openly gay public officials of both parties. he is followed by karen foug of "congressional quarterly" will talk about the agricultural spending bill. and as always, your calls and questions live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: congress is back in session this week. vice-president biden continuing his negotiations on the debt ceiling and government spending. the house of representatives expected to take up the issue of funding for the u.s. and nato bombings over libya. the president talking to the nation's mayors talking about the economy and unemployment. michelle obama and her daughters in africa.

and another gop candidates entering the race, former gov. john huntsman announcing in new jersey using the statue of liberty as the backdrop. we want to begin with a piece we found inside "usa today" focusing on unemployment and the deficit. how do you reduce both? let's take a quick look at some of the headlines this monday morning, june 20. the front page of "the l.a. times." the story pointing out some key republicans questioning the u.s. role in libya and afghanistan, a move that others call isolationist. of course, we will hear more about afghanistan as the president prepares for his announcement on the july 1 withdrawal of u.s. troops. just how many is the question

and how much of the operation is costing us. a piece this morning inside "usa today" from congressman john conyers. for those back in the work force, does not end the anxiety. new problems confronting the unemployed once they return to the workplace. frontpage 0 -- of "the boston globe." two mormons in the race. a mormon's image campaign. the ad coincides with the church's greater visibility in the 2012 race. in the front page of "the boston globe" and some of the advertising efforts from of the church of latter day saints. and the front page of "the richmond times dispatch," president obama, winning virginia in 2008, virginia is one of the key battleground states and obama volunteers also gearing up for 2012. but let's begin with our focus on this story inside "usa

today." economic strategy uniting the gop. this one sentence caught our eye. competing theories about how to deal with the two towering economic problems -- lowering the unemployment rate and a record deficit. the piece points out those issues are likely to dominate the 2012 campaign. and also dominated the sunday morning discussions beginning but senator mitch mcconnell who made his appearance on cbs's "face the nation." >> i think what they are reeling -- really looking to see what we will do is to do something about the debt. now whether we will raise the debt ceiling but whether we will do something about the annual deficit and debt. that is the real test. that is what standard and poor's and the rating agencies are looking for. we really need to do this. if we don't do something less significant about the debt

ceiling a really large comprehensive plan that includes entitlement reform -- you can't ignore it. bill clinton said that. the president, vice president everybody knows he have to attack a retirement reform. if we don't do that we would probably end up with a short term proposal over a few months and having the same discussion again in the fall. host: senate republican leader mitch mcconnell from kentucky. so how do you deal with the unemployment rate now above 9%, lower in some parts of the country and higher in states like michigan and nevada, and also reduce the deficit? as the vice president continues as negotiations with house and senate congressional leaders to come up with a package that will allow congress to raise the debt ceiling and also reduce government spending. "the christian science monitor" looking at unemployment and presidential politics dating back to 1940 unemployment was 16% -- 14.6% but president

roosevelt won. in 1976 the unemployment rate by it -- was 7.8% and gerald ford lost the election by just over 2%. jimmy carter lost when it was 7.5% back in 1980. ironically it was in 7.2% in 1984 ronald reagan winning by nearly 20% of the vote. when george herbert walker bush was running for reelection the unemployment rate was 7.4% and he also lost that election. reducing unemployment and reducing the deficit how do you do both? that is the question but bob is joining us from new york. good morning. caller: i heard recently -- and i believe it was on c-span the last week two -- an interesting statistic that for every billion dollars of trade imbalance that we have -- what is it, $250

billion a year with china? for every billion dollars of trade and balance it is equal to or costs 13,000 u.s. jobs. so, by the government and our elected officials not addressing the trade imbalance with some of these asian nations it is just disingenuous on their part. and not dealing with the trade issue bringing millions of jobs back to the united states -- if i could finish. i have a plan to put people back to work, very simple as far as business liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance. if there was some legislation passed that required the insurer in the united states that does business here only allows

coverage -- the coverage issue for documented workers. undocumented workers not to be covered by workers' compensation and business liability insurance the businesses in the united states began small wood runs scared if there was a liability attached to the undocumented workers that they could not be -- of 42 left open for liability and therefore they would only hire legal documented workers taxpayers. thank you for c-span2 host: thank you for the call. let's go to the republican line. jim, costa mesa, california. good morning. caller: good morning to you. i would say end the moratorium on oil opening up the natural gas pipeline, to drill for call once again. we closed down 43,000 factories this year alone, and i don't mean this fiscal year.

unemployment is just at 9.1% and it is ridiculous that he is a saudi arabian -- he accepted two runs and $10 billion from the saudi arabian government in 2007 -- $210 billion. host: fayetteville, north carolina. democrats' line. caller: good morning to you. thank you for taking my call. i feel that everyone is asking the government and the president of the united states to help them but i feel that the people of the united states also needs to help the president and the government also. i am kind of nervous. there should be guidelines on ssi payments for people like under 55. there should be guidelines for disability requirements.

host: ok. caller: also, i think it needs to be more monitored. i am not saying that people receiving funds that they should not receive, but i think that there should be a tighter guidelines on who receives in these funds and actually what they do with them. host: virginia, thank you for the call. from "the christian science monitor" -- and elephants stampeded. we will learn tamara as the latest entry of the race jon huntsman former vassar to china who served the last few years in the obama administration and before that the governor of utah. we will have live coverage, by the way, on the c-span networks including c-span.org and c-span radio. check it all out on our new page for politics, c- span.org/campaign2012. bill has this point from the twitter page.

you can weigh in on the conversation twitter.com/c- spanwj or send us an e-mail. we will go next two when in detroit, democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. what i was interested in was you always cover the republican conventions, all of them. i wanted to know did you cover the democratic convention that was going on. is it on line? or what? i don't understand why you don't cover all of the democratic conventions. host:? netroots? we covered that as well. it is always available on our website, c-span.org. caller: over the weekend you had

all republicans, no democratic convention coverage. host: we did cover netroots. i was not here over the weekend so i do not know exactly when we aired it but we were covering it. it will be airing i promise you that. new brunswick, new jersey. good morning. go ahead. caller: i want to talk specifically about the debt and the unemployment. as far as unemployment, i think it is related to two major items. we have been -- or -- in corporations that incorporate themselves as a country and gain a major tax benefits being taxed at very low rates and they also ship the jobs by setting up factories and other countries

that favor them -- affecting the trade balance-lit. i think we also should have something similar to a taxation system to europe, which is a vat system. i don't think we should tax people's income. i think what we should do is tax people's buying of products because people with more money will buy more expensive products. it is a more equitable system. host: thank you for the call. another view from gary, who says -- time to focus on employment. over the weekend also on the sunday morning shows "state of the union" buy candy crowley. here is an excerpt where the democratic strategist and former senior aide to the president talked about the 9.1% unemployment rate. in the first of all i don't

think the unemployment rate will be at 9% but i don't think there is a magic -- i am not an economist. i think we will make an improvement just as we made -- we were at 10.2, we are down to nine. i think it will go down. but i don't think it is the fundamental issue. of the fundamental issue is how the people feel? did they feel like they are making progress? and do they feel like the person on the other side of the ballots would hold out the greater hope. i am very confident that we will be in the right place. host: david axelrod making his comments yesterday. next is andy joining us from san diego, republican. the issue reducing unemployment and reducing the deficit. how do you do both? caller: i called the white house comment line about two weeks ago and is adjusted as far as unemployment that we increase the demands.

the little example i gave was why not have the first family by a smaller -- for example something like computers and sell funds that everyone will want to have. as far as reducing the deficit we have to cut spending -- both entitlements and defense. and at the same time we have to raise taxes. host: and looked at the unemployment rate over the years, from 1940 through 2004, that when on average from 14% back in 1940 down to just 1% in the height of world war ii to. recently, ronald reagan at 7.2% when he was seeking reelection and he did win with 20% of the vote. 1992 7.4% and george herbert walker bush losing his reelection effort. during the clinton and bush years the unemployment rate hovering at 5.4%. next is victor from canton, ohio.

caller: let's just talk about the multimillion dollar is going to pakistan. also multi millions of dollars going to places like yemen and other countries around the world that hold on to our enemies that we are losing soldiers in the field over. that is a huge amount of money taken from the deficit. compounded by the interest that would be acquired that money were not put into -- towards the deficit. but they are not going to stop giving that money. secondly about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. let's say 2 million are working. my grandfather came over, caruso, back in 1910 from italy, joined the army, fault and world war i and his discharge papers signed by the tenant eisenhower who went on to become a great president. if you want to work and live here, you should go the route

that all of those who fought and sweat and broke their bones to get that membership, we will call it, as citizen of the united states of america. those 2 million jobs that could be added to the job bank. if you stop giving money away and you deal with the illegal immigrants stuff and do it the right way and get this guy who is running the justice department out of there. and then one more thing. on health care. they should legalize abortion -- if they would have them prevent all of the information that lancet has on abortion/breast cancer -- and co-let us keep our focus on the economy and the deficit. jim has this point. organized labor --

today's story on2a -- economic strategy uniting the gop. one of the reasons why we are focusing on unemployment and the deficit. republican contenders united behind a conservative template that could reduce the role of government. again, this sentence, with the election shaping up to a classic contest between competing theories on how to deal with the nation's two towering economic problems, the nation's 9.1% unemployment rate and a record budget deficit. also from "usa today" we heard from senator mitch mcconnell earlier in the program made news this morning -- short-term debt increase in the u.s., pointing out senator, -- if a deal doesn't include significant entitlement program changes that legislation raising the borrowing limit for a few months

is likely. angie joining us from montgomery alabama. the democrats' line. good morning. caller: i wanted to make a few comments. first of all everybody is trying to blame president obama for everything that is going on. he tried to fix it and republican voted no on every bill that they brought forth. control of the house and have not brought a jobs bill forward. i don't understand why people are still voting for these people. they are like the mafia. whatever one republican is for they are all for it and you hear them go around talking about we are trying to do this and bring jobs -- every bill that they pass is not for us. people have to understand. democrats are trying to use your money to help you. republicans are trying to use your money to help themselves and corporations and other rich people. so when 2012 comes if you get a republican president you could say goodbye to medicaid and your social security and to medicare.

that is all i want to say. host: another viewer on the twitter page -- also on politico.com. he points out senate democrats worried that the company's increasingly dim outlook will cause them and see -- seats in 2012 are trying to crack a new agenda aimed at spurring job creation. next is jessica from orange county, california. republican line. caller: i am jessica and i am from orange county, california. i am actually samoan and mexico

-- mexican. my mom is from texas. i just want to say that i am really disappointed in obama and what has been going on with the jobs. my dad is a machinist from california and he is losing a lot of jobs going to china. so, this is -- obviously this is -- you know, this is affecting our family. and what is going on -- i don't know what to say anymore. i just want to say i am disappointed in obama period. host: how old are you, may i ask? caller: 33. host: you are calling on the republican line. did you vote for the president in 2008 or for john mccain? caller: i voted for mccain. host: thank you very much for the call. a viewer from illinois has this point --

you can send as email commenter questions, journal@c-span.org. greg is joining us from huntsville alabama. independent line. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i want to let people know i am in the restaurant industry and have been for 22 years. since 1981, the $2.13 an hour wage has been set and it has not changed. if you are a server in this country, you are compensated by your tips. and you get taxed on that. you have to tip out everything. we are really getting a hit to right in there because just because people are not tipping as much. they are tipping $3 on 30.

it is a really hard industry to get into. but you've got so many people who are losing their jobs and are coming back to what they did in college. and as a career bartender and server, you are not getting the compensation you are used to getting so there is a hits right there and people don't realize that. i understand that you want to go out and eat and -- but i can't afford to go out and eat and i work in a restaurant. host: thank you for the call from one snow, alabama. one of our regular twitter followers as this point. this story playing out overseas, the front page of "the guardian" this monday morning. don't be surprised if athens goes up in flames, and don't be sorry. and elsewhere in europe, the story inside "the new york times."

pointed out when the bureau became the common currency for many europeans -- in greece, some of the demonstrations taking place in athens and elsewhere along the greek islands. inside "the washington post" is a story about spain's financial problems which prompted a series of protest throughout the weekend. writing from madrid --

dow futures, by the way down this morning. it has been a tough six weeks for those who have invested in the stock market. bill is joining us from little rock arkansas. democrats' line. dealing with the unemployment rate and the deficit. how you bring down both? caller: my thoughts is that private industry is sitting on a vote load of savings of money, and because of the squabbling between congress and the president they are uncertain. basically just doing a short cut ron and -- run and stop the wars and take the money and put it into public works programs to help the country. just stop the wars and -- very simple. take that money and put it into public works. host: thank you for the call. front page of "the new york times." companies pushing for a tax break on foreign cash.

this story playing out on a number of different fronts. the front page of "the new york times." bill is joining us from corona, california. republican line. caller: good morning. first of all let me start by saying the economy is doing great for the equity class, the hedge funders, bankers, corporatist.

but skilled industrial manufacturing is not going to return. it is not going to pull its votes from china where they have free labor and no restrictions and india where you can get skilled software and mechanical engineers at $8 an hour and they will travel worldwide. stop the wars and the corporate subsidies and that will balance the budget. everyone is kidding themselves thinking that some elected popularity contest winner of any party will solve any problems. it is not. it will be a lot more of the same and we will start resembling spain with a huge divide of rich and poor. host: thank you for the call. bill from corona, california. a lot of early risers this monday morning. one of our viewers saying get rid of the tax cut -- $2.10 trillion tax cut and subsidies and invest in infrastructure. congressman john conyers has a

this from "usa today" editorial. bring our troops home. he points out -- editorial in "usa today." but above that is this editorial from "usa today." and mid afghan war fatigue quicks -- quick exit poses troubling risks. the editorial begins with these words -- war-weary this is

everywhere as the president nears a decision on afghanistan and troop withdrawal. that issue is playing out inside "usa today" and the editorial page. marlene is joining us from jefferson township, new jersey. caller: for the deficit get out of the wars. we have spent $4 trillion with a t in the last 20 years and afghanistan and iraq. that money came out of social security taxes people, because that is where it came. one thing i would like to correct that i heard for years. everybody talks about bill

clinton having a balanced budget. i am a bookkeeper. he never had a balanced budget. if that was the case, why did the deficit -- debt, national debt, go up every year if he had a balanced budget. you would not be adding money to the national debt, would you? people have to understand we need to start electing leaders that are for american people, not world leaders. they are traveling all over the world at our expense and we are bankrupt. one thing they did years ago when they had no jobs, they took the the streets and demanded all immigration stop -- legal and illegal -- until the american people were put to work. thank you. host: are you still with us? i want to clarify. what president obama and what republicans on capitol hill would say that in 2000 there was a budget surplus in the year to year budget -- the overall debt -- eight --

caller: if there was they would not have added to the national debt? host: we will leave it there. we go to marvin next from louisiana. good morning. caller: first of all, i think we need to stop the economic region of these corporations going to china and different countries for cheaper labor. we need to have a retroactive tax on these millionaires and these companies. we need to look at bringing tariffs against these companies, too -- who get the labor done cheaper and bring it back to this country. i think the president needs to go back and rethink those people who put those of sheer fun -- offshore funds out there. the ceo's who have the millions and millions of dollars and placed the blame on the working man and labor. and i think we need to withdraw our troops. pull them out of these hot areas of the world.

host: tanks -- thanks for the call. bill kristol will talk to us and 1520 minutes about presidential politics. and issues congress will be dealing with this week and this summer -- the issue of libya and the issue of raising the debt selling -- debt ceiling. a viewer from seattle washington, saying -- and this conclusion -- >> is not joining us on the republican line from -- host: next is nat from massachusetts. caller: you don't. you legalize marijuana. host: you -- we will now go to mark from michigan. caller: good morning, c-span.

and good morning america. yes, my thought on getting people back to work. the e lead must stop agreed. it is -- elite must adopt agreed. the eat bankers have hijacked the global banking system and they have -- violence to benefit from it. if they don't stop this, all of this violence will be triggered towards them and they are going to be in big trouble. a want to stop the violence they have to stop the grave and let people get back to work. host: thanks very much for the corporate front page of "the washington times." dates confirming talks with the talibang theates -- gates confirming talks with the taliban.

this morning from the front page of "the washington times." veronica from orange county, california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i guess i basically agree with the previous caller about the elite rich. here in california we were doing fine until switch in a bear -- schwarzenegger allow corporations to take over. they don't want to pay unemployment. they don't wanna pay workers' comp. they don't want to pay taxes. they don't want to pay minimum wage. what do we get? we all need to put into this situation that we could all benefit from. maybe we should go back to public works. host: john from north carolina saying people -- people will pay

no taxes like to scream bloody murder about people will pay a lot of taxes. reducing unemployment and reducing the deficit. from inside "usa today." golf is the front page of "the washington times." two outings in the washington area. u.s. open in bethesda, maryland, and at andrews air force base -- air force base, pictures of the president, the vice president, governor john kasich and speaker of the house john boehner playing golf over the weekend. pointing out certainly the situation in afghanistan and the budget deficit likely came up. no directorate out from the white house. a lot of pictures, including the fact that the president and speaker gaining two dollars and a friendly wager on one of the holes. here is a scene from andrews air force base golf tournaments saturday. kansas city, good morning. welcome to the conversation.

caller: kansas city, kansas. caller: john from kansas city, good morning. caller: am i on? what reelect -- what we really need to do. it is really simple. we have to go back to before we became a nation of peons back to before trickle-down economics, put the tax rates back and stop the insane trade agreements and against our country back in order again. this whole trickle-down economics has killed us over all of these years. it didn't happen overnight. it has been going on for a long time. it is just now they are really sitting in -- settling in and we reached our basic demise. host: michael boskin who served in the first bush administration

-- five lessons for deficit busters. he writes in side "the wall street journal." it is imperative that we rein in spending -- his recommendations are outlined inside "the wall street journal." >> is run joining us from burlington, vermont. welcome to the conversation. caller: i think that the unions are the problem in this country. and i tell you why. you know, they concentrate on higher wages keeping wages

tenure for teachers, you can get rid of people -- can't get rid of people. they focus on the wrong things and it is time for a new paradigm. what is needed -- i hear one person say we need tariffs, we have to keep the jobs here. you can't do any of those things unless you have standing in a court of law. what i proposed is that the unions fight for property rights. so when i get a job and i invent something for a corporation the workers should have a pool and get some of the profits from that intellectual property. right now they have no standing. and the jobs to go to china. a you still get those revenues because the workers own the intellectual property and that

could fund health care, and that could fund pensions. we don't need anybody to give us stuff. we just need what is rightfully ours. host: thanks very much from it -- for the call. ron from vermont. joe has a this is -- the front page of "the washington post." misfire in libya kills civilians. a story you may have heard yesterday. later this week congress deals with the funding issue over u.s. efforts in libya. phyllis is joining us from lagrange eleanor pitsch caller: good morning, a young man. i am 73 years old as of june 6.

caller: happy birthday. caller: civic duty since i was 25 years old. hello? yemen -- host: i am listening to you. caller: they are talking about creating new jobs when you need the middle class workers who are in the manufacturing industry. they are overseas. put a 20% tax on all the imports. number one. bring the troops home. $670 billion a year, plus what it takes for us to buy the fuel and ammunition and the tanks. there's another almost $1 trillion a year. if you bring the troops home you put them on the borders and you put them in the railway stations and airports and protect ourselves from terrorists. ok? in the meantime, both members of congress are debating about nonsense instead of getting down

to the actual business of putting america back on its feet. it is a shame what our congress is doing and john mccain now is pushing for more war? they ought to get rid of this money maugre because he did nothing but cracked up a plane and try to get a pity vote. host: joining supreme court justice sonia sotomayor saturday at the raley field -- wrigley field, talking about entitlement programs and the deficit debate. here is more from yesterday's cnn interview. >> for every dollar we spend in washington we borrow 40 cents primarily from china. our major competitor in the world. this has to come to an end and a can. we cannot day response the discussion based on the bowles- simpson commission. if we respect the basic programs like medicare.

>> the support raising the retirement age for benefits? where a meaningful savings to get? you said you don't want to break the promise but the reality is it is not sustainable in the future for the american people. >> saying to people wait two more years for medicare is not a good idea. think about how vulnerable people are at that age. maybe they are retired and at this point have no health insurance and medicare is their lifeline to basic health care protection. and i think the house republican budget went too far. college co-illinois senator dick durbin on a "meet the press." by the way, all of the sunday shows can be heard on c-span xm radio, and the baltimore washington area, 90.1 fm. we are talking about rising unemployment and the best -- deficit. how the bring down both? shaping up the 2012 presidential race. an issue the president will be dealing with as well.

steve is joining us from new orleans. good morning. go ahead please. caller: the bush tax cuts were obviously for the very rich and they have done very well. the deficit are all part of the bush tax cut that the republicans are demanding that we keep giving them. the republican party, the republican house are doing everything they can along with ron paul, to try to make president obama though one term president. and they are doing this, which is trying to -- they should be brought to justice for this. host: thanks for the call. karen foug will join us later. she covers, among other issues, the agriculture bill amount -- in the house and senate. we will dig into some of the details of what is in the bill and some of the debate that

continues to ensue, both with democrats and republicans, and among other issues, the wic program, women infants, and children. gates warned congress not to cut off libya funds. and he predicts the operation targeting muammar gaddafi will end ok. and taking up the issue -- both the war powers act enacted in 1973 -- and funding issues for libya. something we will see on the house floor later this week as the debate ensues in congress. next is sandy from charlotte north carolina. caller: thank you, c-span. it is pretty obvious to me what is going on here. and the this is all part of a calculated plan, the new world order, to drive down the standard of living in this country to make us more competitive on a global basis.

all of these wars we are paying for which are all for the corporate interests. they are using our jobs as a weapon for political purposes and to get the tax cuts that they want. i think that if they want to bring this money back over here that they are sitting on offshore then they are holding the jobs as a weapon. what needs to be done it is either they could keep the dollars overseas but leave their citizenship on the table here. and people need to start flexing their consumer muscle and stop buying this stuff that they are making over their offshore. host: thanks for the call. another viewer saying --

focusing on issues of unemployment and the deficit. the story from inside "usa today." we will talk more with bill kristol. an increasing as debt, another liberal dose of keith olbermann. he will begin his new program on a current tv. there is an ad in "the new york times." current tv was co-founded by former vice president al gore. when we come back we will talk about politics and "the weekly standard" with bill kristol. an issue of gays and lesbians in electoral politics. it is monday, june 20, and we are back in just a moment.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> c-span launched a new easy to navigate web site for politics and the 2012 election race. with events from the campaign trail, bio information on the candidates twitter feeds and facebook updates from candidates and political reporters, and links to c-span media partners from the early caucus states. visit us at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> blackberry users you can access our programming anytime with the cs boehner ready of -- radio app. public affairs, nonfiction books and american history all commercial free.

and you can also listen to our signature interview programs. available round-the-clock where you are. download it free from blackberry app world. >> mr. president, thank you very much. i feel deeply honored to be nominated to become the 20 the director of the central intelligence agency. >> with his confirmation hearings scheduled thursday learn more about general david petreaus through his nearly 50 appearances on line at the c- span video library. with more than 115,000 people and every program since 1987 -- searchable and free, washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome that bill kristol editor and founder of "the weekly standard." let's begin with presidential politics. front page of "the new york times." for 2012 hopeful but job in china was a useful detour.

a preview of jon huntsman's announcement with the statue of liberty as his backdrop. caller: -- guest: which was a back route -- backdrop for ronald reagan -- which he is hoping to evoke. and also was a successful governor in his case, a huge state california. and much heralded, kind of a moderate alternative to the conservative republican field. he was going to run an unconventional campaign and it went nowhere. i predict the same might happen in jon huntsman. but it is not my place, not the media's place to tell candidates whether to get in the war either to say don't have a chance. he was a governor. a businessman, ambassador to china. let him make his case to the republican primary electorate. the more the merrier, i guess we said at "the weekly standard" recently. one thing i said on afghanistan he staked out a unique position.

he wants to draw down quickly and get to 15,000 troops and one question he should be asked how you intend to do that? what does that mean -- if you talk about very quickly, the hamid karzai government would probably fall and make peace with our enemies. they are not going to ask us to have 15,000 troops. there is kind of an unreality to this notion we can pick the number of troops. the government would not be from the government. i would not say he has shown great foreign-policy, in my opinion, based on policy expertise or judgment in his first four way. but again, that is what campaigns are for. host: in a republican primary how would this thing to play out? of the -- barack obama and investor jon huntsman? guest: there is a picture of charlie crist with barack obama that marco rubio took advantage of. republican voters are grown up.

if ambassador huntsman served his country well as ambassador no one is going to begrudge him serving under president obama. he took a job and thought he could do well for the country. it is a little unusual to quit from an administration and run against that president. it is not unusual to have served in an administration and then four years later run to says -- see the president. but it is -- is inappropriate? you accompanied him on trips to china. a huge priority for this country. and then you turn around and challenge him? and how much was your team working on this during 20 -- 2009 and 2010 what you were serving a prison? host: y de thing he is doing it? guest: he is an ambitious died. i did not say it in a bad sense. he has been looking at this for awhile. in 2008 he came to washington for one of the governors association's meetings and he met with various commentators

and he obviously has been thinking about the national stage for quite a while and he saw this as potentially a weak field and he has a distinctive message, he thinks. and if he doesn't win this time and lays the groundwork for 2016. it i think he his taking a shot of it. host: "the new york times" points out a conversation david axelrod had with john huntsman it when -- in january when there was speculation he would leave the administration as a republican to run for president. he was also asked over the weekend by cnn. >> i think he is a very bright full one person. it was a little surprising because when we were in shanghai we got a chance to talk -- and this was in the fall of 2009 -- he was very effusive about what the president was doing, and its origin on health care and on the whole range of issues. he was a little quizzical about what was going on in his own party and he got a strong sense he was going to wait until 2016 for the storm to blow over.

obviously circumstances change. so i was surprised when he emerged as a candidate. but certainly i take him seriously. host: bill kristol, reaction? guest: i agree with that in this respect -- a little surprised he is running against the president he served loyally for two years. he has to explain how he squares that circle and what he disagreed with and whether he raised the disagreements. but it is a free country. it is a little and often that he is doing what he sees an opening. john weaver, his top strategist, was a top mccain strategist, was looking for a different kind of candidate. he is very unhappy, i think with the conservative drift. i think john will actually run the mccain-2000 campaign, anti- establishment, sort of anti conservative campaign.

a lot of attempts to get the media to -- mccain did great job and 99 and in 2000 -- a huge start -- if you are rick santorum, whenever you think of him as a senator from pennsylvania for a couple of terms, lost badly in 2006 but has a distinguished record in the senate -- host: twice in the senate and house. guest: swing state, series die. -- serious guy. and you wonder why is jon huntsman getting front-page coverage and all the plays and talked about as a serious candidate and rick santorum is relegated to the second or third tier. huntsman himself has done a good job work in the media. it almost worked for mccain in 2000 that john mccain is john mccain pretty as a war hero and served in the senate at that point for 18 years -- was a leader in certain issues. but he was unquestionably a

senior an important senator. i am not sure you can say that about gov. huntsman, one term as governor of utah. not sure you could point out what distinctive things he did as ambassador to china. again, i am for him getting into the race and making his case. but if you ask me right now it strikes me as an awful lot of -- and not much substance. host: john mccain weighing in over the weekend. but let me ask about your words -- reagan was right. you look ahead to 2012. you conclude -- ronald reagan's unapologetic defense of america's strength is as timely as two decades ago and you pose this question -- which republican candidate will make a name for himself or herself by delivering a suitably updated version of this message? guest: the debate monday night which some people over interpreted in some ways, there was a certain backing off from what i would say reagan-bush division asserted

internationalism a willingness to use u.s. power abroad and certainly to project u.s. power -- not usually through wars but through treaties and agreements and reassuring allies and strengthening allies in ways that i think made of the world a lot safer. obviously iraq was tough afghanistan is tough and there is a certain desire to back off. there is a very bad deficit and debt. i think it would be a terrible mistake for the country and a mistake for the republican party. we printed in a magazine chunks of ronald reagan policy speech when he accepted the republican nomination to run against the democratic incumbent, jimmy carter, the last democratic incumbents who lost to a republican challenger. really a lot of the speech reads as it could -- as if it could be read -- and i wish it would be repeated by a republican running against president barack obama. the critique should be like the chip -- critique of carter's farm policy. that he has been too

apologetic, to wheat and unassertive for america's interest. not that he has done too much but to little. host: if ronald reagan were running today as gov. reagan, a two-term governor, having raised taxes 11 different times how would he have faired in a republican party -- primary? even as president he raised some taxes. guest: he did, but he ran in 1979 and 1980's and he raised taxes in certain circumstances -- but he ran for tax cuts in 1980 as part of the major part of the solution to our economic situation. republicans in 2012 what a similar message. i do not think ronald reagan would have trouble running. i think it became that he would probably be nominated and be elected. i think a tax cut message is important.

i was in grad school -- assistant professor during the campaign. but reagan talked a lot about the regulatory burdens on the economy. he deregulated and a lot of areas. and it helped a lot. and i think the regulatory burdens over the last couple of years have really become onerous. and i think republicans need to talk more about the regulatory reform agenda in terms of epa and dodd-frank in the financial sector and other areas, in addition to that tax cuts in addition that have become -- host: what bill keller from "the new york times" writes. he begins with saying if the 2012 elections were held in the news rooms of america and pitted sarah palin against barack obama i doubt sarah palin would get 10% of the vote. i am pretty sure most

journalists would record role in horror of this idea. that is one point. and there is a long list of politicians just within my lifetime whose bellicose relations with the press anticipated peace sarah palin in particular. barry goldwater regarded as a preacher of the french. howard dean of was hailed as a master of web-centric politics. reagan is the antecedent palin well-prepared reagan had depth and experience and on the estimated grasp of issues, a gift for compromise, a season that lawyer -- loyal team and good-natured time that translated into public trust. he concludes by saying sarah palin, on the other hand, has just our attention. guest: i think bill keller is rewriting history. i think ronald reagan would gotten less than 10% of the vote in the -- from the new york times. now they have decided and he has

passed away and was president long ago and was successful, saying reagan was different. we always like reagan. nonsense. look at the coverage, the contemptuous coverage from 1964 through 1980 and indeed, through his administration. they don't -- the reason why they dislike sarah palin is not that she does not like the meeting, it is because she is a strong conservative. some of criticisms of sarah palin may have been correct in some other criticisms of right and have been correct. to throw and howard dean to make it look like it is bipartisan. first of all, howard dean got very good press coverage in 2003 and was a favorite of the press for quite a bit of that time. no, the mainstream media does not like conservatives, they don't like successful conservatives and they don't like conservatives threaten their control of the narrative. they like jon huntsman for now. -- he will help them paint a lot of the grass roots of the republican party as a little bit crazy and extreme.

they hated the tea party in 2009 and in 2010, then the real white -- rewrite history and they say if only a reasonable conservative came along like ronald reagan we would be fine with him. host: let's talk about rick perry. guest: he was governor of texas longer than ronald reagan had been government -- a successful governor, hasn't he? texas is doing incredibly well compared to the rest of the country. .

>> without revealing the true cost for admitting he would alter mainly made the federal government the sole arbitrator and administrator of health care. instead, we have these so-called leaders who would rather poor bailout money is on companies that

>>host: you have that big cover story. guest: yes. the fact that they have all chosen not to run is all added benefit. the senate dining room -- they are watching all of these members, michele bachmann, the governors, former governors --

getting all of this attention. jon huntsman. he was on a governor. i think that thune is rethinking a. he was the more establish. host: do you think he will -- guest: that is what you're told. i think a lot of this will depend on if there is a huge bvacuum. there will be a big vacuum in september. coburn is a very impressive guy. i ran into him a few months ago and said jokingly, why don't you run? he said no, no, i wouldn't do it. if on the conservative side, if bachmann looks like she does not work out if rick perry does

not -- coburn is a real deficit hawk, but it talk -- budget hawk. they need someone with credibility and the anti- spending side. huntsman gives in this week. -- gets in this weeksenator cockburn seems not to want to run -- coburn seems not to want to run. these people are patriots. i think if they were needed for the country, they might take a shot at it.

i do not think the viewers 6 textsuggestion is entirely out of the question. this will be a huge issue in 2012 with size and scope of the federal government how to reform the programs that are bankrupting us. i have to than that one of them will take a look and think maybe i should be in there. host: one of our viewers saying please ask the get about ron paul he won at that event. in guest: i do not agree with him on some things, on many things especially foreign policy but he has made his case over the past several years. i give a lot of credit for that. a lot of people in washington make fun of him but this is a free country. one of the great things about america is there are not a bunch

of allegiance sitting around telling the country who gets to participate and who gets to make the case into does not -- not a bunch of elites sitting around telling the country who gets to participate in to does not get to make the case. i think -- paul is running. he seems to get 628%. i do not think he gets much about that. and-- 6% to 8%. i do not know he will convince someone in the 26 debates that are not are ready for him. the bull run ended his trunk of the vote. a host: you seem to indicate the gop field is not complete.

guest: no. there is something weird about the washington media types. they desperately want the field to be complete and be able to handicap it. they do not like the idea that tom coburn could decide late, maybe i will take a shot at it appeared then,. . i have the perry-ryan christie, guiliani demandint card. the guy i had the but with had the rodneymney-pawlenty-santorum card. final deadline is november.

practically speaking you need to be in october to get yourself organize. he is much respected by conservative form policy, conservatives who care about foreign policy. it would be a long shot. the personal sacrifice is pretty telling. obviously he would give up other sources of income for several months. and i will not rule out the fact that john would get in. depending on what the world looks like several months from now, people could decide foreign-policy functions would not be a bad thing to have. it is a long shot, but i think the field will not be closed until november. yet to g host: bill clinton did not decide in september of 1991. guest: i think actually october.

we have moved it up so monthmuch. and i also think the conventional wisdom on the record true republican side is it ends early puritan in the past, a lot of the states have been win or take all. the fields of been narrowed very quickly and the fields dry up here yenp. i really think it could be different this time. the money with the internet is different. you can campaign with very little money, as long as you do not have to pay that. people watch c-span and the debates. they read things online. the paid a 30-second commercials are less decisive than they used to be. i can a imagine i was going one way, new hampshire going another

way. more like an old-fashioned rates. were you go through several ways of primaries. fisher i believe the republican primaries will be portion of representation. michelle laughlin could get 25%. pawlenty gets 23 percent and no one gets a decisive lead. -- michelle bachman its 25% sen. host: we will go to the democrats line. thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i was astonished to hear you say you do not think pawlenty will

run. therefore he will not do that. my question is in 2001, there was a huge tax break for the wealthy who may now notice your protocols job creators? they got another one in 2003, a huge tax breaks for the job creators. 10 years of tax breaks for the job creators, and now with unemployment at 9.1%, i am tempted to say how is that working out for you? my question will be more polite. how can you continue to say tax cuts for the wealthy are what create jobs? guest: i will say two things. there were particular rebates for middle income tax and lower

income taxpayers. andi do not think it was a bad thing, but was not exclusively tax cuts for the wealthy. and some of the will be our job graders. i think we should be very careful in making tax policy not the burden of job creators. you do not taxed too heavily small-business creators. you do taxed more heavily people who are coasting along. that is hard to do. i am a low tax person appeared in. i think in general taxes should not be raised, especially in a recession. i think the reagan tax cuts created a lot of jobs.

the bush tax cuts created jobs until the financial crisis. both parties have been for that, but i do not think taxes had much to do with it one way or the other. i am for lower taxes. and i am worried about job creation. the regulatory burden on small businesses are as important as the tax burden people who have small companies in thinking of starting small companies, if you have someone has an invention or idea, he is working at a corporation that would like to try it on himself, you ask him what is stopping him from taking the plunge, it is the uncertainty, obama care -- which is a huge burden down the road, and the other regulatory hurdles, including the epa, and some of the other all the soup of agencies which have really gonteen muchne much more

aggressively into the micro regulating agencies. i do not think raising taxes is a very good idea when there is 9 percent and unemployment. guesthost: when the economy was pretty weak in 1984, it began to turn around. if there is a turnaround, even if it is still at 8%, does that make it more difficult for republicans to defeat a sitting democratic president? guest: sure. any president will be helped by a stronger economy and hurt by a weaker economy the reaso. the reason ronald reagan did not do well, it looked like the tax cuts had been passed. in 1982, they were hammering away on unemployment. those who were defending him said the signature of the reagan

economic policy have not gone into effect yet but voters did not hear that. when they came into effect in 1983 in the economy took off, it seemed like we had just had a test case. carter ran the economy and one way, reagan ran it in another. and the economy started to roorback. reagan won easily in 1984. i do not think obama will have the positive story to tell in 2012. obama had a democratic congress. overwhelmingly democratic congress. they passed the health-care bill and stimulus. they try to pass cap and trade. on the regular side, they are doing as much -- on the regulatory side, they're doing as much as anyone can hope to

do in many years. bush inherited a tough situation. he made many mistakes but by 2012, we will have that 3.5 years of testing the obama remedies, and i hope for the country's sake the economy does better, but i think it will be hard to make the case that his economic theories are working out very well in practice. host: our twitter page -- guest: this is why we have primaries. this is why independents can vote. my perfect ticket, mark rubio. paul ryan. elected in a district that has what for obama gore, clinton. he has made his case to the voters there.

incredibly knowledgeable about the budget. a good conservative. a ranking conservatives. i think also does not -- has managed to avoid the down sides of the conservatives. he is an articulate guy. i think he can make the case both to republican and conservative activist and independence. mark rubio when a huge victory in 2009 and 2010. people forget what an astounding accomplishments to knock him out of the republican primary and win a three-way race. having had a good career in the florida state legislature, very attractive young guy. it did a terrific speech on the floor of the u.s. senate last tuesday.

it went semi-viral. >> another strong reagan night. -- reganight. has the ability to be a conservative, but strong principles on social issues, cultural issues. also happens to be the son of cuban immigrants. i was with him in the senate a couple weeks ago. the report he had was some of the wait staff and the people working with the kitchen that came out to meet him here ye. they wanted to meet him actually. he chatted with them in spanish. very naturally. he is a very nice guy. in terms of politics, the hispanic vote, which is increasing which is important in nevada, colorado, i have to

think he would make a big difference. more importantly, i think he is a very able and impressive guy. paul ryan, marco rubio is my ideal ticket. host: the hill newspaper focusing on what they call the florida showdown for 2012. the impact for democrats and republicans gearing up for next year. our guest is bill kristol. juppe is joining us on the independent line from annapolis. caller: good morning. -- jeff is joining us on the independent line from annapolis. they have no fresh idea except for the tea party.

the media has complete andly ly flattened tehhe tea party. ron paul is too much of a fringe. i think they have to give up as obama complainers only income up with good, fresh ideas. i think terry in the long run will be the best candidates because he is the best economic canada having created 40% of the new jobs in america in the home state of texas. i was curious what you think about those points. inguest: i partly disagree. and i think the tea party remained stronger than people realize. the two-party has a huge movement. people who are more or less convincing to many americans.

marco rubio was a terrific canada. ron johnson not exactly a deep republican play. so i do not think being does the tea party favorite is enough, but i certainly think the sentiment is a very important and legitimate part of the republican party. it really has revitalize the party. can you imagine if it was still the bush/bowldole party? it is really important to have a fresh blood. mitch daniels has been a successful governor appeared in. i think there will be more success stories to come in

indiana. i think one advantage republicans have that is really under rated is we focus on speeches and rhetoric, but one thing republicans were able to say in 2010 is we had an experiment over the past several years. president obama, nancy pelosi, harry reid pursued liberal policies. some republicans around the country have come -- pursued conservative policy. rick perry in texas. chris christy in new jersey. others are doing it around the country. let's look at the data and see which is working out vaderbetter. i think republicans will have a very good story to tell at the patrol level in 2012 paren and. 2. it is -- it means it is not just talk.

it helped reagan a lot that he had been governor of a huge state for two terms. here you have a governor to were governing now in the current budget crunch. president obama says you cannot cut the budget. rick perry is making thidoing this in texas. chris christie just came to a deal with the democratic legislature in new jersey. he just came to a deal that seems like it will reduce new jersey's pension obligations in the future and does so in a serious and responsible way. i think republicans will not just the thing we do not like president obama. they will say rick daniels rick perry have all done this for the past few years. but try this at the national level. -- let's try this at the national level. host:>> the race will be about jobs

in the economy. we understand this president has not done such a good job on this because here we are two years into the recovery. we are two years into the recovery. under ronald reagan we were literally adding hundreds of thousands of jobs in a month. and under ronald reagan's recovery. instead now we we're are in the trench of the recovery. today people are worried about their retirement. they have this fear becoming not just nodding, now it is on the surface. they honestly do not believe their kids will do as well as they did pyridine. host: the gop magic trick making bush finish.

-- vanished. from what michelle bachman to savwas saying about president obama to what republicans are saying about president bush, can you connect them? guest: i do not think republicans are running away from president bush, but i think correctly they're trying to articulate the crecritique of the obama administration. you cannot win. if you do if you do not a tool to president bush all the time, you are running away from him. they understand you have to be forward-looking. republicans are being perfectly sensible.

i think the show bachman is a good speaker and interesting candidates. we're doing a profile for her for this week's "weekly standard." i spend an hour with her on thursday where she said different things interesting things in our i interviewed her. i can cruncher to the narrative that all republicans are isolationists who want to get out of afghanistan is just off the case, especially in the case of michelle bachman. i think that will be an interesting piece. she is a canada might take off and will make the whole race very interesting. host: this summer reading is the cover story for this week's cover. caller: i wonder why -- i am

republican but i am wondering why or when it being a mormon has become mainstream religion? i am wondering how the gop will deal with the fact that this is not what i consider mainstream religion, and i think most presidents their religious background and what they have done that means something to a lot of americans. what are your thoughts on that? guest: harry reid is a mormon. mitt romney governs the state of massachusetts and was elected by the citizens of massachusetts pyridine. there are millions of mormons in this country. they are good citizens as good citizens as other religious groups so i think we should

judge the candidates honestly on their merits. there might be cases where you could argue that religious views could influence their public policy. i do not think mormon the dump will be either qualifier or disqualify air for either of them. -- mormonism will be either a qualifier or does qualifier disqualifier for either of them here yenm. host: anyanother have done i want you to react to this morning in america. and guest: this goes hand in hand with reagan was right. it alludes to the 1984 campaign.

obama will not be able to run for reelection in the way reagan was. i wish he could in a sense. it is not going to be. i think that is due to policy choices that president obama and the democratic congress made. they will say it could have been much worse, we did the right thing, but look of the stimulus come in the amount of debt we accumulated for the incredibly low return in terms of serious investment in useful federal spending, and then you look at obama care, and i think it will be very hard for them to defend the record. host: when you say interesting comments for michelle bachman define interesting. is there news in this? guest: i hope so. there will be tens of news. i have not gotten a comprehensive debrief from that. he is obviously transcribing the interview. he will have to him on next

week to discuss that. i host: thank you. please come back again. we're plan to take a quick break. later, a look at the agricultural bill, which is moving through the house and senate. what is in it and what is being debated on capitol hill. next, a news update. >> good morning. more on presidential politics this out were puritan ron paul telling nbc's "today show" that his run for the presidency is unwinnable war is stumped on the young people and the soaring national debt. the texas congressman 10 poll this weekend at a republican conference in beating huntsman. the state department is providing rules for one of its most popular exchange programs for foreign college students.

this after finding some students were vulnerable to exploitation. the revised rules will shift more responsibility is on to companies designated as sponsors in the summer work travel program. critics say the new rules do not require in up government oversight while the agency says the cleanups will change the program. stock futures pointing to a lower opening after concerns about greece increase. the country needs more cash to avoid defaulting on its debt. the use is no changes can be made until further weakening of the debt. those are the latest head plants -- headlines on c-span radio. >> 11 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices. this new edition ebook includes an interview with the newest addition, elena kagan.

what multimedia clips from all of the justices. c-span the supreme court. available now wherever ebooks are sold. this weekend look at the history of literary life of simian a georgia with book tv events on c-span to, including the childhood home of o'connor and interview with the sister of jim williams. also a tour of urban it slavery sites. go to american history tva on cspan 3. we will explore and develop and civil war savannah. c-span is local content vehicle in savannah, ga. this weekend on c-span 2 and 3. host: we want to welcome the

presence and ceo of the gay victory fund. what is your mission? guest: we believed to have this country to live up to the ideal that we are representing democracy, we of work to elect gay and lesbian and bisexual people to office. we train them first on the part of campaigning. we have a campaign training program. the of the basic and in abeyance training program. when they are running for office we will endorse them. we will fund them and raise money for them around the country. we will bundle money so they have additional resources. then we help them with technical assistance during their campaign. host: can you count how many openly gay men and women are elected to congress or any other statewide office?

guest: total is about 500 right now. four in the house. none in the senate right now appear yenw. 400 are scuttled in local cattered in local municipal offices. we have a ways to go to parity. host: are the stereotype devolving were changing? guest: voter behavior is definitely changing. this is essentially a hiring process where the public goes out and hires them to do the public work for them. inthe polls are at 80% approval. people are less and less using sexual orientation as a wedge against one having a job.

host: let me ask you about someone who is making news, a table wheteddy baldwin. if she runs, what with the campaign look like? guest: tammy is unique in many ways. and in 1998, she was the first person elected to the was congress as an out member. and she ran as an openly gay person for office. in 1998. now with an open senate seat in wisconsin, we would love to see tammy as a candid for senate. if she runs, but it will be a hard primary. we believe she can win the primary and general election and be the first out member of the united states senate. host: is she going to run? guest: have every belief she will. she has not made the final

decision or announcement yet. host: hearty bill's name comes up often. what does he represent to your cause? guest: harvey is the fith out person ever elected to office. because he was assassinated in office he represents a focal point for understanding having gay and lesbian people in public service completely demonstrates this. for many gay and lesbian americans he represent the epitome of what public service is supposed to be about changing the voice of government. host: yesterday "the new york times" front page. the story points out that one of the 2004 and geysers who

traveled with him coming indicating he does not buy the president's views have been evolving, that he does have is that opinion on the gay marriage. -- that he does have a set opinion on gay marriage. guest: if his views are evolving, we welcome that. and host: another headlines is all the need deals with same-sex marriage. the story points out that albany is curator -- teetering on the brink of legalizing gay marriage in new york state. guest: teetering on the brink. almost makes it sounds like we're falling off a cliff. we do expect the vote on marriage in new york and the

day. and we are very hopeful that we will be successful. inhost: where do see your movement going in the next five years? in terms of the impact in 2012 and other political issues beyond elect or politics? guest: the dream would be where we get to the point where sexual orientation is never a which anymore. that we are welcoming people in both parties who are openly gay or lesbian, and that they are welcome to serve in public service. we're not there yet. not just an electoral sense but in open sense. just this weekend we had a runoff election in arlington texas, and it was a nasty election with a gay candidates was challenged for his sexual orientation throughout the campaign and lost by only 74 votes. unfortunately we're still seeing

the old attacks because of who they are. host: our guest this chuck wolf president and ceo of the gay and lesbian victory fund and leadership institute. we have a link to our website at c-span.org. you can also send us a tweet or email. is there a boot camp of sorts for these members and how to go through training? guest: one of the articles mentioned the book cot camp that we run for these future candidates. many go to kennedy school. we train people in all of the

normal things like fund-raising, field work, pulling but especially on how to address the question of being an out person running for office. how would you answer the question how would you talk about your family? these are all new wants things that people have to deal with. other candidates do not have to. we do spend time on how to answer those questions. and the most important thing to remember is that voters want to talk about the things that matter most to them. usually someone bringing up the sexual orientation is the opponent. when voters to bring it up answer the question directly and then put it to the question that most of the voters in the district care about. never shied away from it. the old concept that you should be afraid or worried about your sexual orientation is the wrong way to campaign, because if the voters insist fear or you're not out and open about who you are

they will wonder what else were hiding. there was research done in the last decade done in the deep south that was fascinating. it showed when the electorate running was update or lesbian was open and honest, when they were that out the electorate said it there to be open and honest with me about that, there will probably be open on taxation and jobs and other policies. host: do you refer to your boyfriend or girlfriend or your partner? is there right way or wrong way to talk about the personal issues as to deal with the political issues? guest: there are rights and wrongs based on the jurisdiction you are running in. in if you are in the state that does not recognize gay marriage or domestic partnership or civil union, then the way you reference your partner is different. you might refer to them as your partner.

you might refer to someone you were dating as your boyfriend or girlfriend. it depends on the relationship and this house and how they want to be recognized as well. host: we will go to steve joining us from detroit. the morning. democrats line. caller: i would like to know how a gay person could be a republican? guest: it is a good question. we believe they are gay men and women throughout the country. in fact, the elected officials that are member of a party, it is about a 90/10 split. in the 1990's it was a higher split. in the last decade we've seen a significant decline and that number. i do not think we should say that one party or the other is automatic party of choice for gay and lesbian americans.

in fact, we will probably find with its own not ask, do not tell repealed happening that we will see more out republicans because you may have more of them in the military. we should not spend our time dividing each other based on our party affiliation. host: another tweak on the same point. and-- tweet. guest: it is interesting i am not sure the president is the one painting anybody. there is a long history of one party being more supportive of lesbian and gay rights than there are in the other party. the democrats have been significantly more welcoming to gay and lesbian americans. and in fact, part of the party structure, they have very open about delicate and passing laws in the country.

-- about delegates and passing laws in the country. it is not automatic that one party is one way or the other but you can use the line from neil patrick harris' opening of the tonys broadway is not just for gays in the moreanymore. i think we're seeing movement in the republican party to be more opening and welcoming. this presidential campaign will be fascinating because it will be interesting to see of candidates to spend time dividing the country based on sexual orientation. mitt romney has legalize gay marriage in the state. how does that get balanced with what other people might think should be elimination of the right to marry for gays and lesbians? host: we talked about tammy baldwin who was out and ran

and won election barney frank came out after their work in congress. guest: correct. we have had a number of people in congress that are gay. jared police came out while he was a state elected officials from colorado puritan. host: next call. and calller is from texas. caller: i wanted to tell you that i have a granddaughter that is gay, and she is in her 30's. her and her partner had been together for about 12 years. they love each other very much and they are kind of different. they do not believe in marriage,

but they do believe in partnership. they bought a house and everything they buy, they do it together, so that is one of them has a sickness or something happens to the other one, the other one has are right to be at the hospital or wherever and also carry on with their lives separate appeared in they do not believe in marriage. they do not believe in gays raising children. it took me awhile to adjust to their lifestyle, but you know i love her very much, and i think if people will stop and realize that just about every family has someone that is gay or lesbian, and it takes as older people, in fact, i am 78-years-

old and it was hard to accept, but i do now, and i just wanted everyone safe. they go on with their lives and both have jobs. they are doing great. thank you for this segment. host: thank you for your call. it is nice to hear the love in your voice. and it is a wonderful story. obviously the goal for the whole country is to get to the same place you have. thank you appeared i. caller: good morning. first of all, i just want to echo what the last calller just said. and i am an independent but i am a christian independent. my personal beliefs are i do not believe in that kind of a lifestyle, but i do not think there should be people hurting other people because of what

they do, but i have three quick questions. one is, why do you think we have to step out in the forefront in a public forum when we are running for an office with how we believe it our sexual lives? number two, how you resolve what christians believe because they are a part of a constituency? how do you resolve that to try to get their vote with what they believe? the third thing is, for people who are polygamous, do you believe someone who is a polygamous or they believe they can be engaged with multiple people, do you believe that they should be elected to office? i just want to say this is a tough call for me. i just want to thank you for your time. guest: thank you for the question. these are interesting questions. the question of whether someone should talk openly about who they are and what their sexual

orientation is is tough because people are not used to hearing the conversation about sex. we are a bit of a puritanical country in how we work and did. we understand that, and that is why we do not counseled the candidates to run on a platform of sexual orientation or anything like that, but we do hope people will talk openly and honestly about who they are. the idea is the street candidates talk all the time about the relationships and families so why shouldn't gay or lesbian americans have the same rights and be encouraged to participate in the same way? host: thethat idea of keeping your sexual orientation a secret or keeping it in the shadow is exactly what we're trying to

fix. the idea that they say in the closet or do not talk about this? orientation or keep their relationship secret is telling the rest of america there is something wrong so i will hide it. that is why we counsel people to be open and honest about it. host: what are your thoughts on the closeted gays and lesbians and congress? guest: our concept is we just believe all people should be in office. the idea that there are clause of the people in congress is something we are trying to overcome-- -- closeted people in congress is something we're trying to overcome. what are the tough steps to have to take in order to beat out? we work on that all the time.

there are other groups spending their time trying to out people are pointing out the hypocrisy in their votes. ] the question about religion and how you resolve someone's face, i think we have learned in this country there are a number of base better opening of gay and lesbian americans. they can be just as welcomed in the congregation of st. americans. host: our next call is from weston, virginia. and caller: i do not know if you remember me, but a decade ago i worked for the victory fund, and i wanted to congratulate you on your work to make sure sexual orientation is one day no longer a barrier to public service. i wanted to make a couple points. first, with regard to the mission of the organization, i think it is important for

listeners to understand that it is not so much -- it is not about electing someone to public office because they are gay, it is about breaking down barriers so that america's kids the pas gets the best of public servants. i think it is also important for listeners to understand that no one needs to change their religious beliefs about sexual orientation in order to act on their sincerely-held beliefs. so for example in most of the country it is perfectly legal still to be fired from your job because you're gay or lesbian or be discriminated against in other respects. no one was listening to this program has to change their religious beliefs in order to change that or in order to pass

equal marriage rights. whether you believe it is ok to be gay or not, regardless of your faith, that is what this country is about, it is about religious liberty. religious liberty and equal rights go hand-in-hand. host: thank you for your comments. guest: again the comment on church and state and whether people's faith should determine who they vote for there are number of places in the country where religion and they are strong part of how voters react to candidates. we have also seen that as churches evolves the country is evolving. a number of people are rebuilding of their concept of how we welcome people based on sexual orientation. i think we're seeing that trend continue. host: when do you think this country will elect a candidate

to president or vice-president? guest: i think we may see a canada in 5 cycles, 20 years. by presidential cycles from now i would not be surprised if we are prepared with an alcan did it for the president of the united states. we have yet to build the bench. we're spending a lot of time on the training and getting people elected as my years. we of a few statewide elected officials today. often someone has a better chance if they are governor and seor senator. we're beginning to see more people step into those ranks. as we build that group of elected officials throughout the country, i think you will see some candidates prepare for the oval office. ahost: susan has this question -- guest: it would be nice of all

did have the same rights. unfortunately, that is not the case. based on sexual orientation you can be fired from your job. you are not allowed to adopt children. there are a number of things to cannot be based on your orientation. it would be nice when we get to the point where sexual orientation will no longer be an issue. we have a couple of decades to go before we see that. host: 3 talking with chuck wolf, president and ceo of the gay and lesbian victory fund and leadership institute. guest: i had a republican father and democratic mother. my dad was very involved in the florida republican party. sunday night dinners at our house were very interesting. we had politicians come over and i learned to question them early and learned a lot about them. it also created the root for me to be very involved in politics.

i was very involved in student government and high school. olson served as national explore president of boy scouts of america where you are elected nationwide to serve for a year in the leadership position for the boy scouts. -- i also served as national explorer president of boys scouts of america where you are elected nationwide to serve for year in a leadership position for the boy scouts. caller: i do not have a problem with gays or lesbians representing, but i hope [inaudible] i just hope that your private life is your private life. like you said earlier i agree with you i think we should just not be so blunt about it. that is all i have to say.

guest: barney frank is a fascinating member of congress. great leader. he has been representing his constituents in massachusetts very well. since he was out in since he is in an openly gay member of congress. he was, and he came through that very well. obviously to be awarded the chairmanship of the financial- services committee many years later. colleagues all he was a great leader in strong debater. he came through his the challenges he had. for many americans the idea of coming out is still a challenge. when i came out to my family, it was you will never be able to be involved in politics. now i work to make sure no family ever says that to their son or daughter again. the coming-out process is unique for everyone, whether it's congress, whether it's an athlete, whether it's an

entertainer everybody goes through it differently. caller: gay and lesbians from then compared to now is a lot better, and just the other thing i wanted to say is that everyone's attitude towards like, gay politics -- aside from gay marriage but like, i want to say with other candidates, people might not seem to care that much about that oh, i don't -- you know -- you know, at least they're ok with gays being married and gays rights, but gay rights, they just don't want to -- it's not that they don't want to hear about it as much on the campaign trail but it doesn't matter as much to them. host: we'll stop you there. thanks for the call. guest: thanks for the call, and

this is, again the point we were making earlier about talking to the electorate about ears that matter. so if economic issues are front and center, then that's what the electorate wants to hear about. throwing out red meat to divide the country based on somebody's sexual orientation is what we're trying to defeat. we don't like that part of politics, and we don't believe that people should be using somebody's sexual orientation as a wedge in the campaign as a way to divide people. so your point is well taken, and i believe that it is generational, too. as you mentioned your peers have changed not just in the time from junior high school to the age of 23 i think we're seeing that across the spectrum as well. so thanks for your call. host: somebody who studies history, you can respond to this or you can punt on this. scholars believes that james buchanan was the first homosexual president. guest: right. well -- host: calling him a lackluster president. guest: well, maybe he was distracted. people in the closet often find themselves distracted, if that was the case.

i've heard this story before, but the question is whether there's been somebody out or not is where we would focus our energy right? because if somebody stays in the closet, then it wouldn't be helpful, we believe, to making everybody welcome in the country. but it's not unusual for people to talk about somebody's sexual orientation after they've left office and wonder whether they were open and honest in office. host: jessie from dayton, ohio. caller: how you doing chuck? just wanted to tell you that i wanted to talk about primarily morality and would we even be discussing any of this right now -- i mean, i happened we have to hold politicians they have to have a certain level of morality, but if there wasn't -- if there wasn't -- and i'm not against all religion, but if wasn't religion, do you think that it would be going down so hard on these politicians and stuff people like barney frank and forget

the guy in new jersey that, when he came out you know, and i also wanted to get your view as far as sexual morality goes, what you think of what happened to anthony weiner or maybe he was like witch hunted. host: jesse thanks for the call. the reference to former governor jim mcgrievee. guest: right. the question of morality in politics and the question of faith and religion and whether people are able to balance those things and whether the country is able to balance those things is obviously want just focused on sexual orientation. it's been an issue of race, it's been an issue of alcohol consumption, it's been an issue of gender, and we continue to see faith evolve as well as we see the nation's politics evolve, often hand in hand. so i wouldn't say that we'd be better off one way out the other. it's part of the beautiful fabric of the country, so i don't think uct say that if you didn't have this, then all the

sudden everything would be better. i think it's going to be an ongoing debate for the country, and you'll continue to see faith evolve you'll continue to see individual religions have different positions as they do today. but that's true on many issues. host: one of our twilter viewers said this, straight people bring their families to the podium, they do not hide their sexual orientation one iota. guest: that's right. barney frank has a great quote. when people talk about their families it's called talking. when gay do it, it's called coming out. so we are still in the phase of helping america get used to the fact that there are gay and lesbian americans who have families and that can campaign with them and be an active part of the campaign. host: as we still deal with the issue of aids and h.i.v., how big of an issue is that in the overall debate that you're now part of? guest: well, the most fascinating thing about is the most underlying issue of h.i.v. and aids is that we lost a

generation of leaders. would we be much further along would we be closer to having gay or lesbian person nominated for the white house if we were -- if we hadn't lost a generation of leaders to h.i.v. and aids? we might be. and so it's definitely an issue of consideration. it's an underlying factor. the question today is mostly around funding and research and are we doing enough do we have adequate levels of support? and there continue to be enormous needs of advancing the ability to deal with h.i.v.. in the district of columbia, they just announced in the last week some new numbers on how they are stemming the spread of h.i.v. and aids and we're beginning to see a leveling off of that again. there's progress being made, but there's certainly a constant battle for funds. host: george from las vegas good morning. republican line with chuck wolfe. go ahead please. caller: i have a comment.

you said you weren't a lobbyist, but you were strictly counseling and that was primarily what you did. but i was wondering why you see it so important to be out in an open forum on public with your propaganda out there if you're not calling yourself a lobbyist. and the other thing i wanted to say was about h.i.v. you just made a comment about h.i.v. my heart goes out to anybody that has h.i.v. i mean i'm not trying to be someone who's heartless, but do you feel like -- i mean, h.i.v. seemed to come out into the gay culture, and do you feel like that's some kind of a curse from god? i mean, why is that primarily seen in homosexual relationships? guest: well, thanks for your call. the question about lobbying and whether we're out there talking about this we feel very strongly about having the conversation about being involved in the government. and the idea is that the country was founded with this concept that you'd have a representative democracy and

that the nation's government and local governments would look like the citizens they represent. well those include gay lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered americans, and therefore, they should be allowed to be in government and people shouldn't be running campaigns against them just because of who they are innately. and the question of how h.i.v. and aids came about or spread, no we certainly don't think it's a plague sent by god for lbgt americans or anybody else in the world. if you look at the spread of h.i.v., it isn't around the world, it isn't based on sexual orientation. so this question that there would be some kind of plague i think, is misplaced. and it's usually used as a red herring, frankly, in trying to cover up people's disapproval of somebody being exactly who god created. host: our guest is the president and c.e.o. of victory fund. you can get more information by

logging on to victoryfund.org. if chuck wolfe were a candidate today, openly gay how would you present yourself to voters? what message do you give others who may be thinking about running who are either gay or lesbian? guest: well, a lot depends on the jurisdiction you run in, but the country focuses a lot on the federal offices. while there are only 500 of the half a million elected offices people do spend a lot of time paying attention to the race for president obviously congress and the senate, and the federal issues get a lot of attention. so can you do something to make the economy move along? well, then that's what you talk about. you'd be talking a lot about jobs, the economy, and pocketbook issues that would be affecting americans across the country, especially those who are unemployed. but you could be in a state where you're talking about immigration, you could be in the south where you're dealing with border issues and talk ago lot about that. you could be spending a lot of conversation on education. there are a number of states hurting right no on funding for education and that are cutting education spending, so you probably see a lot of conversations like that if you're running for school board

or city council. that would be what the he electric rated would want to talk about. host: currently there are just under 500 openly gay and lesbian public officials an increase from nearly 50 back in 1991. our guest is chuck wolfe. our next call is ann from greenville south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much for this wonderful topic. i have been one of the most conservative districts in the country, and our community has a long history of intolerance in the lgbt community based on religious justification. but there are many of us here who are seeing progress and who are working towards progress for eke wagity, in the case of acceptance. but we get frustrated and want to know, really, what can we do on a local level so that we're

losing people in our community who don't to want stay here because they can't marry they can't adopt, they can't live their lives like my husband and i can. what 09 local level can we really do that is so sort of looking the other way you know, toward a totally different position? guest: well, first you're doing it by making this call, by being that engaged and paying that much attention. you're making great strides. but you're not alone. there are a number of rural and suburban areas that are seeing the flight out of lbgt americans to suburban centers because they tend to have better policies for their families. so helping your government understand that they can have policies and attract very smart, creative, capable americans to work there is a big step.

another place is with combrrs making sure employers in the area have welcoming policies for all of their employees straight or gay and that those families be just as covered under insurance policies that they have the same ability to educate their kids in the area just like they would fight for strong policies in the. those businesses should be doing it for all of their potential employees, whether they currently work for them or whether they're in the pipeline to work for them, and that would include their sexual orientation. starting with employers is a big place to help the community adapted. employers don't want to spend a lot of time on the question of dividing their employees. they want a great workforce building that strong workforce mean welcoming people from all walks of life. host: is there on the world stage who is openly gay elected to office in another country that you serve as a -- that you use as a role model? guest: the mayor of berlin, the mayor of paris. we have a number of people --

we have the prime minister of iceland, i believe. there are people in australia and new zealand, in tokyo. we just saw three members of parliament come out. in this country, we have federal candidates and we have you know, candidates who are running for -- we now have an out and republican running for president, not somebody the victory fund has endorsed, but we're beginning to see those kinds of steps. host: you talk about fred carter. and what's his message? guest: fred is trying to make sure the party has a conversation about sexual orientation. he's dealing with a lot of other issues, too but because the victory fund hasn't endorsed him we don't spend too much time with fred, mainly because our belief is that to endorse candidates, they have to held office or have viability. if you're going to run for president, you probably should have held some office prior to your candidacy. so we spend a lot of time training people on what the

steps are through politics, how you enter the game whether you enter at the city level, the county level or state legislature. host: how many candidates did you enforce in 2010? how many won? how many do you expect to endorse in 2012? guest: we endorsed 164 in 2010, 107 won for a 65% win rate. we're proud of our win rate. in this town, when you're endorsing a lot of nonincumbents, having a 65% win rate have a great track record. this year, in 2011, we'll endorse between 70 and 100 candidates. these are mostly municipal offices or a few states that have their legislative elections in odd years. and in 2012, i would expect to see about 200 endorsed gay candidates for office, and we endorse anywhere from a third to 50% of all the candidates who run. host: linda has this point. at the end of the day, it all comes down to a forgotten american value minding your own business.

guest: or don't tread on me, a number of different ways to say that. absolutely. the idea is we should all be able to pursue liberty and happiness. we should all be out there doing what we want to be doing as long as we're not harming others. and that's a lot of what this effort is about helping people understand that when a gay or lesbian serves in a city council or school board or state legislature or congress, that their peers begin to understand that they have first of all an equal vote, so they have the same amount of power, and once that -- once the power shifts begins to happen, you begin to see more and more people welcome lgbt americans. host: our last call is bare friday fort lauderdale, democrats line. good morning, with chuck wolfe. barry, turn the volume down on your set. please go ahead with your question, if you would, please. caller: sure. i find it hypocritical the way the value system works, because i was in the service in the air

force in dangerous roles, and i knew that this was during the time of don't ask, don't tell, and i believe that being liberal as i am it should still stay that way, because it's really nobody else's business. unfortunately, you know, the left wants to bring it all out, and that's fine. also, in my family, we had very conservative republicans who no one ever knew that they were lesbian and they lived -- they were highly respecteded in educational field, they taught people how to become teachers, how to read and were very strict, and they lived 30, 40 years together, no one even -- it never was even a second thought that they might be lesbian. in the end, after one of them died, the nurse who took over was when my aunt was going into an alzheimer's kind of thing said you know, anna, kiss me.

and, you know, then it started to become a little bit more interesting. now, i come from new york and you know, you participate in all kinds of different clubs and corporations, whatever and it's not as big of a deal. some of my high school friends came out after high school and they've went on to become millionaires. you know, nobody really judged it. i was in the air force. a lot of guys didn't come out till they were air force pilots. nobody's going on -- no one knows really what's going on, and i don't think it's really what goes on behind the bedroom door is their business. host: barry, thank you for the call. guest: barry thanks for the call and your service for the country. this is an interesting -- this is a big part of the question again. if you continue to keep sexual orientation a secret and you think that you can't live openly and honestly, then

people are still sending the message that there's something wrong with somebody based on their sexual orientation. so this effort of helping to elect gay and lesbian people to office helps to dispel those rumors and helps to make people understand that there is no difference based on sexual orientation. host: we're talking with chuck wolfe, president and c.e.y. of the victory fund. your biggest challenge the biggest obstacle as you move ahead in this effort? guest: well, the biggest challenge is money. we're all facing the same battle, especially now with the cycle that we do not know what to expect. with the citizens united decision, what will we see about the money and politics? that's the biggest challenge frankly, raising the resources necessary, the victory fund spends a lot of time finding the resources for candidates across the country. the underlying challenge, of course, is helping the electorate understand in every jurisdiction that somebody's sexual orientation should not be a deciding factor in placing

a vote. in the northeast we have seen tremendous success in california, tremendous success, and now we have to work in in other places -- in many other places of the country. in pockets of the country we've seen great success. in east harford the mayor of houston, texas, the fourth largest city in the country. when that happened two years ago, it was a great moment for the community to see that you can continue to rise in politics as a strong leader. she faces a re-election this year, so it's interesting to see how that race will go. and it will be telling whether the electorate continues to send her off as we believe they will. these challenges, the money question and the opinion and behavior question will continue to be relevant, we think, throughout the country. they will certainly be things we'll have to deal with. may vint to deal with them in the northeast or california, but we'll definitely be dealing with them throughout the country for at least a couple more decades. host: the website is

victoryfund.org. chuck wolfe, thanks very much for being with us. guest: thanks. host: if you were watching house of representatives last week here on c-span, you might have seen some or, i should say, a lot of the debate on the agriculture bill well into the evening on a couple of nights. $2.7 billion in budget cuts proposed by the house. the measure now goes to the u.s. senate. we're going to focus on what specificly is in this bill and its impact on the farmers and w.i.c. program and other areas. but first a news update. and with that nancy in the c-span radio stupid yoys. >> good morning. ahead of the united nations nuclear agency and opening remarks today at their conference in vienna, in the wake of japan's fukushima catastrophe, "business as usual is not an option," and he's urging a worldwide rethinking of safety measures to prevent new nuclear disasters. while some countries at the 150-member meeting want any new safety regime to be mandatory most prefer them to be voluntary. and on this note the iaea

chief says that safety improvements are only effective if countries apply them. meanwhile, an investigation by the associated press finds that united states federal regulators have been working with a nuclear power industry to keep the nation's reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening standards or failing to enforce them at all. the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission has found that some original regulations were too strict and they argued that safety margins could be eased without peril, their words. and nato says one of its air strikes in the libyan capital of tripoli went astray and may have killed civilians. a spokesman says the strike yesterday may have been due to a weapons systems failure. libyan officials say nine civilians were killed, including two children. a nato commander says it regrets the loss of innocent lives and takes great care in conducting the strikes. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend, book tv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of

savannah georgia, with book tv events on c-span2 including the childhood home of novelist and short story writer, flannery o'connor, a conversation with the sister of jim williams, central character in "midnight in the garden of good and evil," also, a tour of urban slavery sites. and on american history tv on c-span3, travel to the founding days of savannah as we visit the site of a plantation and explore antebellum and civil war savannah an historian. c-span in savannah, georgia, this weekend on c-span2 and 3. >> every weekend it's american history tv on c-span3. starting saturday morning 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. watch personal interviews about historic events, on oral histories, our history book show features some of the best-known history writers

revisit key figures battles and events during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms across the country during lectures and history. go behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on american artifacts, and the presidency looks at the policies and legacies of past american presidents. get our complete schedule at c-span.org/history and sign up to have it emailed to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a legislative analyst for congressional quarterly, with keeping a close track on the agriculture bill, among other items. welcome to the "washington journal." appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: walk us through what happened last week in the house of representatives, what law makers it ultimately voted on and what we can expect this week and this month in the senate. guest: ok. last week what happened was the al dug tour bill came to the house floor, and this is the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012. it covers agriculture, it covers the f.d.a., and it

covers a lot of domestic food programs, and in fact the domestic food program are one of the largest chunks of money in there. and coming into the house floor, the democrats were already saying the domestic food program especially the women program, which covers women when they're pregnant and will be at a timing and their children up to about 5 years of age, that that was being slashed. that was one of the big fights on the floor how much that had been cut. so that was -- that was one of the things that held the held the debate for a long time on the floor. tuesday night, i'm sure you were aware the democrats kept saying, you know, let's strike the last word and let's talk about this again. that went on for a very long time, so that was a big point of debate. and it was also what we call an open rule, which means that no one had to announce ahead of time what their amendments were and so they could bring

them to the house floor without preprinting them, although amendments that were preprinted in the congressional record were supposed to get priority, so there were amendments that were coming in all the time and these changed the nature of the debate and what was being brought to the table. eventually we did get it passed, although it was still very slim. the republicans who voted against it voted against it because they felt it didn't cut enough. the democrats who voted against it voted against it because it cut too much. so no one seems pretty happy, which means it's a good bill. now, it will go to the senate. the senate may come one their own agriculture appropriations bill or they may mark this one up. it's really inclear what they're going to do. host: this is from 2009, so it may have changed slightly, but not significantly. in terms of subsidies per

congressional district, and most of it in the midwest and upper midwest a lot of different amendments that were put forth in the house of representatives, we can't focus on all of them, but we want to focus on one. the proposal put forth by a republican from arizona his plan said if you make in excess of a quarter million dollars a year, you would not qualify for farm subsidies. the measure that failed, 186-228. to give you a sense of the debate on the floor of the house last week, here is congressman jeff blake republican of arizona. >> i would ask anyone how they can explain why a family earning more than a million dollars a year needs to receive a check from the government. this amendment would lower that income limit to be ineligible to receive payments from $1.25 million to $250,000 in adjusted gross income. i think a farmer has done well if they clear $250,000. i think it's wonderful if they do that. they should try to take a day

off from their hard work if they do, but don't come back to the federal government and say we need more farm subsidy payments. host: what was his main argument, in essence saying they shouldn't qualify, but we're going to hear an opposing point of view in a moment. guest: exactly. right now he's saying the limit is $750,000. and he was going to lower that to $250,000 a year. he was basically saying, if you make that much money you don't need farm subsidies you're making enough money already. host: let me go back to the map and look at oklahoma, which is one of those states that qualifies in between 100 to as much as $200 million in farm subsidies based on congressional districts. the chair of the house agriculture committee is frank lucas, a republican from oklahoma. >> this is clearly an attempt to legislate policy through an appropriation bill. contrary to the intent of regular order, and thnts the way that we should do business.

arbitrarily changing eligibility requirements for farm programs outside of the farm bill is irresponsible. it seriously undermines farm he is ability to make long-term scomplans investments, and it adds a dangerous element of uncertainty to the market. the result would be reluctance to make investments in equipment and practices that increase productivity. host: the other point of view, and we should highlight these are two republicans. the division is within the republican party. guest: yes and farm subsidies are an interesting thing because, of course what it seems to track is not republican and democrat, but whether you're in a farm belt state, whether you're representing a farm belt state because, of course you want that money for your constituents, and that's got nothing to do with, you know, whether you're republican or democrat. this is also on the agriculture committee, and he wants to have the agriculture committee be the one that decides policy, not the appropriations committee in an appropriations bill. host: let me go through and

caution you. i'm going to put a lot of numbers on the table and 2 gets kind of complicated. but first the 2012 spending bill includes $125 billion in total spending. it's an increase of $283 million from the current fiscal year $7 billion less than what the president wanted. it has $17 billion in discretionary spending. that's $2.7 billion less than this year. explain those numbers. guest: well, a lot of what's going on there is the cuts to -- there have been cuts to a various number of programs. i mean, when you think about it, it's only a very small number of dollars that has happened there. but the discretionary program did things like the f.d.a., the conservation program a very small cut because of the very small program you know, in terms of the bill, it's a small

cut. it's a very large cut for the cftc. there are programs that are mandatory, and so they have to be funded at a certain level certain laws say that. but the republicans have been taking a look at where they can cut because that's where they see their mandate as being. host: we have a special line set aside if you are a farmer. 202 is the area code, 737-2579, that's 202-737-2579. or guest is karen fuog of congressional quarterly. she's keeping track of the agriculture bill, now moving through the senate. some more numbers -- $71 billion for food stamps, $18 billion for childhood programs, including school lunches $14 billion in either direct or indirect aid to farmers. there's also $4 billion for the f.d.a. $2 billion per rural

development program, northerly a billion dollars for food safety and inspection services, and also nearly a billion dollars for agriculture research. guest: that's true and yet democrats are saying there's a lot of cuts. they're saying the cuts, it's not enough to let them be effective in carrying out their programs and what they need to do to make food and drugs our food and drugs safe in the united states. there's worries. there have been various bills that have come to the floor where they have tried to curtail the f.d.a.'s ability to regulate and so this bill and the cuts to the f.d.a. in the appropriations are probably another attempt to do this. that's definitely what the democrats would say. host: joe has captured the sent frment some of our viewers online at twitter.com/cspanwj. he says, why do we need a

w.i.c. program which stands for women, infant and children? we already have food stmps. what's the purpose? guest: well, this was hotly debated on the house floor, if you were watching. w.i.c. addresses a particular need which is for women who are pregnant who are breast feeding, and for their small children up to the age of 5. and things that came out on the house floor were that this is something that is very based in economic class that this is people who might otherwise fall through. they may be people who have jobs, but they don't make enough money to cover this. and also, the other thing was that the research shows that a dollar spent in w.i.c. saves you about $4 in healthcare afterwards. because if you don't feed a pregnant woman then her baby, when it's born, is often preterm, underweight has health problems, and these are things that we end up paying for on the back end in terms of

healthcare. but if you give proper nutrition to these women when pregnant, then you don't have these problems, so this is the argument goes, a program that actually, in the end saves us money, as well as taking care of our children. and that's something that's very very important to the democrats. you know, this is something that they're obviously using as a political point that they want to score is republicans aren't taking care of our children we are, we democrats want to take care of the children. host: but some of the debate, even with representative virginia fox of north carolina, a proposal that would have ended the training program for women for breast feeding. guest: yeah. host: her point is why does the federal government need to train women about how to breast feed? shouldn't that be the responsibility of doctors, hospitals, or other providers? guest: and i can see that point, and obviously that makes sense because where is that going to come from? because i guess the question is, are these women actually getting trained? and if they have to go to the hospital and a doctor, is that something that's covered under

healthcare or how would that be covered ultimately? and if these women can't pay for it themselves or it's not covered under something like their healthcare, then the w.i.c. program would step in and be the program that takes care of that. host: another twitter comment would you be surprised to learn that 48% of all kids under 5 receive w.i.c.? is that true? guest: you know, i have not looked up the statistics, so i can't speak to that. but i had heard a previous statistic that said it was, i think, one in 10. now, this is a different program, one in 10 children receive subsidized school lunches and breakfasts, so that would be the same sort of demographic moving forward into schools. that does seem like a lot of people, and you can understand then why the democrats would be reluctant to cut it and why the republicans would say this is way too much. host: and it's higher in cities like washington, d.c., chicago houston, pittsburgh, and los angeles. andy is joining us. morgantown, west virginia, as we talk about the agriculture

bill. good morning to you, independent line. caller: good morning. my comment has to do with the uncertainty of the industry of farming itself and how it may be dangerous to take away the subsidies from someone who you know, even gross $250,000 or a million dollars a year. let's look at the florida orange crop in the past. something as simple as an early frost, something completely unpredictable by the farmer can take someone who has for the past three years made a lot of money and, you know, take them into the red for one year. i think for someone like a lawyer or someone who makes a consistent high salary, it might be ok for the federal government to ask more responsibility of them in a general taxing structure. but in the industry of farming it's kind of a boom and bust type thing where you don't make the same amount of money every year. so i think that in looking at

subsidizing farmers, it's different than looking at the other industry in that it's vital to not only the american life, but it's just much more uncertain than many other industries. host: thank you andy. guest: and there's certainly that argument to be made. there's also the argument that if you don't subsidize farming and then food prices go up as a result, it impacts everyone in the united states, not just the farmers. it's one of those things which as congressman lucas argued, the agriculture committee wants to deal with. they don't want this done in appropriations, because then the question is simply about cutting money or not cutting money, which is what the appropriations committee is supposed to do. the agriculture committee wants these decisions made by them in their committee after they have had time to take a look at all of these different factors such as, you know as andy pointed out, the fact that

farmers, it's an up and down thing. they can't predict exactly how much they're going to make, and it's not a steady income. at the same time, there are people on both sides of the aisle all the way through who think farm subsidies should just be cut completely. it will be an interesting debate if and when the farm bill comes to the agriculture committee. host: we're talking with karin fuog. she's a former professor at the eastern connecticut state university, and now is a legislative analyst for congressional quarterly. her work is available online at cq dodd dovement eric is joining from us cedar town, georgia. good morning. caller: yes, what i would like to say is, why do you not challenge tea baggers that have came? they themselves are getting subsidies, all the subsidies from these -- talking out of both sides of their mouth but they're also receiving this aid. what happens a representative comes on and you ask them how

they're a millionaire how will this affect them for their tax break? if you are a rich person, you would not want taxes. this agriculture needs to be cut. why? it's nothing but corporate warfare. when the welfare system was changed over by president clinton, they forgot one thing. they forgot the corporate welfare, which is killing america. we cannot continue to pay these people. they just surprise fall because if you spread that money out in the population, such as you took money from social security, we haven't had a raise in three years. this is cutting down on the mouth of money and the united states, because we would spend our money. host: eric, i'm going to stop you there. from his perspective, how do you respond? guest: well, i can totalsly understand where eric is coming from. subsidies and the whole question of subsidies and where they fit into the whole tax structure and where they fit into lowering the debt and

changing how we pay up, you know, we get more revenue and pay down this is something that's really being debated. republicans have said absolutely no tax -- i'm sorry no cuts to tax breaks. we want the tax breaks to say, we're not going to increase how we tax people. that's not on the table. they have said that. this is from the agriculture, this is something that's of a much larger debate. but at the same time, in the senate last week, there was an interesting thing with the ethanol subsidies where they voted in a bill -- well, they voted in an amendment to a bill that allowed an ethanol subsidy to be cut. they cut the ethanol sub suddeny. both sides of the aisle voted for that, to cut the ethanol subsidies. that is something that republicans are saying, no, we will not cut subsidies because that's a way of messing with

the taxes and that's another way of taxing people and taxes corporations more. so you know, air hick an interesting point that, on the one hand, the tea party, the very fiscally conservative republicans that have come in have said, we want to lower the deficit, we want to make sure that the budget is balanced. we want to do these things, and at the same time, they're not willing to increase the revenue stream by taxation. host: eric was making his pointed. caroline also tweeting that republican tax breaks for millionaires is taking funding from the w.i.c. program. guest: yes and, you know it's not a direct connection obviously. you can't say, well, if we only do this -- but it was a point that was brought up, i believe congress woman jackson lee brought this up, that she said if we fund it, if we taxed these millionaires for one week, i think this was her

point i may be getting the numbers wrong we would have enough to pay for what was taken away from w.i.c. host: you brought up ethanol tax credits. from the senate floor last week, to give you a preview behalf we can expect the next couple of days with our live coverage. senator dianne feinstein, democrat from california. >> the issue at hand is a simple issue. the subsidy given to these oil companies cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year, and the tariffs actually has the effect of making us more dependent, not less dependent but more dependent on foreign oil. let me explain. in 2005, the ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. this year that number is nearly $6 billion. so it's gone, in six years from a cost of $1.5 billion to a cost of nearly $6 billion.

host: so that was comments put forth by senator dianne feinstein, democrat of california. she was leading the effort on this ethanol issue. let me get the other side of this from senator dan coates, senator from indiana. >> everyone in this chamber would simply say yes we want less dependence on foreign sources and more independence. and so the production of home-grown energy out of corn or other products that are grown in the soil and can be converted to a form of energy blended with oil so that we use less middle eastern oil more of our own resources to drive our trucks and drive our cars and to fuel or planes is a valid goal. host: the debate on the senate on ethanol. again, the specific issue for

domestic providers 45 cent per gallon tax credit, and for those imports what's at stake? guest: what's at stake for the imports is 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. so you're getting it -- in a way, two bonuses if you produce ethanol here domestically. currently you're getting a tax credit 45 cents per gallon, and that's for blending your ethanol with gasoline. if you just produce ethanol but you don't blend it, you don't get the tax credit. and then also, to stop foreign ethanol from coming in, there's a tariff on it of 54 cents per gallon. so that's to stop to make foreign ethanol more expensive to import so that it's supposed to help us, you know, the domestic farmers, domestic producers, because the product produced at home will be cheaper, and therefore more people will want it. host: has the use of corn and

ethanol reduced our dependence on foreign oil? guest: it doesn't seem to have done it. i haven't done a lot of research, but that's the argument. this program has been in place for a long time, certainly over a decade and it really hasn't done a whole lot to increase our -- to tee crease our dependence on foreign oil. host: suzette from san antonio. good morning, democrats line. caller: good morning. how are both of y'all doing today? host: fine thank you. guest: well, thank you. caller: good. what i wanted to know is as far as the farmers and with the cut in subsidies one gentleman basically was making my point but i wanted to talk more about it. this is kind of a feast or famine, if i'm not mistaken. you know one year production can be very good where another year you basically spend more than you make depending on the drought and freezes and everything like that. so what i'm wondering is, how

can they set something like that on an industry, especially small farmers where their growth varies by year to year. the people who want the cuts in the subsidies, i mean, do they have a farming background or are these just pencil pushers? and then also on the w.i.c. program, can just seems to me, with these hard economic times that we're going through and i think they're going to last for a while, that it's the small person you know, just the average american not the ones that have the corporation or anything who's getting the blunt of everything, where it comes to farmers or single mothers or just, you know, mothers who can't afford to get it, because i was on w.i.c. for a while when my son was smaller. it seems like they want to put everything on our backs instead of the people who cause the problems, and even in the

legislature, too and it seems that they get a free pass. i was just wondering if you could speak to that and i hope y'all have a great day. host: thank you, suzette. guest: thank you suzette. it certainly is something that the democrats have consistently argued is that republicans are balancing the budget on the back of the people who are poor, on the backs of people who are working, who are currently unemployed or underemployed, and it's the political point that the democrats are making not only with w.i.c., although obviously that added a lot of fodder to their cannon, but also with healthcare, that they're going to take away -- the republicans are going to take away healthcare from seniors and with their new proposed plan. so, yes, that is something certainly that is being noticed. now, republicans were voted a majority in the house, and they feel that the mandate that voted them in was to cut the budget. the question is where to cut it

and how to cut it. and certainly people are hurting, and it's hard to make those cuts. host: in terms of the budget cuts for the w.i.c. program, the proposed spending plan was $6.7 billion. the house version has it at $6 billion, so $700 million reduction in the w.i.c. program for the next fiscal year. a comment from one of our viewers, do you have this debate over food versus oil? guest: corn also feeds livestock, so there's the question of livestock feed going up, and that, of course makes the price of meat go up as well. so yes that is certainly something that has been made as an argument, as an argument for stopping the subsidies for growing corn, because farmers who grow corn for ethanol get a subsidy for that as well as

well as the two we talked about that the senate removed. so if you remove that subsidy if you no longer promote or grow corn for ethanol maybe they'll still grow corn, but it can grow for other things. host: there was a farm bill that passed the house last week includes about $2.7 billion in proposed cuts. it now goes to the u.s. senate. john is joining us from bowie maryland. good morning. caller: hello. host: please go ahead. caller: my family has been farming in maryland for i think, about 30, 20 years, so we have experience with this. and my question is with all these programs, what is named the organization for women from? host: she's from congressional quarterly, she tracks the farm bill. caller: oh yes hello. am i still on?

host: you are. your question, john? caller: my question, is i think what they should do with all these women that are getting on this w.i.c. is take them out to an alley and leave them. host: ok, we'll stop it there. helena joining us from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. my comments go back to the concept of leveling out income for farmers, which is supposed to be the point of the subsidies. i'm a self-employed person, and i do not have guaranteed or a steady income from year to year. i think that's part of the business climate. if you can make a good living as a productive farmer, you deserve to survive in the marketplace. however, when the market goes down and there is no market for my business product i do not get a subsidy from the taxpayers, and yet i have to pay taxes to subsidy others.

i do understand this whole concept of food supply and making sure that we don't starve in the united states. however that isn't valid completely because it's so easy to gain the system. as long as you fit within the rules, you can collect a subsidy. so there is a website that tracks agriculture subsidies by county and it even names the farmers who get them. and in our place in america, one of our resip yets where and he his family own a whole bunch of families, and they get huge checks from the government for being farmers, and they are not what i consider to be true farmers. they buy the land, they rent it, and they collect the subsidies, and that, to me, is gaming the system, and it's our government -- if our government were any good at packing up its programs with enforcement and finding out who really deserves them, i would feel a lot more

comfortable subsidizing different groups. whenever the government gives money to people, they do not go in and make sure that the people are spending it the way it's supposed to be spent. thus fulfilling the desires of other americans to help these other groups. it's a corrupt system. as long as you give money, the results are often crupped and not what we intended. guest: i think there's definitely something to be said for that. one of the mantras throughout the whole appropriations system is let's reduce waste let's reduce abuse let's reduce fraud. that's certainly something that at least on the face of it our members of congress are aware of and something that they're saying they're going to do. but as you point out this is at the level of the individual, and that's hard to legislate. what you need to do is you need to have the legislation the regulations enforced, and then

you actually need to have a group of government regulators who check these things. of course, that costs even more money, and then you're spending money on the program. i think this is why representative lucas wanted to take it up in the appropriations bill. host: if you're unable to get through on our phone lines any morning, send us an email at journal@c-span.org. one viewer saying, how about we quit giving about a zillions of dollars to nations who hate us and double what we give to the farmers? the issue again of foreign aid who are literally providing the food on our tables. guest: and this was something that did come up on the house floor with the appropriations bill as well. there were several attempts to cut foreign aid several amendments that would have -- at least one that would have dropped it to zero, and in the end, it was cut by $2.5 billion -- i'm sorry $2.5 million. and there was an amendment that

said we cannot give foreign aid, foreign food aid to north korea, a country that obviously we're not -- we don't have very good relations with them. so yes this was a question that came out. a lot of republicans were for cutting foreign aid either altogether, and it did get cut in this bill by quite a bit. the democrats, some of them were arguing, foreign aid is important because it gives us another tool in our bag when we're trying to shape world policy. we don't want to always just go in there with guns blazing and be seen as a military force, we want to go in there and help people and be seen as a benevolent force as well and help shape policy in that way and that if you strip too much money from this program, it's not possible to do anything. host: another email question, with cuts to usda and the f.d.a. resulting in fewer inspectors and inspections will republicans be willing to accept some of the responsibility for the next e. coli or salmonella outbreak?

guest: again something that came up on the house floor and was debated not extensively, but did come up, the question is, is there enough food safety? are we really able to manage this? of course, with the e. coli scare in europe, this was a question of some issue. but in terms of amendments to add more money to the f.d.a. or to food inspection, that really didn't happen on the house floor. host: once again let's look at some of the numbers, what makes up the agriculture bill, including money for food stamps and the w.i.c. program as we listen to robert, who is joining us from imperial, missouri, on you on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? host: fine thank you. caller: i'm totally aggravated with the subsidies. it's like a previous caller said i'm in the same boat things go bad, and i have to suck it up. i think they need to look at the whole thing the way they

subsidize other people and other companies. one of the things that i find aggravating is one of our recent -- one of our news channels did an investigation and they were showing these empty fields and lots, and they were land owners, and they said these people they had a list of them that are receiving subsidies as farmers. i think the smallest amount was like $33,000. then it went up to quite a bit. i don't remember exactly. and this is just in one area of missouri. this is just a small part that's something i feel they really need to take care of, these people aren't even farming, and the land is just sitting there. guest: thank you robert. that is a problem, as we said. again, it's a question of do the regulations prohibit that, and if they do is there the man power to go out and check that? i do know there was an amend

the on the floor that would have limited subsidies to $125,000 per person or per legal entity and that did not pass. farm subsidies are something that the representatives who represent farm states, they think that's really important. they think this is what their constituents want, and they're going to fight for them. host: our conversation is with a analyst for congressional quarterly. we're talking about the farm bill, now making its way through a series of committees in the senate, then to the senate floor. corps kneel i can't is a farmer joining us from idaho. good morning. caller: good morning thank you. i would just like to speak as a small farmer here in idaho and our experience with fuel prices for instance, this year we fertilized a 32-acre grass

hayfield and i just am paying the bills today. we were charged over $3,000, and that was correct just for the fertilizer for just 32 acres. we will be lucky to make or break even off $3,000 income from that hayfield because we have to put up the hay we have to haul that hay we have to spray for weeds and on and on and on. another thing, our wheat this year in idaho was the cool and unusually rainy weather, we were finding out now that we're going to have to spray by plane our wheat field for rust, for stripe rust, and that is extremely expensive per acre to spray that wheat field. and so another example, we're hoping to get a 20-acre field

of alfalfa planted this spring if we can get it in with all the cold and wet weather. we hope to get that in, and that seed alone for alfalfa and grass, hay, is roughly $1,000 for just 20 acres. and so, small farmers are faced with these huge swings in weather, and look at the farmers that are suffering from floods and fires and dealing with loss of equipment and buildings and animals and their crops, and so on. so i think any time we can get rid of fraud and abuse for big wealthy, wall street people that come in and buy farm ground and then collect subsidies is good, but i will mention another thing on the ethanol thing. karin, you should know better. when the corn is used for ethanol, there's a corn meal that remains from that, and

that corn meal is to cattle. host: i'm going to stop include only because we have a minute left. thank you for your call. i want to go back to the first call because we can look at cash crops corn with about 1.6 million resip yets and the total payments paid out by usda averaging about $74 billion followed by wheat and cotton, soy beenes, rice, and dairy products. did you want to respond to her comment? guest: i just want to say one of the things that has come up with the farm bill and the discussion that they wanted to discuss this in the agriculture committee rather than the appropriations committee is there have been complaints that the small farmers are the ones who are suffering and that they're not getting their share of the subsidies but it is the big conglomerate farms the big kind of industrial farms that are getting a disproportionate share. so yes again that's something they want to address when they bring up the farm bill. host: karin