. the best thing that boehner could do right now is the star if you people and the epa out of business. -- starved you people and the epa out of business. if they did that, this country would come back to life. host: we will leave it there and our guest is a reporter with the national journal and not working with the epa in any way. guest: thank you for clarifying that. the caller raises something that the administration is very aware of. they are aware that these regulations make them open to attacks that they will be hurting industry. that is why these regulations for, certainly in the first

couple of years, are very gradual. if you look at what they do, they do not really impose that many requirements on industry for the first few years. in the first year, with these requirements, it will be only new or expanding identities that have to get these permits. and the way that the rest of industry will be phased in is if you are a manufacturer or a power plant, you have a five- year power hot -- a five-year permit. how existing polluters, that is how they will be phased in. but it is unclear whether it will reduce emissions all that much. there is no cap, no limit. they are just saying that you have to figure out some way to reduce uri missions in a cost- effective manner. environmentalists actually say that these new regulations are not that strong environmentally.

the epa is trying as hard as it can -- the administration is trying as hard as it can, especially as the 2012 election campaign is already on us, to kind of a steer away from the idea that they are hurting industry. the talking point is out there, definitely. host: let's squeeze in a call from tennessee. james on the democrats line. caller: we have just got one earth. but we better take care of it. you have to understand that our media is corporate owned and therefore, we are influenced in the way that we are educated in that direction. that is a big issue in our environment and what we have going on here. some media is corporate loans. my employer is from atlantic media, a privately owned. at the end of the day, i would

probably support the callers position that there is one planet. i thank the caller for his remarks. host: and we have a comment on twitter. and it brings it all back to where we started today. where the epa comes into the constitution it is, as cause. howrah, guest today is a correspondent on the national journal. that is all -- our guest today is the course on on the national journal. that is all for our program today. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. later this morning there will be reading of the constitution. that will be around 11:00 a.m. and there was also the consideration to cut the house operating budget. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]