michigan and ohio focusing on the auto industry and transportation jobs. we will look at manufacturing policy with spot paul, executive director for the alliance for american manufacturing. and you can call in with your questions about energy and national security for david pumphrey, for the center for shtick -- and international studies. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: welcome to "washington journal" this tuesday, june 28, 2011. the supreme court wraps up its term is the day and a decision trended conservative. here is what is going on -- the president will travel to iowa to the alcoa facility to talk about manufacturing in the american economy. we will also be talking about that later on. house members are back in their

districts but the senate is in today. sent to the supreme court concluded its term we would like to hear about what you think of its decisions. here are the numbers to call -- you can also e-mail us -- iand e are on twitter. let's take a look at some of the other reporting on the supreme court term. this on some of the latest cases that came out just yesterday. a report in "the new york times " --

the supreme court also ruled on video games. justices ruled that the miners can buy violent video games. though law would have imposed fines on stores. in another decision they ruled that kids can buy them. to hear more about these cases and a term in general let's talk to adam from "the new york times." give us a perspective on the two cases. how significant was the video game case? guest: it was another muscular first amended ruling it in a court that takes free-speech seriously. cases this term involving protests at military funerals, drug marketing, and the campaign finance case you describe, where the court has been striking down

laws on first amendment grounds. host: give us a perspective on the overall term. "the new york times" reported in general this and of being a conservative term but a lot of narrow cases. guest: well, basically you have a highly divided court. four more conservative members, four more liberal and justice anthony kennedy in the middle. but when justice kennedy swing vote said, he tends to swing right. when he does, like in campaign finance cases, citizens united, and some big cases favoring businesses and class actions settings, with justice kennedy joins the four conservatives you have a very strong set of justice is prepared to do things. host: how does this compare to the last couple of terms? we have no figures but they essentially replaced other justices who have opinions that

ran along the same lines. guest: exactly right. what had justices souter and stephen step down, let you might about you would get a slightly different voting nominations but they were liberal for liberal swaps. that said, you have three women on the court, a slightly different dynamic. the justice kagan in particular just finished her first term and yesterday read her first oral dissent from the bench has emerged as a very strong, combative, interesting liberal figure on the court. host: based on the reporting from "the new york times" it does not sound like one of the hallmark years and that goes down in history and a significant way. but despite that, there are significant cases. but over all, is there a real hallmark? guest: i completely agree. it was an ok term from the journalistic perspective. you have the first amendment and class action cases but nothing like that term -- a term with an

abortion, gun rights, or guantanamo case. i think next term has the prospect of being a big term. we may well get the health care case, we make it same-sex marriage, we may get affirmative action. we got just yesterday the court agreed to hear a broadcast indecency case which could rewrite the rules for broadcast television and be another big first amendment case. over the horizon we see some real blockbusters. this last term was more typical. host: a dissenting view far in -- for the campaign case yesterday. a share with us how she is playing a role on the bench and what you got from what she had to say? guest: just as kagan is the only one with no prior judicial experience but you would not know that from looking at her. she has a very crisp and probing questions and she turns out the one of the better writers on the court, maybe the best writer among the liberals.

from the bench, depending on your perspective on the case, but people who are in favor of campaign finance really welcome her vigorous, vigorous dissent from the court's decision striking down an arizona campaign finance public financing law. host: is there one case that really stands out from this term? guest: i think a case that really grabs people's attention was the funeral protest case where a grieving father sued over a french church, to protest at his son's funeral, making it a much darker day for him. the court upheld eight-one on first amendment grounds of the rights of the church should to come protest. that really the mysteries of this is a court that cares about the first amendment. host: what do the justices do over the summer? guest: the stress that they continue to look at the appeals to the courts -- the court hears

80 cases but gets around 8000 request. many of and teach, many tech abroad. the chief justice is going to florence, for instance. justice kennedy typically goes to salzburg. a couple of them are going out to aspin. they teach in keeping with their work and recharge their batteries. host: what will you be looking for as they approach the next term? he were talking about how the court has taken a few cases that were high priority and interesting faults. guest: the case everybody cares about and is percolating through the appeals courts is the challenge to the big health-care law. that case is very likely to reach the courts and that will probably be a case that will be a confrontation between the courts and president obama, reminiscent of the new deal cases when fdr was trying to change the economic landscape and the courts, at least that

court initially pushed him back. host: supreme court correspondent for "the new york times." thank you very much. what do you think about the court's term? it is being deemed conservative. we want to know what you think. is there a particular case that captured your interest for attention or if you want to weigh in on the overall tenor? let's go to henry on the democrats' line in augusta, georgia. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about clarence thomas and his wife. i think he is a crook. him and his wife both. he is taking money from the different organizations and making rulings. host: what do you think should be done? caller: the wife getting our

money and he is taking and making rulings on different decisions like that. this should not be going on. host: let's go to jack of the democrats' line in detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: thanks for c-span. the caller from georgia just go in little of my thunder in how money has been affecting our supreme court cases. host: how do you see it playing out and what are the ramifications? caller: it sort of started out two years ago with the citizens united case which i believe was the worst decision the supreme court has made in decades. it gives them as you know, corporations with billions of dollars of the same rights as a citizen who might have not two cents. but at least we all still have one vote. so no matter how much money -- will also have one vote and we

can vote for presidents that appoint the justices that we want. i think obama made a good choice with kagan. i think she will be a good justice. but again, i think money is corrupting the supreme court and they are the law of the land. host: two of our callers so far mentioned clarence thomas. let's look and an article from "the l.a. times." this is from back in january. the justice's wife had an income the failed to report. the watchdog group common cause made the allegation. let's go to forest hills,

maryland. mike. caller: i wanted to really comment on justice thomas. i think his ethics do not fit the standard of a supreme court justice. in fact, i am surprised that justice roberts has not rained in in. i think they need to cents to two some kind of oversight -- have the same rules that apply to the supreme court as applies across the country. especially conflict of interest and reducing themselves when there are such conflicts. host: since we are talking about the term, what do you think about the decisions that were made? caller: i think it was an act of this decision. more politics and money. i think the influence of money unfortunately is to obviously apparent on this court. it is a very political courts. if you look at the decisions they use live all around the same 5-4 decisions.

it is really unfortunate but money in american politics. host: let us take a closer look at two of the cases that were announced. rollings put -- ruling puts regulation and game designer's control. jumping down --

we have a comment on twitter waiting in on this -- looking at how other cases played out, the supreme court has this entire range we see from "usa today." when they have been doing over the 2010-2011 term. it breaks down for us the range of cases and where they come. a class act litigation. free-speech, prisoner rights, criminal law, and others let's go to west virginia. carl, republican vin caller: i was watching the o'reilly factor just before i turn this on and i was listening to bernie goldberg and he was talking about "the new york times," and away the described the supreme court.

and you were speaking to a reporter from "the new york times" at the beginning of your show. and according to bernie goldberg, in their paper they describe the conservatives as conservative and the liberals as moderates. maybe you have of the wrong caption there -- maybe it should be supreme court moderates term. it is just a typical way the liberal press sees things. host: do you consider "the wall street journal" liberal? caller: "the wall street journal? " they are right down the middle -- not like the post or "the new york times" or nbc. nbc doesn't make any pretense

about their leaving. they lean left, we left. host: let us look at "the wall street journal" headline. we tried to pull from what folks in washington are reading, and what news they are digesting. this is where we got one of our inspiration's from. the report that the supreme court ended its annual term with the two decisions upholding free speech protection, capping the year that saw conservatives largely prevail over the court's liberal minority. let's go to holyoke,

massachusetts. democratic caller. caller: if this isn't legislating from the bench, i don't know what it is. host: what case stands out? caller: all these corporations. it is influencing public opinion. if you throw enough stuff onto the wall, it will stick. i think the courts are bought. the market is rigged and it is their way of controlling freedom. you've got halliburton that are the prizes -- arbitrages their employees because when women get raped they don't have a day in court. over profit. this is your corporate democracy. this is not democracy. this is, in not so many words, consolidating power at the top to the few.

host: let us take a look at the cases to which you are refering. a class action litigation. "usa today" breaks it down. wal-mart stores versus ducs. that opinion was 5-4, and 9-0 for the second part. at&t mobility -- colorado, carlos is on our republican line. caller: good. i wanted to say something about mrs. thomas.

she has a right to file separately as a full citizen of the united states and her income was reported and that is why we are talking about it now. she does not give up her right just because she is married to a justice. host: what do you think about the term, the overarch of it and any individual cases? caller: i do think the supreme court is getting involved in too many things that should be taken care of the people. that is why we have a congress. we don't make mistakes like the supreme court did like dread scott and the slaughterhouse cases and plessey -- they have made terrible, awful decisions. when we make a bad decision, like an prohibition or stuff like that, it only took us 13 years to repeal prohibition. supreme court, once they make a decision, it is eternal. host: weighing in, at the wing what of but caller -- one of

the callers said. also tweets that talk about how the cases came down this year. independent caller from cleveland, ohio. go ahead, anthony. caller: i would like to talk about the consistency of this court to rule in favor of corporations and big money. it is like it is some kind of quid pro quo with the republican party, that they are ruling for s -- isthe corporation' citizens, one of the worst rulings in the history of this country, i believe. citizens versus what ever it was. i think it is a terrible decision. putting corporations running the political system. the people have no more power

and it seems like the politicians are controlled by the corporations. instead of looking out for us, they are looking out for corporations. it is really becoming a bad situation. i don't understanding. i don't understand why supreme court justices like clarence thomas, he seems to have a clear conflict with his wife. i just don't understand how these things are coming about. no one is saying anything. congress is not saying anything and no one is doing anything. host: let us take a listen of justice scalia from the term this year asking -- the plant is for the case, asking for evidence walmart intentionally discriminated on the basis of sex. >> if the institute where every manager has to be trained before they become a manager, they provide as a response to a standard question, why are women

so underrepresented or fume women in management? the response given was because men seek advancement or are aggressive in seeking advancement. that is a typical spirit typical statement provided to every person going through the management training program that forms of their decisions when they make discretion to make promotion. >> that causes then intentionally discriminate on the basis of sex? how can that possibly cause them to intentionally discriminate on the basis of sex? >> they have an intent to take sex into account in making their decisions. that is, they apply a stereotype that women are less aggressive when it comes to assessing suitability for promotions. host: justice scalia asking questions of joseph sellers, attorney for the plaintiffs on the walmart case.

one of the caller is talking about the case and the overall tenor of the supreme court and how justice is weighed in on issues regarding corporations. it also there were a lot of free speech cases. perhaps that interest you. let's hear from our next caller. we have a democratic caller from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: to be the high court in the land, i think they are giving away the opportunity for other people to come through and we really realize what the law is about. it is funny there would be nine justices for the people, not for the country, but for the people of the country. and to tell them they have not have a right in the highest court -- i think it is beyond court -- i think it is beyond any human being can think about. host: let us take a look at a comment from twitter --

since we heard from justice the lead in the walmart case, let's take a look at justice ginsburg, also questioning one of the lawyers. this time is theodore boutros. >> the memory of what has been left out so far it is a company gets report month after month showing that women are disproportionately passed over for promotions, and there is a paid gap -- it happens not once, but twice. isn't there some responsibility on the company to say gender discrimination at work and isn't

there an obligation to stop it? >> yes, there is an obligation for a company to make sure there is not wage gaps in discrimination. but if you look at that aggregate statistics the that the plaintiffs pointed, it points to a completely different issue. it does not show there are gender gaps at the stores and among comparable people. that is really the fundamental flaw in the case. host: justice ginsburg asked questions of walmart attorney. let's go to the phones and after that talk about some of the other cases that are not a lot of attention. republican and bolingbrook, illinois. caller: i would just like to make a point about the ideology of the court. we just happen to be coming out on top in most of the cases. for all of these liberals, if they had a 5-4 decision they

would not be complaining as much as they are. the part about walmart, if the liberals and wal-mart is unfair, they don't have to go there and they do have the right to vote for the next president. and if president obama can win, they can swing the court 5-for their way. and my last point is, maybe we should have a 35-year limit for the supreme court. because i think, just like the senators should probably 18 years and a representative should may be 20 years, these people stay too long and they are too powerful. host: can i ask you a question about one of the cases this year? the first amendment shielded fred phelps and his westboro baptist church followers from a lawsuit for picketing the funeral of a marine killed in iraq. the father brought the suit, the picketing caused emotional distress. i am reading this from "usa today." justices ruled 8-1 that the first amendment protects the church. what do you think question of caller: i agree with that one.

i think the westboro baptist church is disgusting. i had a student of mine killed last year and i probably would last year and i probably would be angry as all heck if it would have been there picketing him as a marine. like i said, they are disgusting but they do have the rights just like these do but video games. i disagree with those videogames -- and having kids play those. but they have the right to sell them. this is a free country and we have to protect our freedoms. some things we like and some things we don't, and if we start picking and choosing we might be on the bottom side of some of these cases. host: a comment from twitter -- we could use about five more good conservative justices on that court. hank is on the independent line. caller: just echoing what some of the other callers have said. the supreme court has got to much power. they are in there for life --

that is a mistake. we should have more justices. i don't see why we can't have nine justices. maybe some of them can be voted in by the people rather than appointed. as far as some of their decisions, what they have given away to the corporations over many years is wrong. that is all i have to say. host: there are nine justices on the corporate ladder is take a look at this "usa today" analysis of the term. the accord includes two recent appointees of president obama and is the most the worst in history.

she breaks down some of the biggest developments, the walmart tape -- case and at&t case. here is another one. a generic drug manufacturers, that provide 75% of the nation's prescriptions cannot be sued under state laws for failing to warn of dangerous side effects if their labels of followed that of their brand-name counterparts. massachusetts. thomas, republican. caller: how is it going? as people were saying before,

you sign a contract when you go work for these companies and then you can sue them any more -- just like halliburton. that girl got raped and they took her to court instead of bringing a the supreme court, it went to another court, halliburton hired these people for arbitrage, whatever you call it, this stuff that they do, and basically that girl had operations after the rating that happens and halliburton is still making profits. they take people being patriotic to this country, whether you are a democrat or a republican, and they exploit it and then when they are held accountable they get to be covered by the supreme court. there is no democracy. wake up, people. it is not about democrats or republicans but it is about getting your freedom back. host: let's take a listen to a couple of guests who were on "washington journal" talking about the westboro case.

this is the defendant talking about the case for military funeral protest. you have the soldiers going to afghanistan and iraq which is a war that has nothing to do with our constitutional democracy. but even if you feel for the sake of argument they are dying for the right to speak and you get one of these military folks -- and you get it on the streets -- saying i die for your right to speak, only don't say words i don't like. how un-american cannot possibly be? you know what? if they died for our right to speak, shut the hell up and let us speak. host: that is a marjorie phelps, the westboro church case, the group that protest that funerals. of the court did decide that was a free-speech issue. let's hear the other side. attorney timothy lehman talking to "washington journal" on that same show saying there are exceptions, in his opinion.

>> there is all types of speech that have been limited in this country and restrictions put on when and how old even public speech on public -- when and how even public speech is conducted. the court has drawn lines. it is an evolving and not an easy area but the court has done it all the time. the lower courts consistently do it in the case of defamation, trying to figure out if someone is a private figure or public figure, whether the speech is opinion or fact, or whether the speech is true or false. so there are all sorts of mines, analysis, and balancing that goes into the situation and i think the court is fully able to do that here. host: that is from "washington journal" back in october. let's go to baltimore, maryland. jack on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. they kind of pointed out what i

wanted to say. there is a lot of england -- inconsistency in a lot of the free-speech ruling spirit of the westboro church thing is a disgrace i obviously. let them and so people at the funeral services for soldiers. where as a black person could call me and the name he wants to and get away with it but if i use of the n-where i am in big trouble. host: don't do it on art -- our show. but it is freedom of speech -- we would not want to have that happen. we do not want anyone calling anyone names. no ad hominem attacks and no dialogue useful -- that is not useful to the conversation. the justices decided overwhelmingly on the westboro case. it was not a tight decision. let us go to tennessee. sean on the independent line. caller: i just would like to say you got to look at the situation

and that the law. ingenious how they do this. to keep poor people in the middle class down. middle class down. when you go back to 2000 when bush was elected president, the supreme court stepped in and he won and then we had a distraction with 9/11 and then things started going wrong. he passed a law for nato for them to come in -- if the united states citizens revolted the nato soldiers would attack the country because the military would not do it because they live here. when you look at the evil mist and you turn it around and you see evil, you flip it, and live, it is amazing, the destruction. host: focus on this term and not a term in the past. do you see the same problems you identified in this latest term of the court? caller: of course.

come on. it is crazy. host: let us go to vienna, virginia. roger, democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to make a phone call to comment on something that is a personal concern of mine, people i know. in 2009 the supreme court ruled on the gross vs fdl financial- services decision, a ruling that affected the burden of proof in aids discrimination cases. very damaging. disappointing. in short narrow ruling meant is that raised considerably and unrealistically the standard of proof for claimants of adg discriminate -- age discrimination to prove they were discriminated against. there was a bill in the house, i believe it was h. r. 3721 that would in effect put the situation back to the way it was

before the ruling. this bill did not make it out of committee because of the changeover to the new session. i am certainly hoping the new bill that is identical is reintroduced. host: let's go to our next caller, talking about this session of the court. chris, independent line in georgia. caller: good morning. i would just like to say, the supreme court over the years has very much got the constitution messed up the rate -- the way it was really written. i watched the movie by michael moore, a documentary made back in 2008 about the capitalistic system. it talks about big business backing the supreme court, the congress, the erection, lobbyists -- election and the lobbyists. they make $185,000 a year --

people on unemployment starving to death. host: a twitter viewer writes -- beatrice, democratic caller. caller: my take on the supreme court. i had a case at the superior courts and the judge told me, after my husband one and a lawsuit, six months after, this company, this corporation, the largest shipyard on the west coast, they never lost in his court. they had many cases. although the jury ruled in their favor. i thought about writing to clarence thomas to see if there was anything that could be done. i reported corporate fraud against the government as well as myself, and come to find out -- and i only did this a year

ago, i think in 2010. they got a new contract. and i have proof -- $7 million that they took from the government on contracts because my husband told me 18 days before he passed away he had been doing this for the company. i did not know. that broke my heart. but i ended up losing everything because of this judge, the superior court judge would have ordered -- the award would have been a 588,000 actual damages for past and future earnings up to age of 65. they didn't even pay my husband's life insurance. they donated it to a party. that is what the court is about. host: are question is what you think about the supreme court term that just wrapped up today. a lot of media analysts saying that they have swung conservative a majority of the time with the justice kennedy being a key player. take a look at some of the other

news stories. "the washington post" has a story about the president -- about the president waging a charm offensive. shifting over to "the washington post." michele bachmann hugging her husband after announcing she will seek the 2012 republican presidential nomination. she announced that in iowa yesterday. was it -- we also got other stories to take a look at that -- look at. rod blagojevich convicted. this is "the chicago tribune" headline. convicted of trying to sell senate seat, fund-raising shakedown. the ex-governor says he is frankly stunned. let us look at the "chicago sun-

times" red line. "jailhouse rod." reporters say his wife cried at the news. and we will find out what the implications are when he actually gets sentenced in a couple of months. the president met yesterday with the top republican and top democrats in the senate's. a report in "the new york times" that at the white house -- the white house and congressional republicans remain deeply divided. as we look at things heating up for the presidential race with the republican candidates, "the new york times" as a breakdown

of when the candidates made their announcements what words did they use the most in their speeches. the big words they use -- america comes up a lot, people, herman cain use division the most, tim pawlenty america, mitt romney america, rick santorum, america, people, president, and jon huntsman, his top word was america as well, also michele bachmann, who used government, people, waterloo, which is where she made her announcement in iowa. if one breakdown of the words and the semantics the candidates are employing. let us go to shady side, maryland. sandy, independent caller. any cases stand out to you? caller: no, not really. but i do agree what do with what some of your callers mentioned, that they don't believe we do have a working democracy. i do believe we have a legalized

system of corruption and bribery and to make us all feel good about it is special interest and lobbying, and i think it does include the courts. what really gets to me is we think we go after the bad guys in this country and we don't. on bloomberg, they were talking about how goldman sachs is too big to be sued or prosecuted by the government because they are just too big to fail and therefore they can break the law because it they are too big to be sued. we have watched the largest legalized theft in the history of this world in the financial crisis and not one person has gone to jail for it. you have to listen very carefully what the politicians talk about -- whether it is president clinton, bush one or two or president obama. they all mentioned it in their speeches. it is called the new world order. host: stan, republican and florida. caller: how are you doing today? good.

i am the last but let me say this, we -- the constitution of the united states of america has been rewritten, has been interpreted many times from our forefathers who said what the constitution really meant. we can take the first amendment, freedom of religion -- they did not come over here for us to have freedom of religion, but this country is a christian -- i am sorry, mr. president, this country is a christian nation. host: let's go on -- , from twitter -- "the wall street journal" has a breakdown of how the piece is played out over the term. it shows which cases decided by a strong majority or a slight

majority. you can see by the color coding of how the votes broke down. the walmart case, you can see the justices that won out -- the five. the free-speech westboro church case. the eight who voted for that was. addressing overcrowding in the prison population. and striking down california law banning the sale of violent video games. and chamber of commerce versus waiting opens the door to tougher state laws targeting illegal immigrants. massachusetts, donald, democratic caller. caller: i just had a comment. when the time comes to replace one of the conservative members of the court, we are going to have the biggest government shutdown ever because the corporations will not allow the courts to have a 5-4 liberal

majority. if you'd think congress is not working now, wait before this day appears on the horizon. "the wall street journal" also breaks down the decisions based on how weight offed -- weighted on how weight offed -- weighted they were. slightly more contentions -- contentious, 10 of those, but the really tough cases, 5-4 decisions, there were 16. the median age of the justices over the year, starting in 1950 all the way to the past session. it goes up and down. we are right around the 60- something-year-old mark, in the low 60's at this point. let's go to rachel, independent caller. texas. caller: i was upset when george bush, the last george bush, they

took the 10th amendment out of the courthouse, and the supreme court let terry schiavo starve to death. they did not take her awful life support. they refused to give her food and water. host: what do you think about the latest court term? looking at 2010-2011 did caller: i don't agree with it as -- at all. host: even though it seemed to have a conservative leaning and you do, too? caller: i used to be conservative but i am not any more. i don't know. a lot of people getting out raged buy things and it is the wrong thing. host: let's take a look at a couple of other pieces before real wrap up. establishment of religion, court limited taxpayers' rights to sue over government subsidies of religious institutions --

looking at public records, the court denied efforts by both industry and government to withhold the records from the public. in the case of the freedom of information act. reading that from "the wall street journal." coming up next, we will be talking to the secretary of transportation ray lahood. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> my name is michele bachmann.

i stand here in the midst of many friends and many family members to announce formally my candidacy for president of the united states. >> as the field of republican candidates continues to take shape, follow the president's announcement, and speeches, campaign events and look back at their careers on line at the c- span video library. but on campaign 2012 to search, what, clip, and share any time. >> there's three days of book tv programming this holiday weekend on c-span2. on "after words." and argument that corporations are undermining the original intent of the internet by personalizing information to each user. a joint bid for kids foundation

book party for ann coulter. and sunday, "in depth" live with the chickasaw nation's linda hogan. look for the entire three-day schedule at booktv.org and sign up for book tv alerts for weekend schedules in your in box. >> a house recently debated and voted on two measures related to u.s. military involvement in libya. look for continued debate in the house and senate at c-span's congressional chronicle, a comprehensive research on congress. fine video of every house and senate session, daily schedules, committee hearings and information on your elected officials at c-span.org /congress. >> c-span has launched an easy to navigate web site for politics in the 2012 presidential race. with the latest c-span events from the campaign trail, by all

informational the candidates, twitter feeds and facebook updates from candidates and political reporters, and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. visit us at c-span.org/2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: transportation secretary ray lahood is our guest. guest: good morning. host: you are heading out on the road. heading to essentially the rust belt -- michigan and ohio area -- to tout the administration's role in the auto industry and manufacturing jobs that have been created. what is your message? guest: that in this administration has paid more attention to the auto industry -- auto industry than any i can remember in my time in public service for 35 years. president obama early on may commitment to the automobile industry to make sure that the industry can continue to manufacture american made automobiles and as a result gm, chrysler, and for all posted

profits this year. which was not the case two years ago. it two years ago gm and chrysler were looking at a very dim prospects for manufacturing cars. and i can't think of another president who has really taken an interest in the automobile industry. it has proven to be very successful. taxpayer money in this case was well spent and it has been paid back, and the ottoman -- although industry are all posting -- automobile industry are all posting profits. chrysler and gm were probably hurting the most. ford, obviously, as most people know, did not accept any money, but we are pleased with the progress the car industry is making. it is the backbone of our economy. certainly the backbone of the economy in many states now, including michigan and ohio and other states. i think people are grateful for the president for his leadership and really helping the american automobile

manufacturers and the workers who work in those companies. it a coat is it ultimately a good deal for the text -- host: was it ultimately a good deal for the taxpayers? they will not get the $1.3 billion. guest: it certainly was. if you look at what the automobile industry has contributed, particularly gm, chrysler, and ford -- it is enormous. not just jobs in that industry but the spin-off jobs. it the -- the people who manufacture tires and accessories. to have any one of the companies to go under would have been a disaster for the american manufacturer. it was a good deal for the taxpayers because it helped in the automobile industry, the economy particularly in michigan and ohio and states where they manufacture cars, and the lion's share of the money has been paid back. and these companies are posting profits. so, i think good leadership on

the part of the president. a good expends of taxpayer money. thirdly, good leadership on the part of the automobile manufacturer, particularly gm and chrysler. host: "wall street journal" opinion piece, it is called "the real cost of the auto bailout." the indirect costs may be the worst problem. it's a politically interested -- if a politically important industry has a problem. also concerned about the fact that not all of the money is actually being recouped. he is a law professor at the university of pennsylvania. do you think it sets a bad precedent? guest: i think people who live in states like michigan and ohio and have made a good living in the automobile industry, whether it is actually working for chrysler corp. gm, or whether it is people who work in the spinoff companies, the

thousands of small businesses that provide the accessories to cars, these jobs were saved by president obama and this administration. and for these people, this was a lifeline that was needed in order to give them the kind of credit and the kind of resources that they needed to do what they have done, which is to re- manufacture cars, reengineer cars and bring their automobiles and to the 21st century to compete with foreign automakers. they are now manufacturing cars americans want to buy. that is why they are doing well. this -- this lifeline the president gave to them has proven to be very successful. host: secretary ray lahood is our guest. here are the numbers to call -- we all they have people lining up to talk with you. a republican from the illinois.

good morning. caller: mr. lahood, i've got some questions to ask you. i retired after 30 years, most on salary, -- reduction in salary, flint, michigan. i lost most of my benefits but obama gave the union -- from what i hear, and i want you to cleared up for me. he gave the union 18% of the company. and the government took the rest. my friends who retired from there, they lost hartley everything and i lost almost everything. i lost most of my life insurance, i lost most of my prescription glasses, my dental,

medical. at me and my wife, they gave us $300 to buy -- for me and my wife, they gave us $300 to buy prescription insurance with. the first year it worked out ok. i could buy all two of them for $300. now, my supplement costs $350 a month and i have to pay for my prescription insurance. host: what is your overall message for the secretary? caller: my overall message is why did they cheat the salaried retirees -- and obama is such a union lover that he gave the union 18% of the company so they would not have to do that with their benefits but they sure cheated the guys who worked

their butts off trying to make general motors profitable. guest: well, the money actually went to the companies. i know the companies did renegotiate contracts with the uaw, which is the largest union that represents of co-workers. and in those negotiations i know that there were some concessions made. but the lion's share of the money that was provided by the federal government went to the companies to help them really stay afloat while they redesign and re-manufacture cars and really begin to build cars in the american people wanted, including a lot of electrified vehicles. and so, this proved to be very successful. but obviously the negotiations between the company and the uaw, i think, did not benefit this

gentleman but had to be done in order to get costs under control by the company. host: secretary ray lahood is traveling to flint and bay city, michigan, this week and he will visit the caterpillar plant outside of the income ohio. larry, democrats' line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i got to say that i was really on edge when all of this negotiation was going on with the auto industry in congress and all i could see was the republicans and downs out fighting the obama administration about this money going to the auto industry because they were heavily invested in the auto industry down south, and the northern auto industry would have collapsed, they would have had it all in their laps. the last caller made a statement he was not a union member.

that is too bad because union members were protected because we had somebody to negotiate for us. but we did lose our dental and eye care coverage under this renegotiation of the auto companies. it was not all rosy. we do have the health care benefits. but i have to say my hat goes off to the obama administration for negotiating the deal that they did for the auto industry. how much money did the auto industry pay back as far as credits to the country when they got that money, when it started paying the money back? how much percentages did the united states make on this deal? guest: lions share of the money has been paid back to the federal government. chrysler just made its final

payments, and i would say the majority of the money has been a paid back. it obviously has been a good investment to secure the american automobile manufacturers, to secure many, many good jobs in state where american companies are building automobiles, it was a lifeline that proved to be very successful and i think president obama deserves the lion's share of the credit. he made a very tough call but it was of the right call and a call that saved an industry that had been the backbone of the american economy. host: you announced last week you for stopping the international scan program.

it talks about trips all over the world, looking at things like concrete, managing pavement, motorcycle safety. why did you stop that and what was it all about? guest: i just learned about the program when we were called by abc news. i was not really aware of it. i was not aware people were travelling to do research in these areas. the reason i suspended the program was to suspended the program was to personally review how much was spent on research and what benefits is really accrued to the department of transportation as a result of it. once i get to the bottom of it, i will decide if the program is worth the taxpayer dollars. it does not appear, from what i have learned so far, from what our friends in the media -- we are really strapped for dollars in the government.

this is the kind of program that we perhaps should not be promoting. i will look at it and then make a decision. host: abc reported a recent trip host: abc reported a recent trip cost -- how is it that the secretary does not know about a program like this? guest: what i have tried to do is focus on safety in transportation and focus on the big picture, pope is on our larger goals. i am not going to take a back seat to anybody when i do not see the day when i see something that is not right. when i see taxpayer dollars, particularly when we do not have

many taxpayer dollars, being spent in correctly, i will take action. this program has been suspended and is under review by me, personally. and it will not be started by me again until i am convinced taxpayer dollars are being well spent. we owe it to the taxpayers at a time when it is tough to get dollars to spend on particularly safety programs and other things important to the american people. host: cannot talk about your prayer area of safety. there have been a couple of deadly bus crashes. recently, a tour bus crashed killing dozens of passengers. what is your level of concern related to these deaths? half a dozen senators have written to you, saying the agency has had a hard time

enforcing safety laws. guest: we have had some harsh repression in the last couple of months. i am deeply concerned about our ability to continue to regulate bus companies. there are a lot of bus companies. a couple of these companies, we took out of service, but they repainted their buses and went back into service. in some instances, we have to rely on our friends in the state to help us with licensing and enforcement. we give money to state police and other law enforcement people, so that when they stopped buses, they can check to see that the driver is well- licensed, that the company is properly licensed, that the vehicle is safe. we pay people to do the inspections. i am not going to make excuses, we have a responsibility for

licensing buses and drivers. and some of that is shared with the states. we have to do better. any bus crash is a series bush press. -- serious bus crash. we are going to work with our partners in the state's and the bus companies. the last thing that budget and the bus companies want are these companies that are not legitimate, proper drivers driving their vehicles. we have to step up our enforcement. host: what did you recommend to travelers? guest: it is a great question. on our website, we list companies that are well- licensed. they can see the records of these companies and they can see what we have developed as a safety criteria and they can get a pretty good handle. i recommend people do that before they board a bus.

host: jim, republican caller. good morning. caller: i would like to make a few short comments and then a question. picking winners and losers is a moral hazard. i do not know whether the president makes these decisions based on whether he served as a larger number of people. certainly, the moratorium on oil drilling probably hurt more people than would have been hurt, and if the auto companies had not been bailed out. secretary, if you could personally choose a project that would involve giving people jobs

that would help, not just a region -- what would it be? guest: that is a great question and answer is easy. i have been pushing congress to pass a transportation bill. a six-year transportation bill for our country would put people to work in very large numbers building roads and bridges, fixing roads and bridges, continuing our progress with transit programs around the country, enabling people who are in the business of building buses, train cars for transit systems, to go to work. we have now -- past for more than two years the last transportation bill. when congress passes a transportation bill, they pass a jobs bill. we saw the money we received from the stimulus bill.

15,000 projects and 65,000 jobs in two years. that money is running out and we do not see people working on the highways as much as we did because stimulus is running out. as a transportation bill. that will put americans to work. host: val writes on twitter -- guest: i think it is and i think the people have decided that. if he lived in washington, d.c., where we have a great metro system, people poured those trains every day. around the country, people are importing transit systems. particularly, as gas prices have gone up. we have made big investments in public transportation and we will continue to that. this is what people want. they want to be able to get at a

transit -- ingestion, travel on transportation that they can afford. that is what public transportation is so critical all over america. the same is true for trains. that is why the president has a bigger vision for implementing more passenger rail in america. we have made $10 billion is worth of investments so far to get people on trains, the way that we have the opportunity in the northeast corridor, from washington to new york. people like the ability to get on buses, metro system's, light rail, because it is affordable and it is comfortable and they get to where they are going on time. host: a story and "the times" today."

guest: this project meets all the guidelines that have been established by our department and by congress. we believe this is a good project. we have never been mulling by any member of congress to do anything. we do things by the book. he think it is a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer dollars -- we think it is a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer dollars. guest: tom, democratic caller. caller: i just want to start off by stating, we have to remember, when the stimulus bill

was passed, not one republican voted for it, and that saved 3 million jobs. then when we passed the auto bailout, not one republican voted for that, and that saved 1 million jobs, from auto suppliers to automakers. i always laugh when these republicans say we want to create jobs. the new congress has not done anything. if it was up to the republicans in congress -- and you can look at it from the state to the congressional level -- if you are a union worker, forget it. they do not even consider you a worker. they blame all the problems on union workers. and that tells you where the republicans stand in this country.

guest: i am a republican, am proud to say i am a republican. i promoted the transportation and stimulus bill. i know it provided jobs. i am proud of what we have done over the past two and half years to put americans to work, through the stimulus money. we are going to push hard for congress to pass a transportation bill. it is a very bipartisan way to put americans to work. transportation has always been bipartisan. when i served on the transportation committee, we passed two bills with over 380 votes, and a lot of people have gone to work as a result of it. i have no doubt that if congress can pass a transportation bill, it will be a jobs bill. host: you first started in the

house in 1994. you served on committees such as appropriations, agriculture subcommittee, as well as the illinois house back in the 1980's. i wanted to ask you about a story over the weekend. europe is looking to get more people on mass transit. reporting from zurich, elisabeth rosenthal writes -- what did you make of that strategy? guest: i think it is a good strategy, but the strategy comes from the people. people want options in

transportation. people are tired of a cog roads, congestion. people are tired of high gasoline prices. you can live in washington, d.c., new york, and not on an automobile because there are good transportation systems. the metro system in washington is very good. cta, in the chicago, is a good system. -- in chicago, is a good system. people want to be able to get from one place to another and from one place to another and not always have to do it paying high gas prices and in congestion. i believe this idea of more transit, more buses, metro, streetcars, rarely comes from the bottom up. it is coming from the people. host: new haven, conn.

john is on the republican line. caller: good morning. some of the facts about transportation, public and private sector. you stated that new york has an awesome transportation system, but actually, they are trying to upgrade it, trying to make new policies and implement new things. you do not talk about relocating when these big projects are taking place. people are not building on highways. i see men i was all the time. differences between the union and non-union members. you have no support for a non- union person, someone who is

union person, someone who is trying to make it, versus a someone in a union tried to get their help. guest: i agree, when you do big projects, there are disruptions. big projects cause controversy, there is no question about that. we know that sometimes they are controversial. we take our cues from people in the state who have been good partners with us, from our friends in the cities that are running transit district's. we consider them good partners. when they want to do big things, we tried to be helpful with resources and expertise, but i do not question the idea that big things can be controversial. big projects are controversial. host: jason is next on jacksonville, florida.

caller: mr. lahood, you are one of our best transportation secretary that we have had in a while. i am from upstate new york. i move down here to florida. saving the auto industry was the greatest thing you could have done. people do not realize. what about local towns, the local delis, restaurants, local bars? had our auto industry gone down, we would have lost more than a couple million jobs. with the environment we are in today, do you think you could be elected as a republican? i saw what they did to huntsman, that man from iowa. we need a transportation bill, but i do not think we are going to get it because we are so divided.

guest: i have no intention of running for office again. it was a great privilege to serve in the house of representatives. serving in the house is a really great job. we made the most of it, did a lot of great things for our district, but i think we also looked up for the country. i consider elected office a special privilege and i appreciate the support i got from my district. i have a great job right now and i do not intend to run for public office again, but it was a good run. host: among the secretary's background, he was a junior high school teacher. our caller is talking about politics in general. as a republican serving in a democratic administration, do you see willingness for folks to cross the line? cross the line? guest: of course.

that is how we solve our problems in this country. no one of the members of the house or senate get their way. when the president reached agreement the congress, and ultimately, we were able to pass a 2011 budget, it was done because republicans and democrats came together and put their heads together and figure out solutions to these budget problems. that will happen again. that is why the president called the leaders of congress to the white house yesterday to keep talks going. these problems that we have, whether they be transportation, fiscal, deficits, debt, will only be solved in a bipartisan way. no one party has the total answer. bipartisanship will prevail here

because it is the way we solve our problems in this country. host: jeff from lansing, ill.. caller: mr. lahood, you mentioned earlier, the electric vehicles being developed. the only one i see being developed is the volt. why is it that no other vehicles are mentioned? host host: would you drive an electric vehicle? caller: yes, i would. they are environmentally friendly.

for short trips around town, it would be great. guest: let me say, nissan is developing an all-battery car. developing an all-battery car. it is called the leaf . it will be available in the united states very soon. ford has a hybrid vehicle, which i alone, and the escape. it is a combination of battery and combustion. -- which i own, the escape. car makers are starting to create more battery vehicles. the volt is a very best selling car, produced by gm. you can get a 7 $500 tax rebate

if you buy a volt. that is a pretty good incentive. -- $7500 tax rebate if you buy a vote. lt. host: that is in a usa today gallup poll. why the resistance? guest: we are in the starting its about this. i own a hybrid. it is a magnificent vehicle. it gets good gas mileage. it is very environmentally appealing. it has good pickup, you can

drive it on the highway. i think there are just probably misunderstandings about battery powered vehicles. but as one who drives one, i think it is a good vehicle. host: union, missouri. gregg, republican call. caller: mr. lahood, let me ask you about amtrak and the government running that, and they are losing money. also, you are thinking about more rail systems and the government running it? we are in debt up to our eyes. guest: no question, and the president has called legislative leaders to continue the conversation about how we reduce the debt and deficit. but you can have debt and deficit and you can also have priorities. we are going to continue to have priorities.

amtrak made money last year. ridership was way up. people are using amtrak, particularly in the northeast corridor. amtrak is doing well because they are providing a service at a cost that people can afford, and they're trained to arrive on time. that is why amtrak is doing better. the reason we are promoting passenger rail is because the president has a vision for alternative forms of transportation. we have never had a president that has invested this amount of money to get people onto trains. high-speed intercity rail is coming to america because this is what the people want.

finally, we have a president with the vision to implement it. host: you have talked about web- based gadgets in cars. what is the rights of individuals and companies? guest: when we say something that dot, we -- at dot, we base it on good data. right now, we are looking at new technology in cars. whether it be a new radio, sync, gps, other gadgets in cars. when that study is complete, we will have a better idea whether these cognitive distractions are, in fact, distractions. i think distracted trapping is an epidemic. you see people on their cell phones all over the community.

you cannot drive safely if you have a cell phone in your ear and you are trying to drive a 4000-pound vehicle. i am trying to get people to put their cell phones in the glove compartment. distracted driving is an epidemic because we all think we can use our cell phones behind the wheel of a car. you cannot drive safely if you have a cell phone by your year or if you are text messaging. or if you are text messaging. all i would say is, go to distraction.gov. you will see heartbreaking stories. you do not need to listen to ray lahood. listen to the stories that people tell about losing loved

ones because someone was foolish enough to think that someone could drive with a cell phone in their ear, or drive while texting. host: a comment on twitter. the white house last week said they were not speculating on what opening the reserves would mean at the pump. to you think it will help drivers? guest: we are involved in these decisions and we support the president's decision, a decision to use some of the strategic oil reserves. the president made a judgment here during the summer season, a lot of people like to travel by car. they should not be inhibited by high gas prices. gas prices are coming down. we and the president believe

that using the strategic oil reserve will be helpful to families who want to travel around, and what to do it on gasoline prices that are lower than they have been. host: craig, in illinois. caller: i had a question about the stimulus package. some of these states that have used -- misused the money, what is your stand on that? guest: we have $40 billion at the department of transportation. most of that money has been obligated. i do not know of any state or municipality that used one penny of that money to balance their budget. that would be illegal. that is not what the money was to be used for.

when you look at where we have spent our money, it has put thousands of people to work. almost all of that money now has been spent in projects that will be concluded this year. the money that we gave to towns and states could not be used to balance the budget. host: rick, from jackson, tennessee. caller: we have quite a few projects going on in tennessee, and when you drive by, there has to be a lot of illegals working. host: before we get a response, i do not know that we can judge that someone is illegal. i believe you are making an assumption, based on them being latino. latino. guest: 1 i will address is how

the money is being spent. we allocated money to our partners, in some cases, roads and bridges for the states. in transit district's, the money was distributed to run the country. in some instances, municipalities for special projects. once they have the money, they have to spend it in a way that they say they would. we monitor that. they enter into contracts with people who build roads and bridges. we monitor that to make sure it is spent correctly. host: there are certainly legal immigrants working on

projects, too. a comment on twitter.te essentially, integrating this technology in your car. what do you think? what do you think? guest: we are doing a study to look at the conative distractions of all of the things i did mention before, like gps. we value the idea that david and good studies give us the credibility to make the judgments that we make. when those studies are complete, i have no doubt, we will be announcing that. will be announcing that. host: andrew, republican in texas. good morning. caller: i have a comment about the chevy volt.

how much does the badr cost? my understanding is it is $16,000 for a battery alone. and then the car costs $41,000, and the government needs to bribe you to buy it. a year and a half ago, you made a comment that, under your a comment that, under your leadership, the transportation department would no longer favor motorized transportation projects. guest: define what motorized transportation projects are. caller: well, you did not define it in your talk, so explain it to me. guest: they have put bicycle lanes in washington, d.c., but

other communities have, too. the chevy volt has proved to be wildly popular, if you talk to people from gm. they only have four places in the country where they are selling it. now they are opening up distribution and sales rooms around the country because people like the car. it is an easy car to drive, it gets good gas mileage, it is part battery-part combustion. it does cost $42,000. nobody is disputing that. nobody is disputing that. there is a $7500 tax rebate when you buy the volt. i give gm credit, nissan credit,

ford. i give all of these companies credit for trying to build automobiles that helps people with high gasoline prices and gives people an alternative. if you do not want to drive a battery-powered car, so be it. my hybrid is a great vehicle. we like it very much. i encourage people to take a look at them. if you do not like it, by something else. certainly, people are going to buy these vehicles because they are tired of high gasoline prices. host: scott, in birmingham, alabama. caller: the reason i was for helping chrysler and gm -- and correct me if i am wrong. correct me if i am wrong. during world war ii, they came and helped us build stop on credit. is that not right?

guest: these car current -- companies have been the backbone of our country for many years. we have a long, rich history of building cars in america that have provided good paying jobs to americans. these are american made vehicle and the spin-off of the jobs created by this is enormous. it has been a boon to us to have this industry. i will say it again. thanks to the president's leadership in saying we cannot let gm and chrysler go under because they have been the backbone of our economy. he stepped up under great criticism and he has been vindicated. people are working and these small businesses are in operation.

the small business community is the backbone of our economy also. also. host: ken writes on twitter -- a university of massachusetts study shows bike lanes creates more jobs than regular transportation. guest: we encourage safe cycling. one way to do it is to create these bike lanes. mayors and city council members are hearing from their constituents, and they want safe places to ride bikes. that is why by claims are being put in all over the country. when you see someone on a bike, please treat them with the same kind of courtesy that you would

anyone else, like a pedestrian. many of them are cycling to work, some for the fun of it. this is what the american people really want. elected officials and communities are responding to that. host: transportation secretary ray lahood, thank you. traveling to a logistics plant in california tomorrow, where he will be meeting with workers. talking about the the administration's efforts to save the auto industry. coming up, we will talk about manufacturing in america. we will be talking about the strategic oil reserves. >> here are some of the headlines. president obama will talk economy today when he traveled to iowa. he will be torn and aluminum- producing factory and then speak with workers. the visit is part of his effort to create job creation, his

first visit to iowa since announcing his reelection. miami dade county voters are picking a new mayor after the former mayor was recalled. today is the runoff. the former mayor was ousted in march after a recall. with more than 2.5 million people, miami dade county is the most populous area to recall a official. firefighters have been working overnight to put out a spot fire near los alamos, new mexico. the officials confirmed there are drums of cold war-era waste in the complex but they say the material would be safe, even if a fire reached the storage area. the u.s.-led coalition in afghanistan said soldiers have captured a senior leader of an

al qaeda-led group dressed as a woman. finally, there could be a new leader of the international monetary fund today. french finance minister christina lagarde is expected to be the first woman to lead the organization. dominique strauss, was earlier accused of assaulting a made in a new york hotel. >> blackberry users, you can access our content any time with our c-span app. you can also listen to our signature interview programs each week. it is available, around-the- clock, wherever you are.

the supreme court is now available as a standard and in answer e-book, and tells the stories through the eyes of the justices themselves. this new book includes an interview with elena kagan. interview with elena kagan. host: scott paul, the executive director for the alliance for american manufacturing. the manufacturing initiative. what did you make of it? guest: it is a good step. we are playing catch-up on partnerships like that to spur on manufacturing. one of the barriers that

manufacturing firms have is bringing new technology to the factory floor. that is a perfectly appropriate role for the federal government. something that a lot of governments do. we used to do it in the 1980's, and before that, we have a long history of it. i think it is a welcome, necessary step. we need to do more to make our manufacturing sector more competitive, but it is depilate a step in the right direction, will keep good paying manufacturing jobs in the united states. host: the president said, i am calling on all sectors to come together to help our manufacturing develop the cutting edge tools they need to compete with anyone in the world. you say we are playing catch-up. should we focus more on high tech and new innovative technologies, should we focus on dumping more rudimentary at

first? guest: the line between high tech and traditional is blurred. when you look at your average steel well, it is -- steel mill, it is completely different. workers are in air-conditioned pulpits, using laser-guided instruments. manufacturing is far more advanced than it used to be. the president will be showing that today at alcoa. a very traditional metals manufacturer, but they are also high tech. high tech. there is this high tech sector out there, circuit boards, optical electronics. we did not care where the production occurred. as a result, we got left behind on a lot of the latest and greatest invention in robotics. having an approach that involves

academic institutions, manufacturers, as well as the federal government, to provide the glue for it, will be beneficial for firms across the manufacturing spectrum, from the small mom-and-pop, to the large multinationals. host: scott paul, the founding director for the alliance for american manufacturing. you can join the conversation. republicans, 202-624-1115. democrats, 202-624-1111. independents, 202-624-0760. we are on e-mail at journal@c- span.org and on twitter, twitter.com/cspanwj. twitter.com/cspanwj. let us talk about what has happened over the past couple of months.

shownacturing jobs have sai some growth. guest: of a lot of manufacturing has done well. we have seen a huge rebound. 250,000 manufacturing jobs created over the last 15 months. manufacturing has created about two-thirds of the gdp growth advance that we have seen since the recession began. productivity is high. this is actually the biggest winning streak we have seen in manufacturing since the 1990's, with one of the best outlooks we have had in the last 40 years. that said, we have also lost all lot of ground in the last decade and are not where we need to be, in terms of capacity utilization, how busy our factories are, industrial production, and certainly,

employment. we lost five and a half million manufacturing jobs. we have gained 250,000 back, but we have a long way to go to get back to a really healthy manufacturing base. host: what do you see as the role of science and education? many companies are looking to foreigners to get the skills that they need. guest: there is some truth to that. up and down the jobs scale at manufacturing firms, there is a difficulty recruiting young people to get involved on the factory floor, technical jobs, with research and development, and also on the financing and. they have found more lucrative options in wall street or other places. the infrastructure has not been there for young people who want technical training. we have been focused on other professions in services,

financing, health care. i think manufacturing has severed a bit as a result of that. i think it is a good thing to trained scientists and engineers. i think it is also a good thing to train technical workers on the factory floor. i think that we would see benefits from that down the road. again, we are playing catch-up compared to other industrialized countries with respect to that. host: taking a look at some graphics about production. you can see that number tanking down, but it has shown signs of life in recent months. up 158,000 jobs from one year ago.

donald, democratic line. st. louis, missouri. caller: good morning. i think the government is responsible for the auto workers, or keeping their job. other countries, the government helps companies come up with new technology and other things. we are the only country where we are always crying about what the government does for gm, chrysler. the government is doing it for gm, chrysler, and the people. guest: you are exactly right. we have an aversion to any sort of government intervention in the manufacturing sector. it does not mean the government will be running a factory.

that is the last thing we want to do. if you look at successful manufacturing countries, they do provide support for both business and labor, in making them more competitive, and they do it in a couple of ways. they provide help for research and development. they provide help in emergencies. they help with skills and training. there is a lot of collaboration. they also provide a level playing field for the manufacturing sectors. as a result, a country like germany, where wages are $40 an hour, compared to $23 in the u.s., is highly competitive they have more of their manufacturing sector in the gdp. i am not saying we need to be germany, but we can draw from those examples and have a strong manufacturing sector.

host: next phone call from virginia. caller: i think there would be a huge market for good, small, quality and appliances. a new toaster one every tw every two years because the components do not last. guest: it is a good point. what we are seeing -- and this gives me hope -- a made in america premium. manufacturers are finding their goods that are made in america are selling 30% better than the imported version. i do not know if you caught this, or if others did, but on abc news, at the end of february, they spend a family -- they spent some time with a

family in dallas, texas. they replaced every item in their home with made in america products, and they were able to replace everything except their television and cell phone. a lot of these were great products at a comparable price. it is just hard to find at the big box stores. they have this supply philosophy where they want to get this stuff from china. made in america is back, growing, and i think it will be catching on in the months to come. host: let us listen to some comments the president made at carnegie-mellon university in pittsburgh, talking about the government and private-sector coming together. >> if we want a robust, growing economy, we need a robust, growing manufacturing sector. that is why we called the auto sector, if they were willing to

adapt, we would stand by them. today, they are profitable, creating jobs, and everything taxpayers ahead of schedule. -- and repaying taxpayers ahead of schedule. that is why we have launched a partnership to retrain workers with new skills. that is why we have invested in wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced batteries. we have not run out of stuff to make. we just have to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector so that it leads the world, the way it always has, from paper to steal, to new cars, to new products we have not even dreamed up yet. that is how we are going to spark new industry. that is how we are going to grow the middle class and securing our economic leadership. host: our guest is scott paul,

executive director for alliance for american manufacturing. carl, democrat's line. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. my main concern, not just the manufacturing sector, most potential employers refuse to employ somebody with bad credit. the economy is bad. of course, they are going to find difficulty paying their bills. everything is being challenged through the credit bureau. each and every employer that i have gone to since june 2009, i

have gone too numerous have gone too numerous interviews -- to numerous interviews. even the headhunters are requiring a credit check. guest: it is a problem that a lot of americans are having right now. we still have 9.1% unemployment, when you add in people who have given up. when you add that back in, it inches up to 16%. there are a lot of people in your position. we found, in this economy, the longer you go without a job, the harder it is to get back into the job market. it is a shame because there is a

lot of wasted human potential, a skill set that we can bring to places, like the factory floor. we need to harness that. that is one of the great things about manufacturing. it is a good job, pays a good wage, and provides more bang for the but for the economy. it spins off other jobs and there is more cash in the workers and to spend. that is why i am so confident in the manufacturing sector. host: a viewer writres -- guest: absolutely. the u.s. is dependent on other countries for some of our key defense needs. the department of defense, when you go down its supply chain, they do not know the source of where things are coming from. it is a frightening prospect.

we build our first manufacturing strategy in this country in 1791. alexander hamilton created this and did a report to congress on manufacturing in the united states. the impetus for it was he did not want us to depend on the french for our naval vessels. so we put in place a set of policies to grow manufacturing, have an industrial base, and that is a policy we maintained until the end of world war ii. until then, we did not have any rivals, and we were able to coast for a couple of decades, but then germany, japan got competitive. we still did not have a strategy. mexico and china came on line. we still did not have a strategy. now we are more dependent than we should be on others for our national defense needs and other needs as well. host: surely, in abilene, texas.

good morning. caller: i do not think anything can be solved in this country, as far as manufacturing is concerned, unless we revisit these trade agreements. we have passive best of the -- massive deficits with all of these countries and now we are considering more. columbia would not be a great place to open up a free-trade agreement because they have nothing to sell except for drugs and coffee. every time we do this, we homogenize the american worker little or -- a little lower. as big multinational companies will go anywhere to get cheaper labor. unless we visited every one of the trade agreements, i think this country is lost.

guest: you make a good point. i am for trade. i am for a real treat -- a real version of free trade. that is not what we have. a lot of these trade agreements have let us down. naphtha promised to be a jobs naphtha promised to be a jobs boom, and -- nafta promised to be a jobs boom, stop the drug problem. in fact, it has created a race to the bottom that even mexico is not winning. they are seeing manufacturing jobs move to china. we need a different model of how we do this. with regard to the pending free- trade agreement, even if they are passed, and even under the rosiest scenarios of job creation, it will be mild, compared to what we need to do against china. we run monthly trade deficits of about $20 billion. since 2001, that has added up

to 2.4 million good paying job we have lost we are now deep in debt to china because of this. it is not because china can make things better than we can. it is because they manipulate their currency, they have industrial subsidies, they have in intellectual property protections which are lax, and we do not stand up and say enough. that is why the obama administration and congress needs to provide a level playing field for our manufacturers, workers. but we also have to reevaluate the way we do these free trade agreements. host: here is some news related to what she was asking about. columbia trade deal loses key support.

the white house and republican leaders say they have the votes in each chamber needed to pass trade deals with south korea, columbia, and panama. guest: free-trade agreements are controversial. they generally have provided democrats more so than republicans. my concern is we are focused on the wrong thing. we saw last year, china's currency legislation passed. it was a great bill that the republican from pennsylvania, tim ryan, along with congressman levin, introduced on the house side. it passed overwhelmingly. one of the few bipartisan acts that we saw towards the end of the congress.

i say, bring that bill up. you know it has a lot of republican support. it would do more than all of this free trade agreements combined to help the manufacturing sector in our country, and it would give a level playing field to our workers and businesses who want to compete with china. hugely beneficial impact on the trade deficit, jobs, gross domestic product, and it does not cost a dime to do. if your listeners are out there, call your congressman and tell them to pass china currency legislation. host: next phone call. hugh. caller: in order to stimulate the economy, michelle bachmann the economy, michelle bachmann says that the government needs to reevaluate the minimum wage. i was wondering what your thoughts are on that? guest: that is a terribly

misguided policy. the u.s. will never win, nor should we want to win, a race to the bottom. we will not get our standards down to china, vietnam, or other developing countries, where we are competing in labor-intensive manufacturing. that is not a race we want to win. we need to invest in our workers. we need to give them better skills. america's work force is one of america's greatest and bandages. all they needed the opportunity to run least that. we can be very competitive in manufacturing. manufacturing wages in germany are $48 per hour. in the u.s., up $32 an hour. and you figure in the benefits and other things like that. manufacturing in germany is very competitive. if they have a balanced trade

relations ~. they have a large percentage four of their economy in manufacturing. we do not. -- they have a balanced trade with signchina. host: keepitmadeinusa is his twitter handle. how long ago did you work with senator dick lugar? >> that was 1987. i am an indiana native. i have great admiration for the senator. if the advantage of this job is that it is not partisan. the message appeals to a broad

swap of people. i speak to manufacturing groups. i speak to the labor unions. i do a lot of that. i give them the same message. the response i always get is very positive. host: carl joins us on gulfport, mississippi, republican line. go-ahead. caller: you talk about making making jobs for industry. a lot of people work outside maintaining a lot of stock that is built and are pushed to the side of the time. they just want to build -- everybody wants to steady build something new instead of maintaining what they have. some of the problem with our country is we have come up with a design like harley davidson and then we sell the design to other countries like deadpan and then they are mass produced,

which forces other companies out of business. every time our country gets a handle on bringing the economy back on its feet, we keep pushing the prices of gas up to recoup the money instead of letting it heal itself. guest: you brought up a great point. there are lot of economists who believe this. i'd think they are completely wrong. a growing body of academics big that they are wrong as well. the article that has won a harvard business review article in the year a year-and- a-half ago was written by two professors there. they looked at the idea of disconnecting innovation from production and how inefficient it was and the problems that caused the u.s. they made the argument that we not only have to invest in

research and development and innovation, but we need to make a stuffed in the united states as well and to support that innovation base. you want innovation and production to be close together. it does not make sense to outsource. i hope we will see philosophies among academics and on wall street saying that we need to bring back innovation and that we need immigration -- innovation and production close to each other. it makes sense to manufacture the ipods in the united states. host: people would pay less for -- then another person says walmart possibly would make it better.

guest: i am not where i say you have to buy this or that or the other. i think there are a lot of incentive to american-made products. quality is big. you may purchase an item at wal- mart for $2 which breaks in six months. the american version is $8 somewhere else and it lasts five years. it would make sense to buy the american product because it's a long-term investment. long-term investment. we have a lot of short- termism in this country demonstrated by consumers and by wall street. but i do think even a big box stores like wal-mart understand this made in america premium. it is worth something. people want to be able to buy local products. they want to build to buy american-made products and if they at least want to have the choice and opportunity to do that. they get sent out a lot unfortunately. i want to give consumers a

choice and let them decide. i don't think there's a store is right now. i'd think the big box stores are determining the supply chains. host: now, cindy and from the erie, pennsylvania, on the democrat line. northwestern pennsylvania. caller: manufacturing has taken a downturn in this economy. in eerie we have always been very strong in manufacturing. we face all the talent is that he spoke about with a lot of jobs being shipped overseas -- we face all of the challenges. with the health care costs adversely affecting american manufacturing, when are the manufacturer is going to help themselves by discussing single payer? guest: that's a good question. i will say not to hold your breath for a lot of fortune 500

companies to talk about a single payer health care system. even though when you look around the world you see a lot of countries we compete with having national health care systems and they have a very help the manufacturing sector as well. i don't know that there is a precise correlation, but i do repairs a way to bring down lacrosse's for manufacturers. we're one of the only countries where manufacturers have to bear their own health care costs for their employees. they are competing not only against foreign competition, but they are competing against firms in the u.s. who may not have health care benefits as generous as they do. it makes some sense to look past a system where the costs are more broadly shared. by the that one of the things we have to address and one of the things we saw in the automobile industry is that health care costs or bankrupting the companies.

we do still need to make a lot of progress on that. host: huntington, new york state. canny on the republican line. -- kenny. caller: anyway. a lot of people old like myself are under-employed with a part- time job. time job. i know somebody who recently had a job and got laid off for a time and then go back on unemployment. so it is like when we go to the store we have to really watch what we buy. but mostly going to purchase with what i have a time, so you have to budget yourself. host: sounds like you are most likely going to produce what is

inexpensive instead of having the luxury of worrying where something was made or how long it might last. caller: that's very true. caller: that's very true. that is very true, because thatng that i have a stjob i work 29 hours per week, i'm not really making a lot of money. host: someone on twitter has the same experience. guest: that's right. again, for some items its true where there is a cost to american-made products. the dual find a lot of products at competitive prices, but they are not widely available. that is an impediment. other economies that weathered

the recession a lot better than the united states have a working-share programs where you are able to avoid layoffs in manufacturing by cutting the hours. the government helped to supplement wages a little, but it kept people working and kept money flowing into the economy. as a result, in terms of output, gdp, and employment, countries that did this such as germany and sweden there a lot better than the u.s. did. and when people are not working in manufacturing and 5.5 million people lost their jobs in manufacturing, that is wages that are not circulating elsewhere in the economy. an economist estimates that we lost 286 billion dollars in wages in manufacturing just because of the layoffs over the last decade. think of the goods that all that money circulating in the economy would do. that is why it is all important

to grow the sector. host: arizona, steve on the independent line. caller: good morning. the problem with this administration and government to have right now is they are lacking common sense. the problem is we have fair trade, i mean to say free-trade. what we need is a fair trade. here and taking it. another thing is we are looking at oil. i saw something on c-span where they were talking to a gentleman about putting cesar chavez -- putting chavez on the terror list. we have enough oil to be independent. we need a corporate tax.

we need to get the regulations. the epa is killing us -- we need to get the regulations off. guest: that is valid. it is a lot of arguments we hear from manufacturers. let me talk about the trade component. this is really important. this is what gets the least amount of attention in washington. we have an enormous trade deficit with china. it was $275 billion last year. that money allows china to buy our debt. they want to do that because that is how they manipulate their currency. we are the country that is going to end up on the short end of the stick. we have tools been used to stop this. president obama stated very clearly in the 2008 campaign that if china camped in manipulating its currency, that he would use our markets as leverage -- if china stepped on manipulating its currency. he has not done that. that is incredibly disappointed me. it is a direct promise that he

made to manufacturers and manufacturing workers. by the same token, this republican congress has done nothing for manufacturing. they have had the opportunity for six months to bring up the sign a currency bill which passed overwhelmingly last year. auto perversion passed in the senate with 67 votes in 2005. if this thing got to the floor of the house, it would pass overwhelmingly. -- a tougher version passed in the senate with 67 votes in 2005. call your congress people. i was wondering why we cannot go back. i know we had more regulations around the second world war and prior. and why we could not get international regulations to even the playing field so

there's a global minimum wage and the same thing with our environmental so they can move corporations all the way around the globe so does not benefit them. guest: that is a really interesting point, tanya. we have agreement that allows for the free flow of investment, the free flow of capital, the free flow of goods, not the free flow of labor and not kind of leveling regulation. it creates labor arbor truitrag, where manufacturing goes in search of a lowest wages. that has been detrimental to a country like the united states. this was discussed during the climate legislation. if we are going to have our

manufacturers meet a standard for carbon, unless a chinese firm is meeting that same standard, we could apply to an off-setting tariff to level the cost of that good coming into the united states. that would be the only way to really avoid a massive amount of manufacturing jobs lost in the united states. but we do need to think about,, as we're doing these industrial and trade agreements, how to avoid labor arbitrage, how to harmonize in our mental standards instead of degrade them so that we can create a high-road manufacturing possibility for everyone. it is a problem that has not been solved elp. host: republican, chicago, illinois. caller: i have to be assured comments. first one being is i think there's a real misconception about people who have lost their jobs in this country. it seems to be badly

misunderstood everybody that lost their jobs or blue-collar workers. i can speak for myself and others that we have advanced degrees and are out of work. it is not a matter of not having job skills. we have them. there are no jobs. second, we are always told the american people need to compete with countries like china and india, that we need to be more advanced. if they are so advanced than we are, why do they need manufacturing jobs? host: trudy, what kind of work are in? caller: administrative. i've been out of work since 2009. a lot of people with advanced degrees are out of work. host: thanks for sharing your story. guest: i completely agree. i speak to a lot of people around the country that are in a

situation like you are, but they worked in the public sector, they worked in the service sector, or they have worked in the skilled trades or construction. they have a great set of skills, but there are no jobs available. we are in a situation like that where we need to figure out a way to create jobs in this country. the talks in washington on the debt ceiling and the deficit, too focused on austerity and not focused enough on what we can do to create jobs in this country. there's this thing that is called the beltway delta said the back loop that makes this sound blind to concerns of people like you who have a great skill saps who would be eager to work but there are no responsibilities -- have a great skill set. writessomeone on twitter righ

-- that brings up the idea that a lot of people make money from the work that happens overseas. those talking the talk about the bringing jobs alone may actually be earning money from what's happening overseas. guest: it happens probably more than people pink, we're either there's the stockholder or a business a public official was involved with that did precisely what you are talking about. it happens probably more than you think. former officials write about a lot of the economic policies in a way that is harmful to the united states. they don't reveal who their clients are right now. oftentimes their clients are

companies that have sent jobs offshore. i don't think there's enough attention paid to it and i do think that it' skews the debate a little. >> scott paul, thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thank you. it was a pleasure. host: next, we will talk about the strategic oil reserve would david pumphrey from the center of strategic and international studies. first a news update from c-span radio. >> here are some of the headlines. home prices in major u.s. cities have risen for the first time in eight months. boosted by the annual florida spring buyers. the standard & poor's shows prices rose in 13 of 20 cities tracked. washington, d.c., had the biggest price increases, followed by san francisco, atlanta, and seattle.

however six metro areas are at their lowest levels in years. charlotte, north carolina, las vegas, tampa, among them. president obama's decision to involve u.s. forces in libya without congressional approval will be taken up by a senate committee today. they will hear from a state department legal advisor supporting the president. the same committee will consider a resolution giving the president limited authority or one year. live coverage of the senate foreign relations committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern and again at 2:30 p.m. on c-span radio and television. republican presidential hopeful tim pawlenty says president obama has lacked a clear vision in dealing with the citizen uprisings across the middle east. he will make a foreign policy address in new york city. his campaign released excerpts of his speech, which also includes a tough words for mitt

romney, a rival gop hopeful. u.s. intelligence officials are concerned about possible terrorist strikes during large gatherings of people during the upcoming holiday, but they say there's nothing specific or credible for independence day. documents found in osama bin laden's home so there were discussions about such plots. counter-terrorism officials say the driving factor is whether operatives are ready to carry out any plans. finally, workers across greece had walked out of the job on a 48 days hour general strike as lawmakers debate a new round of spending cuts and tax hikes. they must pass if that country is to receive a partial bailout funding from the european union and international monetary fund. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress.

new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments, and informational the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online. c-span.org/shop. >> my name is michelle bachmann. i stand here in the midst of many friends and many family members to announce formally my candidacy and for president of the united states. [applause] >> at the field of republican presidential candidates continues to take shape, all of the announcements, speeches, campaign events, and look back at their careers on line in the c-span video library. click on the campaign 2012 t ab any time. it is what you want. "washington journal"continues. host: david pumphrey is the

energy and national security program deputy director at csis. last week the president decided to release 30 million barrels. talk about this justification for that and why it's happening now. it has not happened in the past. guest: the reason was a growing concern about the loss of oil because of a civil war in the in libya. the u.s., in consultation with other members of the international energy agency, decided it would be the right thing to do to release the oil into the marketplace, also because of the high gas prices. host: europe is adding a 30 million barrels as well. a total of 50 million barrels. -- 60 million barrels. the white house did not say whether this would change the price at the pump.

the white house would not say they could expect that price detained by a certain amount. do you expect to see the price change? we saw the price dropping when the news was announced. guest: that's one of the most important questions people are looking at right now. the price of oil did drop. many different qualities of oil and the different prices, dropped more than others. maybe around $5 a barrel was a drop. i expect to see that reflected in prices at the pumps relatively soon. whether it continues and whether the market has adjusted to the announcement of a release or whether it will when the oil actually it's the market drop again is something we're waiting to see. we are into a relatively new environment in using stocks in this way. the normal trigger for a release is a severe disruption. it is hard to make the case we have had a severe disruption

right now. we have had a loss of some crude oil, some special quality crude oil. that has pushed prices up, but it's not clear that we are short on oil in the global market. this is a bit of a new experiment in how to use it. host: the few other times it has been opened was a result of dramatic events like hurricane katrina. guest: there was a case in 1991 during desert storm. that was done in anticipation that the invasion of kuwait might not go so well and there would be a loss of oil at that time. as it turned out, the price dropped rapidly and not much oil was sold. in the case of hurricane katrina, we lost significant quantities in u.s. production, which was meant to replace that. the first time we are doing that

with other countries. >> 727 million barrels of oil held. that is stored underground along the coast of mexico's coastline. that is worth $22 billion. $17 billion of that for the cool another $5 billion for the facilities. how relevant is the supply of oil from libya to america? europe gets more bears on that part of the world. guest: the international oil market is one of the most globalized markets in the world. disruptions' any place in that system basically spreads throughout the whole market. we imported very little and oil from libya and it's not a normal

supply source for the u.s. the fact that it is disrupting supplies clothes into europe is translated throughout the world, so all consumers feel the effect of that price increase. host: david pumphrey at the center for strategic and international studies. he of the program deputy director for energy and national security. if you are republican, call-in if you are republican, call-in on 624 -1115. democrats and independents call on your respective lines as well. is there any sort of threshold or any guideline of who is in the room to make the decision? guest: the guidance in the legislation refers to two types of sales. full-scale talks about a severe disruption. another type is called a limited

sale. that is limited to 30 million barrels a year that can be done in anticipation of a severe -- severe supply distributor there is an assessment that exploits with analysts at the department of energy in consultation with other analysts. dan is moved into the inner- agency process and finally close to the white house. it is a presidential decision in the end as to whether or not this situation marks the release of oil. the term "severe" is not defined. different situations have had different answers to the question even though the loss of oil may have been different, but y have been the same.m

host: the top republican on the energy committee is considering setting criteria to release oil from the strategic reserves. host: that's your opinion as a republican. the price needs to be a certain amount in order to go there. guest: there's the talk for almost 40 years about trying to have a better definition. in many ways it would be good to have a better set of definitions, how to come to agreement on what the definition should be. one person's trigger is not another person trigger. i think that is difficult to get an agreement at a moment in time

where it's hard to get agreement on many things in congress. host: steve is a democratic caller in illinois. you are on with david pumphrey. caller: good morning. what impact will this have on future gas prices down road? and how this will play out in the future presidential election cycles? will it have a big impact on the united states? host: did you agree with the decision to tap into the oil reserves? caller: i did, because i feel like we need to find a way lessen the impact on --and if we slowly start working on energy lesscy, this will be the impac

impact. guest: the question of what's been happening with gas prices, especially over the medium term is a really good one. it's very hard to figure out exactly which direction they will go up. there are so many factors. in the short term, the announcement of a release has an impact on crude oil prices, which should flow through into gas prices. a drop of $10 per barrel in crude oil may give you a drop of the 35 cents in gas prices. that's sustained over time when the release is over will be dependent on factors such as production by saudi arabia, which has indicated it wants to increase production, and absent in libya. for the near term we should see some relief in the prices. it's much harder to say over the medium-term to long-term what it's going to put a market.

host: lead go to michael in queens village, new york, republican. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to ask what the role of oil speculation plays in the price of gasoline as well as crude oil. we have alaska, texas, and the gulf. why do we still have a supply that we don't get the majority of our oil from? you still have saudi arabia and other locations. why is it that the president's decision to release the oil from the strategic petroleum reserve -- what is it we have investors with oil speculator is affecting the price? guest: those are good questions. let me break it down a little. sorta two different time periods sorta two different time periods that we need to address. the question about speculation has been an active debate in the

analyst world, policy world, and government for several years. that is since the run-up of prices in 2008. there's not been a satisfactory answer. the market has to change significantly in the past 10 years. now you are seeing investors looking at oil in the family perhaps they look at gold and they begin to try to decide if it's a good long-term investment. you have non-zero companies planning in that market. to some degree you get speculators betting on prices being higher. a release like this had the effect of perhaps putting some caution into speculation and speculators and may make them less willing soon bid up the price decline as high level as a wood otherwise. many of us in analytical world will look at how it will taint the dynamics of the marketplace. in the past there has not been an indication the government

would draw oil from the strategic reserves in cases like this, so speculative did not feel that was a threat to them in investment they would make on oil prices. for the long term, the question about how much oil we import and why don't we satisfy our own needs really gets down to the way in which oil is distributed around the world. the steepest is found in the middle east. saudi arabia, iraq, other countries in the gulf had the steepest -- cheapest oil. it has made sense to allow that to be imported from an economic sense. it is more costly to develop u.s. oil. we need to develop oil in the u.s. because we need to bring the oil into the marketplace so that when we get to a much more tight oil situation in the future a, we have a little more room before we have to make the transformation towards other fuels.

, steve.nnecticut's caller: when the reserve, when we take out the oil that we are going to take and it has to be put back in there, will that increase our prices again? in other words, will we end up paying for this one way or the other? will that be at the tax increase? is it really beneficial to take out the oil now and use it? guest: very good question, steve. that is one we have been talking about, because it is not clear when or if the oil gets put back into the reserve. the reserve and its maximum level of 727 million barrels. in the drawdown the oil would be flooded into the marketplace and the government would have to go back in and produce oil to replace it. there will be a question of when to do that. do you do that right away or

perhaps at a time when oil is lower in price so you can buy it lower in the future and sell at higher now. or maybe put it on to the marketplace and now is the time to say we will have 700 million barrels instead of 727. many analyses have gone on to try to say what is the right level of oil that we should hold in the strategic petroleum reserve. if i wanted, i could probably make a case 700 million barrels is enough to have. we have to look at what it means for the budget, what it means for future oil prices to have the u.s. going back into the marketplace to replace it. it will take quite a bit of decision over time and quite a bit of analysis before there's an actual decision on how to put the oil back in there. host: the white house emphasized last week this is using a less than 5% in total. it's not like the oil was free to begin with. tell us about a history of how

the strategic oil reserve is kept full and talk about. where it's about gueswhere it is located. guest: the purchase began in the late 1970's and early 1980's, so to protest at much lower prices. most of it was purchased on the open market through bids. in some cases there were exchanges that took place with other countries. some oil came off the continental shelf and etc. there have been a number of different ways. the number you cited as the value of the crude-oil represents what was paid for. if you take 700 million times the current price of $100 per barrel, it's worth a lot more than that in today's terms. the oil is stored in salt caverns in the u.s., particularly louisiana and

texas. it is the cheapest way to store it, much cheaper than above the ground. the oil is put in there after the other chemicals are leached out of there. so it is a stable environment in which is the oil is stored at a number of sites along the gulf coast. host: what about the concerns of cracks developing in the caverns and leaks? guest: people get concerned when kings are stored underground so there have been numerous analyses. there have been no indications that there are cracks or leaks in those salt domes. i'm fairly comfortable those will remain stable over time. host: now from virginia, independent mind. caller: i have a lot of important statements to make

regarding oil. the most important one is if we the most important one is if we use up our oil and we don't have a democracy any more -- congress changed that in 1973 with the the war powers act and made a dictator out of any president that we have. this is not a slam at the current president, this is any president that we have. if we are going to go to war against libya, killing innocent people, we need oil for our ships to fire missiles and we need the oil so that we can fly drones and kill people in libya. we are doing the standing with a pakistan. if we use up our oil, how is our dictator president going to carry on these wars? guest: i will address the oil part. the defense department is

basically the user of last resort, especially in wartime conflicts integration. if we get into that situation, they would have first call on any oil that we have. we are nowhere near a situation where we would not have enough fuel to be able to have military operating effectively. that might affect prices on the civilian side if it were a major conflict, but for anything in terms of what we can foresee now i don't think you would see any problems. in addition, the military if it is working very hard to define alternative to oil for their operations. they're looking more and more of biofuels for flying airplanes and looking at the efficiency of their operations, to lower their need for oil, for the long term because they recognize this may in the future become a vulnerability for them, so they're working hard to make themselves more efficient. host: deputy director of the

energy and national security program practice center for strategic and international studies, david pumphrey is our guest. let's hear from mike in woodstock, virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. question, who does the reserves affect? does it affect americans primarily? we spoke about the fact we don't get much oil from libya. we get most vof our oil from canada. guest: that's right. the oil is designed to feed into the u.s. pipeline system. the location of the reserves is near refineries and major pipelines. the thought has always been that this is oil that would flow into the u.s. petroleum system. there are ways in which they

could be exported, but it is difficult administratively. it is unlikely that countries in a tight market would want to go through that. more likely what they will do is be direct oil that's coming from other sources that will move into the marketplace in order to make space for being strategic reserve oil. right now canada is by far a leading supplier of foreign oil. that the oilers tied into the u.s. market by pipelines. we have an integrated market. when people talk about u.s. oil, are from of barrels of ke canada. host: canada, mexico, saudi arabia, venezuela, and nigeria

are the top five oil importers into the united states. let's go to steve in annandale, virginia, caller: independent line first i want to say that you, the moderator, are wonderful. i have several points. i'd think that the decision to release 30 million barrels was superb. first, to give purchasers -- if it turns out there could be the illusion of confidence. and secondly, to do so at this point, keeping away from the 2012 election battles so that it becomes a non-political decision. beyond that, i strongly believe about a whole oil business that we have been driven for the longest possible time by speculation. we know that libya has nothing

to do directly with u.s. oil products. beyond that, there are the points that our oil companies are selling much oil overseas rather than selling it and keeping it here. beyond that, we know there are incredible numbers of oil leases that have not been tapped in this country. last, my feeling that this whole debate about getting new oil leases in alaska and off the atlantic coast and in the pacific has nothing to do with a solution in last than the next 10 years or even longer than that. guest: great questions and great observations. many of the things we are working on all the time at the center where i am.

in terms of the effect of libya on the marketplace, it is important to recognize that even though libya is not a great supplier here, the loss of that production and the fact that it looks like now it's going to be possibly outpour quite some time has had an effect on the price that is affecting us. -- possibly out for quite some time. it is affecting the recovery although it's not affecting us directly. it's one of the main reasons the administration decided it was a good time to do this, i think, because the economy has not been recovering. this is a drag on the economy, no doubt about that. so prizes that would be lower would be beneficial to the economic recovery. so i think that was one of the critical reasons. the controversy is going to be

that the stipulations on the release tied to the severe supply disruption. by making it tied to the economic recovery has put us into a different place and put us into a different approach to the use of the reserve. i think we will continue to hear a spirited debate about this over time. in terms of domestic production, our view is that we need to be looking at the ways in which we can safely move forward in many areas. so the push on determining whether or not the leases that have not been used is an important examination to be taking on. a hugeot certain mathat's issue because there are many reasons leases are not used. we also need to look at other supplies in the country so that we can buy some time until we can make the transformation of the way in which we use energy.

right now our transportation sector is almost totally dependent upon oil. until we break that and move to a new platform for the transportation sector, we are not really going to be able to reduce our dependency on oil. host: 1 of are always on twitter has written -- some of the members of congress were apathetic about tapping into the strategic reserves instead of drilling for more oil. talk about how bad balance plays out. he says is the oil tucked away in alaska, is that of future investment? guest: i think the importance is the difference in timing. the strategic petroleum reserve gives you something to move into the market immediately. so you can release it into the

marketplace. the alaskan oil deposits are important, but the we are not going to see them probably for 10 years, until we can do the exploration and development. these are very difficult area to operate, so we need to understand how those operations can proceed safely and not have the kind of disaster we saw last year in the gulf of mexico. we believe the industry can do this and that the industry should be allowed the space to do that development, but we have to keep in mind this will take some time before we actually see it in the marketplace. host: we have the deputy director of the energy and national security program, and steve pomfret. -- steve pumphrey. why does the type of oil make a difference? guest: there are many different

grades of oil ranging from light to heavy and then different sulfur contents which is sweet to sour. the light sweet from libya is the easiest to refine and make into a high-value products. especially in europe. many of their refineries have not been upgraded to be able to use a wide slate of crude oils if we are able to use in the united states. those refineries were not able to very easily replaced that crude oil in order to make the products that are needed in the marketplace. so that became a critical problem of that type of crude oil. the market will adjust overtime, but there will be effects during the assessment time as you rearranged supplies.

releasing the light crude is rebalance. host: democrats line, frederick, maryland. hi, ralph. caller: fantastic. i originally called for the other speaker talking about jobs. i also have a comment about host: the oil go ahead. caller: i want to know why they have released oil when the price is on the downward slide? is on the downward slide? why did they not release the oil when it was on the up or trend? guest: that is a question many of us have asked. in many ways i think it would have been better to give released its earlier and have the effect basically not having

seen the price spike in april timeframe. i believe they did not have a good fix on how long the libya out it would last. they did not have a good idea on what effect might be on the economy. i think that the accumulation of these concerns made them decide that even if we did not act early enough, it was still important to act now. i do think that it's a reasonable question to raise, why did you not act earlier? one thing i pointed out when we were talking about the decision process is that there are many players and there's an element of politics that always comes into this. policy decisions and inevitably political decisions. those stakes more time when you don't have a clear set of policy objectives. when it comes to getting the criteria and procedures in place, it would be a good idea,

but it's difficult to decide whose criteria to use. host: gary on our republican line from ohio. caller: fuel companies and the president are breaking the country so they don't have to worry about its, because sooner or later we will be broke. host: elaborate on what you mean by that. caller: when you have to fill a truck up and its $75. they are breaking us in this country. host: what should be done? caller: they can quit putting the fuel on the stock exchange e.d bidding it up ther that's all i know. but i do know they're breaking the country. guest: that is an excellent point.

it is recognized at all levels that the price jump that we had is really hitting people who need to rely on transportation the hardest. by the that is understood. it really gets back to the question of how to deal with this issue and the problem. in reality, there are very few tools the government has to fix this in the short term. the goal of the futures market, which is the place where the oil is priced, has worked in both directions -- the role of the futures market. when it goes up, it goes up faster. in 2008 and 2009 we saw it go down very fast because the market could adjust quickly and efficiently. the underlying issue is the growing demand that we see worldwide especially in developing countries like india and china and the difficulty in

bringing new supplies into the marketplace. these new supplies require major investments to bring them forward. i think we need to stay on this long-term track and develop oil resources in the interim while we try to move to less-exposed oil in a longer-term. in the short term, that does not give you much solace in how to deal with this. so i think that is one of the things that motivated this spr release, the feeling that something needed to be done in the short-term and it will be interesting to see how this works out in terms of prices. host: we have had a couple of folks call and talk about oil markets speculation. guest: there has been already some movement coordinated by the justice department to to look at whether or not there's any

wrongdoing going on in the oil markets have been operating. so i'd think that is a very helping to do. cftc is involved in that review being coordinated by the justice department. this happened in 2008 as well and it became difficult to determine whether or not there was anything illegal that was going on in the marketplace or was it more the way commodity markets work. people go in and back on what price will be in the future. that is what the markets are set up to do. we will see. i am sure that there are investigations going on that are looking closely to make certain that if you don't have a legal activity happening. host: clarence in pennsylvania, program.to the caller: progra caller: we have 22 million mexicans in this country illegally. illegally. we make them legal and they have

good jobs at $6 an hour so that the foreign people can take things off. and we take the bush tax cuts and do away with them for anybody that made over $150,000. host: how does that relate to the oil reserves? caller: forget about the oil reserves. host: now to charles, a democratic college in west palm beach, florida. caller: i think you all are doing an excellent job allowing the american voters to call and give our opinion about the situation. first, i want to thank our presidents. barack obama is doing an excellent job. him coming in with the economy being disastrous. he is doing a great job of

tackling the oil reserves -- capping the oil reserves -- tapping the oil reserves. after fighting all these wars in iraq and saudi arabia and on and on, i want to know why we are not entitled to get a portion of that oil from them for all lives, thousands of american veterans that lost their lives and lost their limbs, tens of thousands lost their limbs fighting the wars, why we are not entitled to get some sort of compensation for them giving us free oil, a portion of its to reimburse us for our losses and that we shed american blood on their soil for them? host: you mentioned that you support the president's decision to tap the oil reserves. some republicans have said it

was a political move and not necessarily a strategic. why do you think it was important to do? caller: because the american people are having a very hard time now. even me, with being a disabled american veterans. i'm having a hard time does making it from paycheck to paycheck. a lot of people are working and still cannot make it. it was a time that we are going through hard times and we need gas prices to come down. we needed that. he made a great choice to do that. a lot of republicans and tea party people make an excuse to everything he set out to do it. that is very unfortunate. host: thanks for your service. let's get a response on your proposal to give veterans the deal at the pumps. guest: the effect on people living paycheck to paycheck was a motivational factor in doing

the release. , i think iting you metrician will feel positive on hearing that. a much more complicated question about the role we have played in trying to provide stability in the region and what we should do in terms of having oil delivered, many people have said to be bent to iraq for the oil. in reality it was because of the oil wells use of sadaam hussein become the type of tyrant that he was and follow the policies that he did. that was the real reason we were there, to try to set up a compensation program -- to set up a compensation program would be very complicated and it would put us in a worse position in the region than we would be otherwise. in the first gulf war, saudi arabia did quite a bit to help us out and used some of the wealth they hav