washington about the role of the epa in regulating greenhouse gases. senator john barrasso, a wyoming republican joins us at 8:30 eastern to discuss the health care lot and budget and spending issues. and we will look at the future of community service block grants with don mathis, head of the community action partnership. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: federal reserve chairman ben bernanke will be up on capitol hill today to set -- testifying before the house budget committee. lawmakers are expected to ask the fed and question about avoiding inflation and the current unemployment rate. at a speech last week that it

will reserve chairman said it will be several years before the unemployment rate will return to a normal level. live coverage today on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m.. also on the house side, homeland security committee hears testimony from the secretary of homeland security janet napolitano and director of the national character -- counterterrorism center, understanding the threat from homegrown terrorism. live coverage on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m.. good morning on this wednesday, february night. we will begin with your thoughts on extending some provisions of the patriot act. house republicans failed to garner enough votes to extend, with 26 rank-and-file gop bucking their leadership and voting against the reauthorization. james sensenbrenner talk about this issue on the floor yesterday. his argument was about one of the most controversial aspects of the patriot act, the national security matters. here is what he had to say. >> mr. speaker, there's been a

lot said about national security letters. the authority for them was made permanent unit 2006. it is not a part of this bill. we ought to completely forget about the complaints about national security letters. what i will say it is backed in the 2006 reauthorization of the patriot act, there were provisions to give recipients of the national security letter the right to obtain judicial review. i am proud of that fact because whatever constitutional affirmative there were in this part of patriot act were solved. >> -- host: here is how "the washington post" plays it.

a democrat from illinois. what are your thoughts on this, norm? caller: good morning. i am the president of our local library district and we have been fighting against the patriot act since its inception. the national security letters you spoke of earlier are completely unconstitutional. these are just letters an agent can show up with at the library

and ask to see any of our patrons records going back god knows how long parrot -- how long. what the library had to do is have automatic purges so if there is a need to find out what somebody is reading or what their internet access was, it is already purged. in the old days before george bush and the patriot act, there was the fourth amendment -- the fourth amendment was followed. and there was a search warrant issued by a judge. these and national security letters are just written, typed up on some computer program by who knows what. in 2008 i was in washington for a meeting with the ala, american library association and it was estimated at that time back in 2008 that there had been over 200,000 nsl's issued. and there were 12 billion pieces

of information on americans completely and associated with terrorism. this is horrible there are many parts of the patriot act and homeland security act that are unconstitutional. and the whole thing needs to be looked at. host: how many times can estimate that the fbi showed up at libraries in your area with the national secured letters asking for that information? caller: you know what? that is a great question. if part of an act says if a clerk gets an nsl and tells anyone, even a library director of the trustees, that they can be arrested on the spot and taken away and imprisoned. that is part of the patriot act people just don't understand. host: do you run afoul of the

law without libraries are automatically purging? caller: the republicans have not gotten around to making that against the law but i am certain they will. host: what has been the situation since 2008? caller: i haven't been back to washington. i read some data, it still continues under the obama administration, which is absolutely disheartening to me. i was hoping that the patriot act would get a review first thing when he was elected and there was a democratic majority. in both houses. but that didn't happen. we are just going to have to wait and see it and get the test in the courts, which i am very proud to say is being led by the librarians of this country. host: a court case currently? caller: i am sure it is working its way up. another was a connecticut four, i think they were called, four

different librarians in connecticut that got nsl's and fought them. host: can you tell us how it works when the library receives a national security letter? not so many times necessarily but how does it work. caller: an agent will come in with and nsl and they will present it to whomever is at the desk, circulation desk, and, let's say, your library records -- everything you have read and records of all your internet access. that clerk then must turn over whatever is available. now, most automatic purge is simply go back about two weeks. host: the fbi does not have software to get around that? caller: it is my belief that these agents and people

connected with the bush administration and homeland security were just too darn lazy and that is why they came up with this, to make everybody else do the work. unfunded mandate. we've got to comply. and, no, we are not. protecting the tradition -- the tradition of our reader privacy goes back to our very first national librarian, and that was benjamin franklin. and we are going to protect the privacy and the right to read of our patrons about everything. that is our job. host: norman mentioned that president obama is in support of extending these provisions in the patriot act. a little bit more from "the washington post." administration -- for an extension until 2013. the longer time line provides necessary certainty and predictability that law enforcement requires, while at the same time ensuring congress

can continue to review the law that think effectiveness. three competing time lines. among them -- shreveport, louisiana. mike, independent. you are next. caller: i just wanted to say i am so interested that the patriot act, provisions were denied. i felt that since it was implemented it was imposing on our civil liberties. i am glad to see that it fell. it's got a reminder to you and others, turn down the television delights host: reminder to you and others, turned down the television to avoid the feedback. good morning. caller: some people tend to forget that the u.s. constitution is the supreme law of the land and all laws are

repugnant to the constitution are in low and avoid. marbury versus madison. rights secured -- there could be no rule making of legislation that would abrogate them. medina v, arizona. and as -- unconstitutional act is not law. it imposes no duty, affords no protection, creates no office. legal contemplation -- are printed as though it had never been passed. host: we mentioned that many of the people who voted against extending the patriot act were part of the tea party -- support from tea party groups. ron paul was on the floor talking about the patriot act. here is what he had to say. caller: i think our reaction to the horrors of 9/11, we could understand the concern and fear that was developed but i think

the reaction took us in the wrong direction because the assumption was made, of course, that we weren't spending enough money on surveillance, and even though our intelligence agents -- agencies received $40 billion, they did not give us the right information. so now we are spending $80 billion. it also looks like the conclusion -- the american people had too much privacy. and we are undermining the american people's privacy somehow or another we would be safer. i think another thing that has come up lately has been that the purpose of government is to make that perfectly safe. it is good to be safe but governments can't make us safe. i question whether or not we have been made safer by the patriot act. to say a law makes us somewhat safer, is that a justification for the government to do anything they want? host: politico reports --

chico, california, laura, independent. what are your thoughts? i you with us? we did with lost her. george, a republican in plymouth, massachusetts. caller: how is it going? host: george, what are your thoughts on the patriot act extension? caller: i agree with it -- me calling -- you can call yourself a conservative. i am not trying to belittle the 9/11 but once you sit there and change the laws and change your

mind about people's rights to beatles privilege is, you are letting the terrorists win. that is the key point. what you agree or disagree. that is what the terrorists want. they are going to take away a lot of lives, but they want to change behavior. that is the point of a terrorist attack, to change behavior. host: politico reports the patriot act was passed shortly after this of timber 11th 2001 terrorist attacks. to give the government expanded surveillance powers while breaking down barriers between the cia, fbi, and other intelligence agencies. many members were concerned about paycheck act provisions that would allow the government to access medical and business records. athens, georgia. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to thank all of the representatives who opposed the bill -- especially ron paul. i am a big fan. i hope he runs for president again did he said turn this country around. he is so different. we are getting the same old,

same old. what i want to talk about is two-fold. the reason it failed is because it needed a major two-thirds majority. the reason why -- they did not want debate on the house floor. this mode was to pass this without debate. just like the first time it was passed without debate. why do they want to pass it without debate? why did they want to go up there and jam something down america's throat that would gut the bill of rights without debate? the reason why, they know it is wrong and if they got there and debate it they would expose it for what it is. the other thing i would like to mention about the patriot act. look up the 1933 enabling act of not to germany which put the -- nazi germany was put the party in power and put a side-by-side you can see how the patriot act made a police state just like nazi germany and early 1930's. host: gop leaders unable to flip

swing votes. mike rogers will be on "washington journal" on friday as well as the ranking member. they will have the first open meeting on worldwide threats. let us go to washington. karen on the independent line. i think we lost that one. capitol heights, maryland. tony, independent. good morning. are you with us? caller: how are you doing? host: what are your thoughts about the patriot act extension family? caller: i don't agree with the patriot act. i don't believe it is necessary. never heard so many people so desperate to be -- slaves.

when you get rid of freedom. i never -- it is like they are retarded or something. i don't understand. condition and brainwashed -- they want to be a safe slave. it is implementing a police state. host: dennis kasich, democrat, also talked yesterday on the floor about why he opposed extending the patriot -- dennis kucinich. >> and open up the door for possible is a broader reach into our daily lives. a gentleman from wisconsin, my friend, correctly pointed out the difference between national security matters and the patriot act. but it is also true that section 505 of the patriot act gave the government the ability to greatly expand who can issue a national security letter, so

much so that nearly 50,000 nationals a dreaded letters were issued by the fbi, and i think they've year was 2006. they did not have to use section 215. they can just in both the national security letter authority and reach into people's financial records, medical records, the reading material. host: mike on the republican line from kentucky. what are your thoughts? caller: they will get it through. i opposed it when it was on a originally passed under bush. i oppose any bill that erodes more of our rights in this country. that seems to be the same for the last many years -- to keep and bear arms, to privacy. very happy that it failed but i do believe it will get through. host: hampton, virginia.

jeff is a democrat. caller: i am glad it failed. i hope it fails again when they try to pass it through. i can't believe how you can be an american and before anything that takes away -- that violates your rights and liberties. it makes no sense. it never should have passed in the first place. that is the way the old nazi party got into power and i hope it does not happen in this country. host: republican line debated in syracuse, new york. caller: my view is it has been 10 years, it served its purpose and i do not think we will need it anymore. host: why not? caller: i mean -- 10 years ago we had 9/11. we had to root out terrorists, we had to secure our borders, we have to take care of a lot of things. i am a truck driver -- and it is not needed at this point. host: what about the threat of homegrown terrorism -- and we

saw the christmas day bomber a couple of christmases ago and other situations pop up. you still don't think it is needed when you think about those? caller: i do not think it is needed. what the patriot act has brought a lot -- educated our police forces and everything else for video surveillance in the cities and everything else. when you travel into new your city, you have more surveillance cameras and anything else just for the general public security. those things right there are good things. yes, the patriot act did bring a profit -- across some good things but also a lot of negativity. i just don't feel it is needed. host: janet napolitano, homeland security secretary, will testify over home grown terrorism. live coverage on c-span 3. atlanta, georgia. greg, democratic line. caller: hello? host: you are on the air.

good morning, david. caller: this is great. i feel -- greag -- greag. first of all, we were sending the troops to fight for freedom and the patron act takes away all of our freedoms. the patriot act was not written for terrorists. it was written for us because the american public -- not listening to us and we might go off and riot light egypt and that is what it was written for. host: "usa today" interview with former defense secretary donald rumsfeld. the headline -- "a sense of pride and vindication." booktv.org will have an

exclusive starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern time -- he will appear at the philadelphia national constitution center to talk about his new memoir "known and unknown." he will be interviewed by historian michael -- and take questions from the constitution center audience as well. booktv will exclusively webcast this and strain it at booktv.org beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. go to the booktv.org website and click next to the "known and unknown" book cover. following a live webcast, the event with the former defense secretary will be available for a re-watch on booktv.org as well about one hour after it ends and then we airing saturday, february 12, are around 9:00 p.m. eastern time and sunday,

february 13, at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. the illinois. spot on the republican line. caller: good morning. the patriot act had roving wiretaps from overseas calls. i am sure the terrorists are thrilled that we are not going to continue -- and when we have a small nuclear suitcase bomb go off in new york harbor i will feel safe here in the heartland. host: provisions that are set to expire. extension of these provisions failed in the house yesterday. quincy, illinois. on the independent line. caller: this patriot act should be scrapped. i am surprised obama did not tear it up when he came in. u.s. citizens are not terrorists

-- units have four forms of id to go to the bank and start an account and you know the guy all your life. you have plastic surgery -- i don't know. this thing needs to be thrown out. as soon as possible. host: first one to show you several headlines in the paper this morning on the economy. here is "the hill" -- it says senator conrad will pitch his democratic colleagues at their annual treat -- retreat today on putting forward proposals on the debt commission. they started gathering for their annual policy retreat. "usa today" has this headline on the front page.

u.s. jobs program, tap, $18 billion a year. the federal government spends $18 billion a year on 47 separate job training programs run by nine different agencies. all but three overlap with others to provide the same services to the same populations. "the new york times" has this front-page story on jobs. obama offering rescue to states. president obama proposing to ride to the rescue states that a borrowed billions --

also, "the washington post" has the same story about the president's plan. there had line -- obama offers states a reprieve. yesterday, the white house also announced it would like to spend about $53 billion on high-speed rail. that is in "the financial times." obama build ks for investment. also on the housing situation, "the financial times" reports a white house report will worn over the mortgage shakedown. the white house is expected later this week to unveil plans to overhaul fannie mae and freddie mac.

clarksville, tennessee. democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: how are you this morning? host: doing well. caller: i am a young man and i feel like the patriot act, that it was ok. i felt a little safer. it did not make me feel totally safe but i feel like the patriot act, it should be voted in again. because there are people that should be surveillanced and have their phones tapped. host: it -- host: it does not make me feel safer but it eases my mind a little bit, as well as other people's. host: how would on the republican line. caller: i think some of our republican representatives -- and i am a republican -- better review the constitution. it talks about us being secure in our books and papers and this is a clear infringement on our constitutional rights. it does not make me feel any safer and i think they'd better

wake up and smell the roses like my own representative. we are opposed to this. i think you can tell from the people who called this morning, both republican and democrat, that it frightens me and other people. thank you. host: mississippi. gary, democratic line. caller: i have a comment that people bought a wake-up and realize that al qaeda never sleeps. they are up 24/7, 365, trying to figure out ways to kill us and if we let our guard down for one second, they will attack us again and it will be worse than 9/11 ever thought about being. i would like to say that we have a great president and the country needs to get behind him and help him. host: "detroit free press" has this headline courtesy of the newseum.

auto makers for first and will profit since 2004 expected in the coming weeks. "the wall street journal" has this headline -- china raises rates amid hit to wheat crops. let's go to michigan. terry is an independent. good morning. caller: i don't think they ought to keep the patriot act. i don't want to see it extended at all. i also find it ironic in this country -- i do not like necessarily the way the bill is written as far as health care -- i think they ought to tweak that in the bid. what do we got -- 26 states, the attorney general's filed lawsuits that it is unconstitutional. where were these states when this patriot act takes away our rights or allows our government to pay attention to what we are reading or who we are calling? host: on that health care law, this is "the wall street journal." gop seeks to block funding for

it. maryland. david on the democratic line. caller: i just wanted to say it is time for the patriot act to be relaxed in little bit. so i am against voting again for it in the whole form. i will remind people of benjamin franklin -- at the base of the statue of liberty. people who would give up their freedom for security deserve neither frieder nor security. thank you. host: now the things that are happening in washington today. "the baltimore sun."

obama will have lunch with house gop leaders today. obama's invitation to house speaker john boehner, majority leader eric cantor and kevin a part -- kevin mccarthy comes days after a previously unannounced lunch between the president and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell last friday. richmond, virginia. republican minority caller: i really think most people don't have an idea what the patriot act is all about. to be against something that they can't understand, which actually most people don't understand. first off, the government is not going to tap your phone just because they wanted. here is the biggest deal about the patriot act. remember when the airplane hit the 14th street bridge in washington. virginia, and maryland, and d.c. police never acted together. the pentagon is in virginia.

they have mass confusion. -- had mass confusion. maybe all of these agencies and the united states should work together -- atf and dea don't even work together and the fbi. if you have had dealings with those organizations, you realize that they never worked together until the patriot act. you have all of these naysayers who want to complain and make a big issue about something that really the average american -- it has nothing to do -- who have nothing to do with farmers or extremists. they should leave it intact because the patriot act is a good thing. host: in other news, here is "the new york times." conservative gathering to test gop hopeful.

it goes on to say that attendees of the conservative action committee, which often includes a large contingent of young activists are not a perfect representation of republican voters in the early tier of states that open the nominating

season a year from now, but the audience of the hotel in washington as well as those watching the speeches on c-span offers the highest profile platform yet for prospective candidates to test their messages. go to c-span.org to look at our coverage of cpac that begins this thursday and goes until saturday. michael, independent line. good morning. caller: i heard a lot of things about -- that this was years ago. that if someone had made phone calls overseas, even to family members, that they could be considered potential threats, terrorist threats, or if they have businesses -- importing or exporting. i do not know how true it is. but if you have these kinds of things -- what is a homegrown

terrorists? to me, it sounds like a plant. if you have the plants -- who is the farmer, who is growing of the terrorists? if it happens to be somebody like timothy mcveigh -- i don't understand a lot about that. host: we will go to buffalo, new york, next. but first, "the washington times" has another story about cpac. some of the movement's top leaders circulated a private memo urging conservatism's founding principles be recast to exclude gay rights groups from the reagan coalition of economic defense and social conservatives. that is "the washington times" if you are interested. buffalo. stephen, democratic line. caller: i really think that the

patriot act is something that is good to die. i think we all have to remember that this bill was passed in the heat of the moment right after september 11. 10 years later -- that is why it is failing. if you really look at it, you know, this law allowed a lot of people in very high places to circumvent him -- with search and seizures. the truth is, they are listening to your calls. they are uncovering crimes that are not just terrorism. it is all kinds of crimes. and regular american citizens are having their privacy invaded in order to supposedly counteract terrorism. it is just not right. i think a lot of people have seen that. that is why the patriot act is almost a joke about in other countries and in this country. host: all right. the picture that was

reauthorized in 2006. judy patriot act was reauthorized in 2006. caller: i and glad the patriot act got shot down. i was very young when 9/11 happened, and i looked at the patriot act when i got older and looked around it and learn my laws, and it is taking away several -- civil liberties. host: "the new york times" editorial is about egypt's vice- president -- and they called for the government and opposition to meet in a joint meeting and said a date for elections and establish an independent commission to oversee the process. that is "the new york times" editorial pages. "usa today" has an interview with first lady michelle obama and she tells the paper the president has quit smoking.

and she also says that -- in an hour-long lunch, the session was established to mark the anniversary of let's move to end childhood obesity. she said the effort will be expanded over the next couple of years, starting with the release today of new public service announcements that could reach as many as 2 million viewers. also this morning, in the "style section -- michelle obama and her fluid staff. legacy in the making. caller: you look lovely today, as always. i wanted to say, thank you, sees. but this is why i watch. because of the first caller. because he put it right on the line. this patriot act usurps the rights we are guaranteed from

under the fourth amendment, illegal search and seizures. if they really need to do -- they can use the fisa law to get the warrant and go into people's libraries and have the phone lines. ialso, i wanted to add that as far as our representatives not following -- the people who voted nay on may deployment compensation -- they are committing violation of the oath of office under five u.s. code 7311. the people who are listening, congress has voted for these things or against these things,

they really need to contact the office oce.house.gov and file an ethics complaint against the representatives so we can get the country back. we are the people. host: democrat from marco, eleanor. if you are interested in staff shakeup at the white house there is a new seating chart on the federal page of "the washington post" this morning a look at who sits where after recent staff changes. many of you heard the news that former msnbc anchor keith older men is going to al gore's current tv -- keith olbermann. current tv is in a small audience by that market standards.

he had up to a million viewers per night in his prime time slot on msnbc. nbc universal owns 10% of current media -- "current" media. caller: it is a shame they have not renewed it yet. but one mistake they did make was that the -- an agent was listening to a conversation or downloading illegally off of the web, and it was embarrassing to you, they would keep this information and replay it and laugh about it. these people should have had

incredible repercussions for doing something like that. as far as the patriot act, it should definitely be extended. i do not see what liberties you are losing someone listening to a conversation of yours for a couple of seconds and you are doing something completely legal. you have no repercussions for that. yet, if somebody is trafficking humans or planning an attack that could kill thousands of people, it will prevented -- prevent it. joining us from political process offices in washington area is john harris, editor in chief. to talk about the front pages this morning. let me show our viewers this headline. insurance reality hits lawmakers. a piece that talks about lawmakers who want to repeal the healthcare lob -- law, the 16

lawmakers who opted out. what are they saying? guest: they are saying the private insurance market in many cases can be expensive and a big hassle. although they have not flipped their position, still opposed to the obama health care package and support is repealed, they are certainly looking at it in a somewhat different light -- looking at the travails of people without insurance as a rhetorical stand and show that people are putting money where their mouth in. in that case it means $1,200 a month -- something people in similar straits, sole proprietors, small businessmen, whenever, people having trouble. host: if it has not changed

people's opinions about appealing the health-care law, has it tweaked thoughts about alternatives to the law? guest: there are members saying, look, we recognize there needs to be an alternative but not what they consider -- one that imposes unfair mandates on individuals. they do support measures to improve access. host: google turns up unwanted results. the google and microsoft battle. what is happening in washington between these two? dig up two big tech titans in -- guest: two big tech titans on in who gets protections or who face the scrutiny of the federal government. there was a time a decade or so ago when the tech firms -- whether microsoft in seattle or google, or other important tech

companies in silicon valley, kind of brushed off washington saying we do not care about washington, we are doing innovation. we don't care about washington, and that has long since passed. every important technology company, certainly microsoft and will will, have major washington operations. a as part of our new politico pro unit, trying to cover a new way -- finding a way to cover policy problems in washington -- a story about google. microsoft is basically putting the cross hairs on google, trying to use its washington influence to gin up scrutiny -- they would say unfair scrutiny -- on google's competitive practices. kind of a flat because a decade ago you would recall microsoft was complaining that it opponents were using the government to try to compete against it. there was that the justice department battle that forced

microsoft to change some of its practices. now microsoft is on the other side of the equation. saying, look, the federal government needs to take a good, hard look at google's competitive practice. host: we were showing the front page of the politico newspaper. you had a wraparound -- time to go pro. what is this? subscription base? guest: politico is four years old and most of our -- really all of our existence up until now, we have been advertiser supported. we have been able to have a growing and vibrant news room that is supported with advertising revenues. both a successful news organization and a successful business. as part of our effort to continue growing wheat are opening up a line that will be for subscribers. this is highly specialized

policy information. usually stories that go right to the intersection of washington politics and washington policy. it would be of most interest to people -- that is why we call it pro -- people who do this for a living and need to know the latest and most detailed information in real time. nothing that would cover currently in politico for free will not continue to be free -- we will continue to do what we have been doing at politico advertiser-supported, but for some of our growth going forward it will be a subscription-based model. host: do you know how much it will cost? guest: for the people who need the information, we are prepared to take -- command a premium and we found the market is supportive of that. i think it comes out to $1,200 a year -- i am the editor, by the way. i am not comfortable taking orders over the phone or talking

detail about the subscription cost. that is the job of our sales department. but i can explain the idea. it very valuable information. it is a real-time intelligence whose businesses depend on it. for these people, finding even a relatively high cost is a bargain. host: there is a separate web site, politicopro.com. john harris, thank you very much. coming up next, we will turn our attention to revising the health-care law. that will be at 8:30 eastern time, what senator john barrasso, republican. but first, it discussion on epa regulations. >> this weekend on book tv on c- span2, on a "after words" george friedman, president of a private geopolitical intelligence company. also this weekend, former

defense secretary donald rumsfeld sits down with an historian to talk about his memoir. and a director of the iranian studies program at stanford on the shot of iran. find a complete schedule at booktv.org and get it e-mailed to you. >> you are watching c-span, bringing politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal," our live call-in program, connecting you with elected officials, policy- makers, and journalists. weekdays, live coverage of the u.s. house and weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. and supreme court oral arguments. weekends, signature interview programs. saturdays, "the communicators" and on sunday, "q&a" and prime minister's questions and house of commons. it is searchable in our c-span video library. c-span, washington your way.

a public service created by american's cable companies. "washington journal continues. host: representative jay inslee, democrat of washington. represented the first district of washington. northern part of seattle. we were just talking about energy issues. this debate over epa regulations. what is your view? iest: it won't surprise you have a clear view. that view is we should reject the dirty air act. the republican effort to pass the dirty air act is contrary to the interest of the people i represent. if it were successful in passing the act it would gut the clean air act which has been so successful in helping americans breathe freely. so successful in reducing asthma.

200,000 premature deaths. it has been a very successful loughner for 40 years. -- successful law for 40 years. it was started by republican president nixon. it is sad to see colleagues want to gut this act. this would eliminate the ability of the environmental protection agency to protect us some very dangerous pollutants -- carbon dioxide, ozone, which do precipitate asthma attacks, and a host of other respiratory problems. we know we can grow our economy with the clean air act. we have done it. we reduced pollution 60% in the last 40 years and grow our economy by 207%. host: that is not the name of the legislation. are you giving it a nickname? the draft legislation by congressman upton? guest: that is not the official name. i think it is the most accurate

name. you can call it that or the inhaler enhancement act for 2011 for the kids sitting on inhalers. i have strong views because i know a children who struggled for breath as a result of asthma. it is not a comfortable picture when you see a young child going through that. this bill will directly reduce the ability -- eliminate the ability of the environmental protection agency to stop that pollution, reduce it dramatically. when i say eliminate, i need to eliminate. not just trying to rein it in or reduce the ability of the epa. this would cut off at the ankles and prevent it from stopping that pollution. this is not the way to go. the reason i say this is we know that we are the most innovative country on the face of the earth and we know we can't invent our way out of this problem to create these technologies -- we can invent our way out of this problem. that is a vision and the

optimistic future we should have. i was looking at some history. during the original clean air act debate, congressmen opposed to the clean air act " said a mayor who said, congressman, if this town is going to grow, it has to stink. we did not believe it is true. our country is greater than that. we proved it is greater than that because we created technologies in the past that gave as clean air and job growth. we have to do that again. do that or china will eat our lunch when it comes to energy technology. host: the full committee is holding a hearing today on chairman upton's draft legislation that would strip the epa over its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. you can see the chairman of the screen pettitte talking about that issue. our guests, congressman jay inslee. you talk about the republican legislation but there are some centrists democrats in the senate in particular who are looking at this issue and are not happy about the epa going

forward on their rules on a carbon. senator rockefeller, democrat from west virginia, is asking for a two-year delay on that issue. guest: and i would suggest we need to follow two fundamental american principle when we address this issue. one is science. you know, we fly airplanes, we use cell phones, it depends on science. in this case we have to simply listen to the scientists and physicians. what they are telling us is we do not reduce these pollutions, our kids are going to have an increase in asthma, our seniors with respiratory problems will have increasing respiratory problems, our seniors with heart problems will have increasing heart problems. that is unacceptable in america today. number one. number two, celebrating on the floor, ronald reagan's 100th birthday yesterday. one of his principal things we celebrate is his optimism. i think those folks who want to

pass this dirty air act, whether republicans or democrats, really need to have a little more optimism about our ability to innovate our way out of our energy challenges. i have seen in the last few months americans shining when it comes to this innovation. the car of the year was a plug in electric car made by general motors, the chevy volt. that is the kind of innovation that consol our problems. i went to the coolest thing a few weeks ago, benediction of the very first electric car charging station at a church and american, a wooden cross church. kind of neat because we got to say let there be light, let there be power. that is the kind of innovation we ought to be confident in ourselves to be able to grow in this country and eventually sell to the world. if you care about americans's held an americans' economic

health, the dirty air act is marketing back to fear and the defeatist attitude we cannot solve this problem and have our clean air, too. i am convinced we can do it. i have seen all across this country these innovations coming into play. host: this is a story in "the washington examiner's" web site. senator barbara boxer, chairman of the environment and public works committee said the senate has the vote to delay the epa carbon regulations. guest: we will see. we don't know but we do have a president of the white house with a veto pen, and if that is what it takes, fine. the american public would support it, if necessary, a veto. the reason is americans of all stripes, they share one thing in common. we like to breed. and when you make breathing more difficult for our children -- would like to breathe, and when you make breathing difficult for our children, it is not a good idea. i will admit there are lobbyists

from major fossil fuel industries in washington, d.c., and they do have some sway in the aisles of power. when you go out on main street and ask people do you want your congressman to remove the ability of the environmental protection to protect the health of your child, i don't think it plays well. maybe it does in the lobbying community for the fossil fuel industry but not on main street. i hope people will start to think about this. host: republicans point to the last election, and 70% of americans reject cap and trade. they don't buy into this issue and it is unpopular. republicans also argue that epa should not be passing these roles. that is the power of congress. guest: some argued against the clean air act when it was a originally instituted. of course, there are always special interests who want to reject the ability to protect americans'health.

and i disagree -- two-thirds of americans at least one regulation in some sense of these pollutants. maybe cap and trade, as described, maybe that was not the vehicle they liked. but if you go out anywhere in the country and you ask this simple question, should the epa have the ability to protect the health of our children by regulating the pollutants, the answer by overwhelming majority will be, yes. i am happy to stand on that rock and debate anyone in any town in america about that. we all have kids -- republicans and democrats. that is what at risk. the real issue is who is going to make the decisions about our help. physicians and scientists with the lobbying, it -- or of the lobbying community in washington. i think we need to listen to the science that has been clear. our children's health is in jeopardy. we have the ability act -- to act and the clean air act mandates it. host: stephen, a republican. princeton, west virginia. caller: i would like to ask your

guest if he ever saw an electric battery explode. and they do have the capacity to do that. the epa -- they declared war on the coal business. that is all it is. they can call it anything they want. what they are after -- to destroy the coal business. just come out and say it's. guest: there have been fires in the past. they have improved dramatically. olt orn drive a chevy vau a nissan leaf, i think you will love the experience. they are selling like hot cakes. they are fun to drive. they are very quiet.

i think we will find a white exceptions of electric cars when people get behind the wheel -- a wide acceptance of electric cars. we need to find a way to sequester, to keep the dangerous pollutants out of the atmosphere. i had lunch with a company in seattle that has developed a way to compress a carbon dioxide to take its out of the stream of coal so you can burn coal, compress it, and put it underground where it does not force any health problems. we wanted to do this development here. i am excited about that. there was a bill that would of created a fund to help the coal industry to move forward with

their industry -- with their research. that will be a real help. coal be a significant help. we have a huge stocks of co al. we have not given up on that. we have to use our heads to burn as cleanly. host: independent caller from raleigh. caller: i wanted to point out some aspects of this bill if it were to be passed. this bill essentially is to increase profits for corporations in the form of not having to put together a meaningful abatement of these pollutants. i think you don't have to go far to see what happens if health

aspects of the bill were to affect our children. china and russia have increasing amounts of -- burning fossil fuels needs to be controlled. it is that coupled with the fact that air pollution is not like other forms of pollution. you must put effort into prevention. in ground water, you can implement some remedial measures. i will leave it at that. guest: i agree with your assessment. let me mention some profits. profits are a good thing. let me suggest that one of my concerns about the republicans' dirty air act is that it would reduce profit in america. the clean air act is an accelerator to help accelerate investment in some of the very

fast job creation industries we have. in the wind turbines industry. in the lithium batteries and the transmission lines that will carry this electricity. we are hiring thousands of electricians, iron workers, construction personnel to build these companies and these jobs and these profits. if we take your foot off the accelerator by saying we will no longer have a reason to invest in clean energy, you will reduce profits and the jobs that come with them. i would argue that if you want to grow our economy, we have to get in this race with china, or they are going to eat our lunch. i think if we passed the dirty air act, it is dirty in reducing job creation in the fundamental challenge of america, which is to fulfill our destiny and to leave the world

and clean energy technology. host: we have a headline with your name in it. if you're concerned about the debt, how do we pay for investment and energy? guest: there is a net increasing in our economic well- being in passing this. virtually every study has found for every dollar we have invested in clean energy technology, it has improved our economy and were from $20 to $40. they do have some up-front investment, but they have enormous returns. when we avoid going to the hospital, but we save money. when you have a child that does not have an asthma attack, we save money. when you are a 65-year-old

woman with respiratory problems and you do not go to the hospital, we save money. what we have found is as a result of the clean air act, we have produced pollution 60%. we have increased our economy 207e%. we invent new technologies and we sell to the rest of the world. we have 3.0 million people selling these products, building these products in america today and selling them around the world. y.is is a growth economi host: how do you pay for them?

more: we're going to pay in our health-care bills and our unemployment rate if we cannot solve this problem. these investments have paid off. this is a reply of the clean energy act when richard nixon was president. people argued this would cost us so much it would shut down american industry. the facts are that because we have used technology to reduce the cost in implementing these technologies every time we have done it. host: the president has talking but eliminating the so-called tax subsidies for oil and gas per is that what you're looking at in order to pay for these clean energy investments? guest: that is one way to do that. i think it makes sense to do that. we have an old technology right

now. we burn coal or oil, and it is pretty old technology. we know how to do it. there is no reason for the american taxpayer to subsidize and figuring out a way to burn oil and coal. here is where we need the investment, in which to manufacture solar cells and wind turbines. those are the new technologies that can use a boost. china is trying to dominate these industries. if we allow them to get out of the shoot ahead of us, second place is not a place to go. when you're in an economic grace, you need to realize where the investments pay off -- when you are in an economic race. host: we're talking about eta

regulations. the full committee of energy and commerce is holding a hearing on its draft legislation but forced by chairman fred upton. the committee is expected to take up the issue on thursday, as well. -- the committee on thursday is looking at the crisis on oil in egypt. i want to show our viewers what the american petroleum institute had to say recently about this idea of getting rid of its tax deductions for oil and gas request lester, a company's investments in u.s. capital projects over the previous decade now hit the $2 trillion mark. this industry provides to the u.s. treasury on average well

over $95 million a day in taxes, rents, or royalties, and bonus payments. on the other hand, without policies that encourage the continued safe and reliable production of our domestic resources, the story would be much gloomier. host: the figure put forth $4 billion. it was ordered they give a lot back to the government in taxes and world to fees -- in texas and royalty fees. guest: we are proud of them. they do not deserve a subsidy to subsidize their ceo salaries. they are a gargantuan, healthy, multi natural -- multi-national

corporation. we have in small office parks, people who are doing something like a company that is building a new battery that can be more effective. a company like energy 2 in seattle that are building alter capacitors. they can make your car run 1/3 longer on a single charge. they need to be able to compete with china. that is where we need to put our investments today. i wrote a book about energy a couple of years ago. i talked to inova owners. these are the most inspiring of entrepreneurial optimistic people in the country. if we give them a boost, they will do great things, just like

when we went to the moon. host: washington, d.c. caller: i would like to point out that it is incorrect of mr. it is misleading to use asthma -- most asthma in the u.s., asthma in children is related to obesity in children. but the lifestyles of children who suffer from asthma. they are obese and they are inactive. they did not practice sports. children who exercise have a much smaller chance of getting asthma. the correlation with obesity is much more direct then with the air. guest: to live. i appreciate your interest in

obesity. i have -- thank you. i try to get kids active to deal with obesity. this is one case where we should not listen to the congressman on the subjects covered i don't think we should listen to the lobbyists. i think we should listen to the physicians. here is what they tell us. they tell us that the clean air act has prevented 18 million cases of respiratory illnesses among children per 843,000 severe asthma attacks. it is not a scare tactic. when you see a child trying to brief, it is something that tugs at deep places at your heart. it has prevented 200,000

premature deaths. one of the problems with congress to say is that there are too many people who are listening to the lobbying community rather than listening to the scientific community. they are telling us there is a health risk for doing this just as there is a health risk to our entire system. what's the arctic melts -- watched the arctic melt and watch what is going on to the ice cap in greenland and then listen to congressman who say there are no problems with these pollutants, i suggest we listen to the scientists. they make this country break -- great. caller: good morning. i am a construction worker. the purple better doing the talk about the chemicals are not harmful. i worked in a plant for over 40

years. we did not have osha. we started that together, working construction. i am 65 years old. i buried all of my co-workers except about four others left. brain tumors, cancer, respiratory diseases. these people are going to tell me -- the doctor cannot find out what is wrong with me now, sir. weight. weight, i gain these people need to come around lake charles, louisiana, madden rouge, louisiana -- becton rouge, louisiana. this country is going down the drain. nice talking to you. guest: i wish you were in the capital today. i would bring you to the commerce committee and have you

talked to some of our colleagues about this. it seems to the federal toernment's obligation watch out for guys like you. and to take away the ability of the federal government to do that, i think it is wrong. that is what they're trying to do. i'm going to fight it. and i hope we are going to win. host: we have a tweet and they want complete disclosure. guest: i have some people doing that. i have people paying attention to that. i am not a rich man. but i will tell you, i know some good companies. host: larry.

we will move on to christine, a republican from pennsylvania. caller: hello? i would like to make a comment about the chevy volt. the price is very high and it is not affordable for most people. where does the electricity comes from? coal. i was warming is the representative knows anything about the chicago climate exchange. they would be the regulatory agency for carbon -- or corporate credit. i was wondering if she knows who is invested in that -- al gore and goldman sachs and what his thoughts are about that. guest: there will not be any climate exchange are trading of credit under this epa rule. the epa would enforce the clean air act like it always has pre this is not a cap and trade

system. it would stop in its tracks the epa from enforcing the clean air lost in regard to a listed group of pollutants like carbon dioxide and ozone. your fears -- you don't have to worry about that. you raise an important point. some of these electric cars are more expensive than some of the others. over time, their range will increase. remember the super bowl ad that showed these guys with old phones they had the started in the mid 1980's and weighed 20 pounds. that is what they looked like 15, 16 years ago. now they are sleek and you put them in your pocket. same thing with the electric cars. the exceptions will skyrocket. it is because americans are smart. the ones out there who can

design automobiles. there are making improvements as we speak. the fourth focus -- the ford focus is coming out later this year. have faith in the american inventor and the american entrepreneurial spirit. we'll have a great american cars. go drive one. they are a blast. they move. host: the energy tax prevention act will be considered today. here is a tweet from another viewer. guest: i disagree with several things. the volt is not a sham. people said, this is just a sham.

this is a joke. guess what was the car of the year, it judged by car fanatics and car mechanics and car customers? the chevy volt. i have driven it. the concern about china is a real one. their government is now starting to enforce clean energy loss and starting to present some benefits to companies to move there. they are out-competing us. we still have five plants of there. i met with the president of china. they have the intention to dominate this market. we did not let the chinese dominate the software market or the heiress of the -- or the aerospace market.

host: we have a quick phone call from kelly. caller: hello. guest: a great spot. caller: 50 for all the great work you're doing. i wish fox news would have you on. -- thank you for all the great work you're doing. how we engage the public. you were talking about people on main street. they want the epa and people in congress want all the money and the perks. how do we galvanize people -- this is what i run into. just some insight into how john q. public can vote in their best interest?

guest: do whatever you do best. good luck. host: we will speak with senator john barrasso of wyoming and talk about it. laws and revising the health care law. in our last hour, we'll talk about the president's plan to cut grants to communities. that is coming up in our last hour. but first, a news update. >> here are some headlines. appearancee's first in front of the house is likely to be a tough one. much of the growing could come from members of his own party. he is a republican who served as president bush's chief economist. he was chosen by mr. bush to run the fed. that hearing begins at 10:00

a.m. this morning. president obama is reaching out to republicans with a luncheon for gop leaders. he will meet with john boehner, eric cantor, and the majority whip, kevin mccarthy. this is the first such meeting since republicans assumed control of the house in january. the meeting is expected to focus on the economy and spending. after comments by some officials were widely interpreted as diverging from the white house stan, the white house saw to dispel any notion it is loosening pressure on mubarak are backing off from supporting the protesters flooding cairo's square. demonstrators have been demonstrating a for 16 days.

vice president omar suleiman said the protest movement does not enter negotiations, a coup could take place, causing greater chaos. the protests must stand. demonstrators continued to cite not until president mubarak leaves office. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend, a voting discrimination in the south, and the kennedy administration's strategy to overcome ait. and senator daniel inouye on his military service in world war ii. experienced american history tv, on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. have the schedules e-mail to you.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: senator john barrasso has this piece published today. this would put the brakes on washington's efforts and these regulations are contrary to the will of the american people. the legislation would stop your bill -- was not modest regulation the agency has already proposed closed stronger ones it would issue later this year. that should lead to the retirement of many of the older, dirty air power plants and a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions. what is your reaction guest:? we need to make all of our energy as clean as we can.

guest: i am the only senator or on the republican side of the public works committee, we need to deal with energy security as law's environmental stewardship and economic growth. we need all of the energy and we need to work in ways to make it cleaner. look at what is happening around the world. china is doing an incredible job with coal. we need to protect our air. laws were never intended to deal with global warming. my specific bill focuses on using rules and regulations to try to address climate change, when that was not the intention of the clean air act, the clean water act, or the national environmental policy act. host: do you can see what is

being proposed are modest rules? guest: i think fee uh varlamov uh protection agency is way off base. the president has been talking about his executive order -- i think the environmental protection agency is way off base. the rules coming out of epa have been crushing jobs, especially energy-related jobs. and the red, white, and blue sector, the stuff that we need. the president talks about some of this regulation changes, i thought, he has to be talking about the environmental protection agency. in fact, the head of the the form of the protection agency has said, we are the model agency -- the head of the environmental protection agency has said we are the model agency.

i have talked about the arrogance of that agency, which says we will go with the back door cap and trade approach. nancy pelosi was speaker of the house. democrats controlled the house. 59 democrats in the senate. they still cannot get it passed. people back home were saying, do not do this. the president was talking about making green energy to most affordable energy. he does not to it by lowering the cost of renewable energy. he raises the cost of other forms of energy. i don't call it cap and trade. i call it cap and tax. the president was it unable to do this. the numbers are even further against him. they are trying to force this on to the american people. host: you must be privy to or

the votes stand on this sort of thing. what you think about the likelihood of your legislation or other legislation, of the passing proving guestg. guest: we will get something done. targets juste's the clean-air. there is a two-year moratorium. there have been articles in washington press about a dozen democrats who are saying we have to do something because we know what the impact of these regulations continue. it will continue to hurt jobs and the economy people aware about energy costs going up. your small business, you're trying to hire people. when you're not certain with the energy costs, you're less likely to hire.

host: you say the senate is likely to get something done. are you saying there is some centrist democrats who aren't in support of a delay in force by senator rockefeller? is that something you could get behind? guest: i think it is hard to predict. the democrats are off to debate and discuss where they want to go. i would like to go defending the america's affordable job acts. i think it addresses this in the broadest way. we need to make energy as clean as recant and as fast as we can. -- as clean as we can and as fast as we can. host: you're not saying that you are voting for a two-year delay. guest: look at these four laws.

none were passed at a time when people were talking about global warming. these were passed at a time when i was in college when the cover of"time" and "newsweek" said it was the coming of the ice age. congress needs to be the sole authority, not some world-making agency. i'm going to fight cap and trade all the way into anything i can to defeat it. if congress chooses to defeated, that could come out of congress. host: you have introduced legislation to revise the health-care law to allow states to opt out of some of the major provisions, the individual mandates, the benefit many, employer mandate. what is left of the law if you allow states to opt out? guest: it allows states to make

the choice. i was in the state senate in what iv five years. -- i was in the state senate in wyoming for five years. you of 26 governors now suing washington for the court system to say this law law is unconstitutional. the individual mandate or the law says you must buy this product 33 governors have written to the government saying we need some flexibility on medicaid. medicaid will cause us to go broke. a story the other day, two and governors that were highlighted as concerns about the cost of medicaid, the program from low- income individuals. jerry brown of california, injured cuomo of new york,

democrat governors saying we cannot afford these mandates. -- andrew cuomo. the system called the mother of all unfunded mandates. there is bipartisan concern around the country. it seems this state healthcare choice act -- let the states decide if they want to be part of this. if they do not, they say, we know better and what works for our state. that is the white i think they should go. i think the health care law as people forcing to buy insurance that they may not want or need or cannot afford. businesses are trying to hire people