the washington bureau chief talks about new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and a look at the fbi budget with the fbi resource planning office assistant director. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: a new poll out shows texas governor rick perry leaves the gop pack. "washington journal," with your calls coming emails, tweets from republicans only. if you live in the eastern central part of the country, dial 202-624-1115.

mound/pacific, 202-624-1111. rick perry after the ames strong poll -- straw poll shows 29%. mitt romney at 18%. "candidates regularly see a boost in popularity following the announcement. whether that lasts is open for question. the texas governor also drums up the most enthusiasm in the poll. 38% of likely republican voters said they have a favorable opinion of him, and 31% have a somewhat favorable opinion of him. 32% say they have a favorable opinion of michele bachmann. so republicans only, we want to hear from you this morning, what you think. post straw poll, the names and i will poll -- the

ames iowa poll. from the houston chronicle, " tough talk put perry on hot seat. the side story, "on rose, a growing need and mountain of debt." this is the first of four stories looking at the state of texas infrastructure under the tenure of rick perry, the longest t rvin governor in state history. host: this is one of four articles that will appear in " the houston chronicle." here is york york" about rick "the newbut here is

york times" about rick perry's comments from yesterday. it highlighted mr. parry's provocative, hard edged campaigning of certain conservatives, even if it raises questions elsewhere. host: i want to show you what governor perry had to say about ben bernanke in his own words. four quote -- for your phone calls. and that as this guy prince --

if this guy prints more money between now and the election, i do not know what you all would do in iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in texas. ]laughter" b printing more money to put politics at its bid to time in history is almost treacherous, treasonous, in my opinion. host: here is the definition of treason according to the merriam-webster dictionary. host: randy is in shreveport, louisiana. republicans on a. what do you make of governor perry leading the pack so far? caller: hello? host: we are listening, brandy. randy.

caller: i think it is phony as a $3 bill. who won the straw poll? host: michele bachmann. caller: who won second? host: ron paul. caller: this guy is phony as a $3 bill. all he has is pretty hair, and i am sorry, i cannot believe people even think about voting for this guy. thank you for your time. host: you mentioned ron paul. here is "the wall street journal." "libertarian ron paul falls 152

votes short of winning the iowa straw poll saturday, has been railing against the fed for years. goes on to say that 64% of americans in the felt neutral toward him or had no opinion, according to a "wall street journal" nbc news poll. 18% felt somewhat negative about him. what do you think? caller: i am just delighted that rick perry has jumped into the

race. republicans and americans in general what someone in the white house who is confident. i particularly like his comment that he is going to try to make washington, d.c., as irrelevant to our normal lives as it possibly can be. that is pretty much what i expect out of government. they have a very enumerated role in our lives, and that is all they should do. they should not decide our health insurance, what kind of light bulb we use. they should not decide if we are going to drive in a little box and call it a car. host: what should be the role of the federal government? caller: they have very enumerated roles as spelled out in the constitution, and that is what they should do, starting with national defense. what is going on in china right now is pretty scary. we just turned down -- with

just -- we just offered a 16 f- 16's to taiwan. host: so you like repairing's message? caller: i love rick perry's message. host: next caller, the morning. caller: in 1963, the same kind of compensation in the papers was going on -- the same kind of conversation in the papers was going on after they killed kennedy. rick perry is so far right, he is dangerous. this kind of conversation is just repeating what kennedy said to jackie on the way in, we are going into real nut country. and it is wacky down there.

host: what did he say that was dangerous in your opinion? caller: he implied that if ben bernanke came down here, he would be in physical trouble. that really worries me. host: let's hear what karl rove had to say about rick perry's comments. caller: it was his first time on the national stage, and this is an unfortunate comment. you do not say that the chairman of the federal reserve is treasonous. that is not a presidential statement. if rick perry were to be elected president, he would be saddled with ben bernanke, who has a term, the independent chairman of the federal reserve. he serves for a term, so the president cannot even ask him to resign. i hope this is not the first of sort of over-the-top statements. host: is "the washington

times." mr. growth pick up vibrations that mr. perry -- mr. host: that is "the washington times" with their story. what do you think, from virginia? caller: i love rick perry, love him. he does not need to get into the muck with the name calling. his record speaks for itself. he is a country-loving, god-

fearing, patriotic american. i think he will make a wonderful president. host: do you think he made a mistake by what he said yesterday? caller: i do. i think he is a classy guy and he does not need to do that. host: does he need to apologize? caller: i would say he should, yes. but on balance, i want to say that when the vice-president called the the party people, that they were acting like it terrorists, that did not get all the attention in the media because this came from the right and that came from the left. unless you watch fox or c-span, you do not get the truth. host: here is a quote in "the new york times."

president obama was asked about rick perry when he said members of the military prefer a commander in chief who has served in the military and worn a uniform. here's what he said on cnn. and that i think that everybody runs for president, it takes a little bit of time before they start realizing this is not like running for governor or senator or congress. you have to be a little more careful about what you say. but i will cut him some slack. he has only been at it for a few days now. host: pedro in miami, florida, what do you think? rick perry leads after the straw poll in iowa. we lost pedro. rick, also in miami. go ahead, rick. caller: good morning. i think it is refreshing to see

rick perry in the race. a lot of people consider him far right. i think he is somewhere in the center, actually, because the obama administration has taken the country so far to the left. when the guy started out in the senate, he was only one of 100 senators, and the radicals that he hung around with, and the criminals, his best friends in a federal prison, bill ayers, who bombed the pentagon. rick perry is a two-time governor, executive, air force pilot, family guy, speaks well, expresses himself well, and he is a man of god. host: what did you think about his comments about from reserve chairman ben bernanke? caller: he is right that something has to change. we are off course on our economics, and like i said, i

think we need new faces up there. we need to replace some of these people who have been up there. i think we should have term limits. host: the message about the fed, not those words exactly, has been one that ron paul has said repeatedly over the years. would you choose ron paul as your candidate? caller: i kind of like -- rick perry reminds me of allen west. or allen west reminds me of rick perry in a way. i think they are men of core values, and i think when the man speaks, he means what he says. host: all right, but why not ron paul? caller: ron paul, i like a lot about what he says but i do not think it is practical, some of the things, like with the

military and things like that. i think he is just too -- i do not think it is practical application. i do not think it is doable, some of the things he is dododoa bit, actually. host: all right. on the fed policy, "the new york times" writes this -- host: a side story in "the new york times" about what another call a previously brought up finishingpaul's second place in host: we will go next to texas.

jeff is joining us from amarillo, texas. caller: good morning. i was thinking that mr. perry should not apologize for anything that he honestly believes. if that is how he feels. we do not hear obama apologizing. we do not hear ronald reagan apologizing when he was president. there's not any reason to go back, "i did not mean something." this pc correctness is killing us. host: we will go to perry in fort worth, texas. go ahead. caller: i just want to cast my

vote to repair a. i concur -- to rick perry. i concur. the media thinks his statements are inflammatory, but there are so many inflammatory statements from both sides. i concur with the last caller, that if believes that in his heart, say it. it is a good read, and i would suggest that rick perry look to our neighbor, louisiana, and pick him for vice president. host: according to this resolution early gop primary poll, rick perry with 29% of the poll, mitt romney, 18%, michele bachmann, 13%. all of you can comment on our

facebook page. if you go to facebook.com \ c- span. some ofon the vaccination, heree washington post." perry reversed his stance on the hpv vaccination. "that.

nick in palmdale california. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: what do you think about governor rick perry? caller: i think rick perry, on the federal reserve issue, is following ron paul. ron paul has been there, and rick perry as these issues. i did not know about the vaccination issue. but he also has a differing opinion from ron paul on israel. he says bring the troops -- ron paul says bring the troops home, but rick perry will jump into the entangling situation in the middle east. ron paul is the only choice to get our country back on track. host: from massachusetts? caller: i believe in what rickds

by fiat. it has done nothing to improve the economy. host: from "washington post," "to accuse a fed chairman of printing money being trees in -- is the job of the fed or any --

host: what do you think, rick? caller: the price of gold should be a pretty good indication that the monetary policies that have been put in place by the last part of thethe last administration and the current administration have failed rampantly appeared here on cape cod we pay the -- have filled rampantly. here on cape cod we pay. i do not think the monetary policies helping anybody other than the current administration. host: lawrenceville, georgia. caller: good morning. i want to agree with a couple of callers that were just on. ron paul has been preaching this message for years, and then we get rick perry, michele bachmann, that try to say the same thing but i do not think they mean it. we need to get back to the guy who has been saying it.

the monetary policy in our country does not work, and we need to change it and go with the guy who truly believes it, not the people who lived their finger, see which way the wind is blowing, and jump on the issue. host: "the new york times" front page. host: then here is "the financial times" on that story.

host: here is open quote the washington times" front-page story on the health care law put in place by the mitt romney administration. "romney law fails to bend cost curve." we will go to ben in new york. caller: good morning. you are focusing on rick perry. he was not in the straw poll. once again, the media is ignoring ron paul. host: rick perry was a right-in in the straw poll. he did not compete tactically, but we are showing this poll that in -- with gop primary voters. caller: it ignores ron paul.

host: well, ron paul is in there at 9%. caller: ron paul came in behind bachmann, who won, by 2%. host: how do you think he will do? caller: i think he will do very well. host: iowa, what did you think? caller: first of all, ron paul is a libertarian, so he does not have a prayer of getting elected. rick perry does not have to bring back what he said. think just -- democrats an all the republicans are the party terrorists -- are the party -- tea party terrorists.

you heard them say that. it does not explain the other 21 states that have stimulus money, and they failed. it's not going to work. host: we are going to be covering governor rick perry in new hampshire. he will be at a politics and egg breakfast this morning. go to c-span.org for more information about when that will air. we will also cover president obama's midwest meetings. this concludes his bus tour. "the swath of the midwest that mr. obama visited last week -- his popularity has flag there, while republican confidence has swelled after the parti's midterm election gains last year in local, state, and federal offices here kept t."

host: also, "the new york times" op-ed pages with two opinions about president obama. host: on jobs, they write --

host: those are "the new york times" opinions today on president obama. "usa today," with their headline about the bus tour. "obama bus tour: do not call it campaigning." what you think about rick perry meeting after the ames straw poll? caller: not think he is good at all. the only republican i would vote for it is tom coburn. people will not vote for him because he is completely even and cares about the united states. i think the other people are just wayfarers and are not good at all. thank you. host: myron from eureka, south dakota.

go ahead. caller: rick perry was al gore's campaign manager in 1988 and was convincing him to become a republican. we will have a repeat of the bush administration with rick perry. he attended the meeting where he was anointed four years ago. this guy is going to -- the reason he said that about the federal reserve chairman is because these are the people who own him. it is the old brer rabbit -- "do not throw me into the briar patch." this guy is as phony as they come. host: from new york? caller: good morning. rick perry is not my first choice. but republicans, tea party conservatives need to get together. i would rather have him than mitt romney.

i would love to see michele bachmann. but that will not happen. i hope rick perry 6 michele bachmann. host: why not mitt romney, bill? caller: obamneycare. i am a vietnam veteran, and i do not respect john mccain anymore at all. host: ken cuccinelli out of virginia considers a senate run in 2014 against virginia's most popular politician, democrat mark warner. wisconsin, randy. go ahead. caller: i have to echo the sentiment of 30% of your other callers. ron paul was actually talking

about the federal reserve since august 15, 1971. that is when nixon the linked us. texas has not had a corporate or personal income tax for a long time, but it is a right-to-work state. so texas has done relatively well economically by itself. host: "the washington times," "prime time for parerry." "no doubt all the conservative contestants can agree without -- with that explanation, and the contest is tightening. here is "the washington post." they call it an ugly start for the governor.

host: louis and dallas, texas, go ahead. caller: good morning. this is just a comment about rick perry. i am a republican, and in the last governor election i voted encouraged independents to not vote for rick perry. the only thing i could say about him running that is good is to get him the heck out of texas. host: the headline, -- mr.

epstein, what did you find about this? guest: all the republicans i found to this point have forgone holding the traditional, one, come all town hall meeting and are instead. at gatherings posted by local chambers of commerce or kiwanis clubs, groups like that, to charge an entry fee. to answer questions from people who register with the third- party groups. host: how much money are we talking about to get in? guest: not a whole lot. $15, you get a lunch with it. other events will cost $35 to get into. these are not high-ticket items, and the money is not going to

members of congress, going to these groups that are hosting the events. they are largely using the money to pay for a catered lunch that they provide to whoever attends. host: why is this no worthy, then, because members of congress do -- why is this note were the, then? guest: some members of congress replaced the town hall meetings that we will remember from the last couple of summers, often featuring members of congress being yelled at by their constituents. then that turns into a bad story in the local press, or in some cases a national story of boaters and willie confronting that -- of voters angrily confronting their members of congress. they avoid those stories by

controlling the environment of who is in attendance, 1, by charging a nominal fee, and two, by controlling by allowing the third-party group who controls the can and cannot attend. host: members of congress holding any free town halls? guest: i would say the vast majority we are seeing -- we're seeing a handful of members of congress -- there are also members of congress who have had a couple of town hall meetings, traditional, open town hall meetings, but they have been far from the media and populations centers of their district, so that while they can get away with saying that they have held town hall meetings, they have

been relatively inaccessible for the vast majority of their constituents. host: when you contacted the members of congress about why they are doing it, what did they say? guest: the most part they have maintained the attitude that they are open. maintain that he has been available to constituents. if you remember in 2009, ryan was one of the loudest proponents for the sort of angry tea party members. it a number of town hall meetings, he set an attendance record at them. now the shoe is somewhat on the other foot. and he has not held any town hall meetings. host: read epstein with

politico. thank you, sir. if you go to our website, c- span.org, you can get more information. senator tom coburn is holding a town hall. we will cover that. representative john lewis, hank johnson, maxine waters, al green, donna christensen, and others. at the atlanta technical college. go to c-span.org to find out when we are going to be airing those and when you can watch them. back to your phone calls after the ames straw poll on saturday. rick perry leads the pack. the gop. what do you make of the first pole? caller: it looks like it will be an interesting c conversation. michele bachmann, the front runner. tim pawlenty, a close second.

it is what you will make of the entire outcome, that is still a tossup for anyone. host: granger, indiana, what do you think, bob? caller: i think michele bachmann and rick perry would be good. i kind of resent the way you are using politico so much now. it is a radical left organization along the lines of msnbc. you're starting to feel like msnbc on c-span. host: we use a lot of publications that cover congress and the white house, not just politico. vice-president joe biden is visiting china, trying to seek a window on the vice presidency in that country.

as president, -- vice-president joe biden visiting china. here's the "financial times," on the murdoch story. he says it is deepening. -- saying it is deepening. host: here is the baltimore sun. "republicans to buffet: show us the money." senator john cornyn with the statement in "the baltimore sun." "the wall street journal" has this editorial. warren buffett's tax dodge.

we will go to richard next. in kentucky. good morning, richard. caller: have something i would like to ask you how much foreign aid are we giving away in money and materials? no one wants to seem -- no one seems to want to answer this? host: what is your point? caller: we give away so much money, how can we ever balance the budget when we give away so much money? we give china a foreign aid. host: what does that mean for your support for a republican candidate? caller: i am not going to support somebody who -- host: you have to turn that television down. host: more on the bus that president obama has been using.

"there is good reason for both the cost and the color. until now, they have leased buses for tens of thousands of dollars a month. i understand $1.1 million, but the secret service is hoping for a 10-year life span, and decide that, we are really overdue for a fleet. black is just sort of the color of our vehicles." gene in iowa. go ahead. caller: i would like to comment on rick perry's candidacy. the interlocking directorships between -- it made represent

violations of the antitrust act. if they want to tax central banks, the which are -- as a small tax on central bank transactions, it could get rid of sales tax and all taxes. that is where the money is, that is where taxes should be levied. host: florida? are you there? caller: the thing i do not like perry, he feels likeut rick george bush three. he worked for al gore's campaign. host: where did you learn that? caller: just because i remember. i want to say thank you for c- span because you're the most fair channel on cable.

about the federal reserve, the economy, he is the only one who predicted what happened. now we have rick perry and michele bachmann mouthing the same thing. she voted against the picture that, which is unconstitutional. you have rick perry -- the patriot act, which is unconstitutional. people have got to stop looking at the tv. they have to start looking at people's records. host: here is the washington times on the defense of marriage act.

host: that is "the washington times" with that story this morning. robert, in washington, d.c., your next on the first poll after the straw poll. showing their rick perry is in

the league. caller: ron paul is the only honest candidate. we have to look to u.s. dollars. base realignment. all the federal dollars there. that is what has been driving the economy in texas. it is not about perry. we have to go with ron paul, the only honest man. rick perry is a fraud. check it. guadalupe, all those ports. host: if you are interested in rick perry's jobs record, go to "the new york times from

" from yesterday. there is a lot there to look at. i want to update you on a poll that we put on our facebook page yesterday. based on the question we asked all of you. are you willing to pay more in taxes? we put it up as a poll on our facebook page yesterday. here are the final results. 39.7% said yes. 431 people. about 50.2% said no, about 436 people. thanks to all of you for participating in the poll, on our facebook page pin that is facebook.com\c-span. up next, a discussion on the super committee and what they might do on entitlement reform. we will be right back.

unworkable.

>> steven brill talks with

diane ravitch. go to booktv, where you can watch our programs online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with michael tanner, a senior fellow at the cato institute, here to talk about the super committee. quote how much of their focus will be on entitlement? guest: we honestly do not know. they have an overall dollar number that they are supposed to reach. they can go beyond that. we suspect, since that is where the money actually is, they will have to talk a great deal about entitlements. you cannot get there with domestic discretionary spending cuts. host: if they do not, though, and they go to across the board cuts, the federal programs and

defense, what happens to social security and medicare? from what i read, they are protected. guest: social security and medicare are essentially off the table. medicare, they can do reductions but only with the payments to provide. they can have a slight reduction to doctors and hospitals in terms of where they can reimburse. they cannot cut benefits back or charge seniors more. host: let's assume they do not go that route. that they actually come up with some sort of deal. how should they go about saving money in that program? guest: the first thing we need to do is recognize that going forward, medicare simply cannot pay the level of benefits that it has said it would to people. we are going to cut back on the amount of benefits the government provides through medicare, and if seniors want to get the same level of benefits,

they will have to pay more. there are two ways you can go about doing that. one is from the top down, and that is what the obama administration has proposed. top down, we will decide on the basis of cost effectiveness, and we will impose across the board. the other is a bottom-up approach, and that's what paul ryan has said. we will give seniors a certain amount of money, and they will decide what they can purchase or what procedures they want. and if they want more than the money will pay for, they will have to pay out of their own pockets. president host: obama has talked -- president obama has talked about what republicans should do. >> on the other side, what they're proposing is to turn medicare into a voucher program. so instead of fixing the system, they completely overhaul it. what would happen is you would get a voucher that says you are

allowed to get, spend x amount on health care, and if your health care costs keep going above that, you are out of luck. under their plan, the average senior would pay $6,000 more a year for their medicare. i think that is a bad idea. i think there are better ways for us to manage the medicare problem than to put a burden on seniors. one example is, if i were paying my fair share of taxes, then we do not have to put that kind of burden on seniors. tanner, is it a burden on seniors? guest: one of the things he does not mention is that seniors who have high medical costs or low income would get more, and essentially wealthy seniors

would get less, kind of means testing the program and making seniors with a lot of money pay more, whereas the poor and the sick would get more support from washington. what he does not talk about in his proposal, it effectively does the same thing. we are not going to provide seniors with the same level of benefits in the future that they are getting today. under his plan, they will cut back on medicare benefits, in the seniors want additional benefits, they will have to pay more out of their own pocket. the question is, who will make those decisions? will the government make those decisions for everyone, or will individuals make the decisions for themselves? host: how much will each different proposal face? guest: we do not have long-term projections on this. the president has not proposed an actual physical plan that can be scored at all by cbo. paul ryan's proposal saves several trillion dollars over a 10-year period, but the longer-

term projections for medicare, depending on who you want to look at, will save between $40 trillion and $80 trillion and the rest. we'll leave it more drastic reduction that those programs. host: what do we need to do? guest: i think we need to move something -- we need to move to something that is more consumer based. individuals will have to go on the market with a certain amount of money and make decisions themselves for how much medical care they will provide because we cannot provide unlimited benefits to everyone. host: "the baltimore sun" as an article about the super committee and entitlements. "a further expansion of means testing would increase premiums and other costs for higher income beneficiaries." what you were just talking about.

guest: absolutely. seniors will be paying more. host: increasing the age of eligibility, currently 65, people who are healthy, there is a proposal put out there by senator tom coburn and senator lieberman that would raise it over 12 years. guest: it has sort of a mixed bag to it because actuarially it makes a great deal of sense. if you are a coal miner or a longshoremen or work on the factory floor, raising the effective age of retirement is a greater burden on you than it is for someone like me who will be shuffling papers until i'm 106. host: so you think it is not politically and realistically feasible? guest: think actually it is becoming more popular. is on the table politically, but how you are going to do it, we have to watch the unintended

consequences. host: cross sharing rates from medicare part a and part b, which covers doctor and outpatient care. talk about that. guest: the deductibles and co- payments that individual will have to pay, they have not been raised over a number of years. there are lower than in private insurance. we want to basically make people pay little bit more out of their own pocket, and make them better consumers of health care. essentially, you want people to be looking at the cost of what it is they are buying. host: 1 that is always talked about on the table, waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare program. people seem to point to that first. is there really that much in the

medicare program that you can save millions of dollars? guest: there really is. fraud is a particular problem. medicare has overhead administrative costs because it is simply a check-writing machine. someone sends in a bill, they send back a check. it is very efficient, but it opens a great deal of fraud. there is no way to root out. we have been trying -- i think jimmy carter was the first president who said he was going to balance the budget by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. we have not done it yet. host: the payment formula for physicians, otherwise known in this town as "the doc fix." guest: they actually pay it physicians in many cases less than the cost of treatment, which makes many physicians drop out of the system. it makes it harder for people to

get the doctor of their choice. if you keep squeezing down the payment, the problem will get worse. we have to find a way to get them to do less. host: how about this one, a new growth target -- how it currently works and what they're proposing? guest: we essentially pay people based on the amount of procedures they get. an almost pure fee-for-service program. host: quality versus quantity? guest: right. we are looking for a cap. this would essentially cap medicare spending at a certain level and limit the amount we are going to get. you could do that two ways. you could do that from the top down, do a global budget, a type of rationing that goes on in other health-care systems like canada or britain. it is essentially a top-down.

you cannot go above that cap. the other is the type of proposal paul ryan has talked about, where you cap the growth each year, and the voucher will limit the amount of additional money they're going to get. it away, the medicare system buys less and individuals who want to continue the same level of services have to pay more out of their own pocket. host: what it oabout medicare purchasing problem? how much does that say it? guest: it does not save a great deal. the congressional budget office looked at this and said it probably would not save any money unless we are willing to radically strip the number of drugs that were available in each therapeutic class. essentially what they're saying is that if you want to go in and say that for this condition, but say for coronary artery disease, we will only allow one drug to be sold and it will be the cheapest drug, then you will get competition among drug companies

to be the cheapest drug, and that will lower costs. but people in the country want choice. if you open it up to allow a lot of drugs to be sold, you will not be able to bid down the costs that way. host: we have been through six or seven different options for the super committee. do you think all of the above need to be on the table, or should they do only three or four of these? guest: i think they should be all on the table. i think where we have to be careful is trying to think that somehow we can keep the structure of the system in place and just sort of trend around the edges, make some changes, and that will meet the reductions. i do not think you can make those kind of reductions within the structure of the current system. people need to bear much more of the cost out of pocket. host: ed is a democrat from

connecticut. caller: good morning. i have a question for mr. tanner. i'm finding the argument for taxes and entitlements kind of unsustainable, you might say. the argument that no taxes should be raised on anybody, but then when it comes to entitlements, which we are essentially taxed on -- we pay medicare tax, social security tax -- that the folks who are saying there should be no tax cuts essentially want to raise taxes because they are cutting benefits in that areaguest: in u would get out more benefits than what you are paying in.

that is why the system has such a huge unfunded liability going for it. as far as paying for all of this, there are not enough taxes to get there. they talk about taxing millionaires and billionaires. confiscated -- if they confiscated all the wealth of millionaires and billionaires, you cannot make a dent in the total unfunded liabilities. we faced trillions of dollars of total indebtedness in this country. if you confiscated all the wealth of the bill -- millionaires and billionaires to -- host: here is what one person says in north carolina. guest: in a sense, it is correct. the incentive on the part of the

people pursuing them is to consume as many benefits as possible. there is a sequence of people over-consuming. host: republican, fort lauderdale, florida. caller: not only is it not financially well thought of -- out, it is biased. people tended to live longer -- depending on their lifestyle. wealthier people live longer, because they have the means to take care of themselves. i believe black people do not live as long as white people. females live longer than males. you have to design the system that will be triggered at an age level that will take on the

entire population -- the you are biased against healthy to be -- a wealthy white women. guest: the caller is correct about this. wealthy white women, who never work. they benefit the best. the biggest losers are low income african-american men. one of of every three african- american men will pay into the system and then die before they collect social security benefits. they are the big losers under the current system. [inaudible] host: where do you get your

statistics? guest: the cms. these are pretty well known out there. it collects thousands of dollars and in benefits. host: michael tanner, the senior fellow at cato institute. the republicans on your screen into the democrats as well. one is james cliburn in his 10th term. yburn.v let's hear what he has to say about negotiations to medicare

and medicaid. >> it is to make sure that as we y this country as antr nation that we also protect those men and women who gave so much to bring us where we are and make sure that they have some dignity as they live out their lives with the assistance of medicare, medicaid, as well as their children and grandchildren, who must have opportunities to have a good life in this great country of ours. that has been the hallmark. host: what does that tell you about the prospect of a deal to tackle entitlements? guest: i am not enthusiastic about the chances that this

committee will come up with anything. committees in washington have a history of not reaching agreement. i do not see why this one would be any different. .hese are not mavericks i think you will get $1.20 trillion. those to not go into effect until 2013, after the next election, so there is plenty of time to reverse even those. regarding the noise over this budget deal that we did on the debt ceiling, there are very few will cut in there. most of the cuts proposed by this are not actual cuts. they are deductions in the rate of projected growth. it is called baseline budgeting. we spent $2 trillion this year. we decided we would spend $4 trillion next year. we only spend $3 trillion, and

we call it a cut. host: here is what one person wrote in a guest today on the editorial page of "usa today." raising so security retirement age will not relieve our deficit. then a website and campaign are put out. it is highlighting members voting records and statements on key issues. they promised they will update it as we go along. the co-chair on the democratic side, write a piece in today's wall street journal. here is what they write.

we helped to usher in an era of unrivaled prosperity for american families. on that last statement, the paper said president obama is weighing whether or not to encourage the speaker's committee to look at including some sort of stimulus package to create jobs. guest: we have had four or five stimulus packages already, and despite the them, it does not

seem to work. we get the idea of what government can do to create jobs strong. it is operating under an old approach that says that government needs to put money into the economy to stimulate demand. what it does not realize is that in order to put enough money into the economy, the government has to take money out of the coming weather by borrowing it for taxing it. we see the jobs created, but not the jobs destroyed. host: let us hear from an independent in franklin, north carolina. caller: i think you nailed it. the super committee has a default built into it. the behavior of our leader lately has been to kick the can down the road. that is exactly what they are going to do. they are not going to come to an agreement. the defaults will go into

effect. this is nothing but smoke and mirrors. i like your comment on that. guest: i would like to recognize that assume all of the cuts in the agreement take place, we will still have an increase in the national debt by the end of the decade by $7 trillion. if we had not passed it, i guess it would have been about $10 trillion. that does not include the unfunded liability of medicare, medicaid, and so security. all of the debt the country is facing is over $120 trillion. about 900 gdp. -- 900% gdp. our deficit and our unfunded liability in going forward is than greece.

we really have to do something about this. host: here is a comment on a twitter page. guest: ones waste, fraud, and abuse, is part of someone else's program. there is no line item that says that is waste, fraud, and abuse, and we can just take it out. we need to look beyond the debt and the deficit. that is a symptom of the problem. the real problem is the ever growing size of government. a caller talked about the 1990's and bill clinton we spend 80% of our gdp at that point. we are spending 24% -- 18% of our gdp at that point. we are spending 24% right now.

in the future, it could be a 40%. nearly 60% of everything produced in this country would be consumed by government. that is worse than europe. we cannot have an economy survive at that level. caller: i see that we have always talked about we cannot afford this 20 years from now. i remember 15 years ago, i had an answering machine. 10 years ago, i had a beeper. now i am talking to you through an application on the ipad. how come we never take into account computer technology and there may be thousands of samples of dna to compare mine to and i could have an

application like jeopardy, and it will be a doctor application. how come we can never lower the cost projection? guest: in many ways, those technologies will make things worse. if we live longer, because we can see everyone's dna, and have drugs to cure your specific disease. if we can month and how long people will live, we will increase the cost of programs like medicare, social security. if you look at the overall economy, as it grows, as the can see whether the cost of growing or the size of government is commiserate with that in the economy. in a lot of studies out there, and government growth would be a bigger government. more debt would slow the growth of gdp. we would get fewer of the

technologies we are talking about. host: democratic collar. caller: i have a couple of questions i would like to ask. we are talking about the deficit. how much has so security contributed to the deficit as we know it now? and the other question, ever since so security has been in existence, your republican party voted against it to start with. they have always tried to do away with social security. i would like you to tell me why the republican party has always wanted to do away with so security. guest: i am not a republican. it is hard for me to speak about what the republican party wants to give. so security has never been

financially viable. it has always been set up like a giant ponzi scheme. it works well as long as you have a lot of workers and future retirees. but it is not ultimately sustainable in the long run. regarding the deficit today, you can argue that it is not adding anything to the deficit. so security itself is running a small deficit around $50 billion, i believe. it is not adding to the deficit, because technically they are not paying interest into the system. that will go on for a couple of more years. quit overall, $20 trillion going forward. it will add it to the deficit in a few years. host: would you call yourself a

libertarian? guest: i am independent and philosophically i would call myself a libertarian. caller: the first is a follow up on what the previous guy said. the organization that justifies republican policy? guest: it would be hard to say that, considering we opposed the war in iraq and called for withdrawal in afghanistan. we opposed to the patriot act. i wrote a book criticizing george bush at the time for big government policy. we support gay marriage. we support civil liberties. i do not think we can hardly be considered a republican group. more a libertarian. caller: and seconding, when

paulson was an adviser, it was said that he sold $400 million worth of stock without paying a penny on it, which is part of the policy when you become an adviser to the government. how often does this occur that people jump in and out of government to get rid of a lot of stock and pay zero taxes on it? guest: i was not aware of its if there was such a policy. they do have to sell the stock or put it in a blind trust. they do not want people who own stock to influence policy that could raise the value of that stock. i am not familiar with anything that dealt with a tax-free basis. host: what about health care coverage like medicare and medicaid? guest: the government can subsidize individuals that have

high costs or low incomes. the government is not good at managing the health care system, but is good at writing checks. if we agree we want to subsidize people, we can have a debate about that. but it is an income question and how to supplement the income of people. i think the best answer is to create more jobs and prosperity, raise people's income, and then we will not have a necessity for it. host: when talking about income, you are talking about medicaid is essentially. if you were to tackle medicaid spending, how would you go about it to bring down the costs? guest: we need more experimentation on medicaid. it was essentially a program for the poor. a large part of it the spending is to subsidize middle class people. its long-term care for the

elderly is a huge cost. we need to deal with that. and there is a lot of a fraud. we subsidize something through the medicare program. we need to treat it like welfare. we made it into a block grant, turn it back over to the state. if they are successful with it long term, they can be given authority over medicaid as well. host: republican, lafayette, louisiana. caller: regarding medicare, i am in my late sixties. i have a medicare advantage plan managed by a man of. insurance companies do that kind of thing. that is their job. why can't we go to a medicare advantage plan in general, let

the government pay the insurance companies to handle the medicaid program. mine works very well. in my particular medicare advantage plan, i do not pay any premium other than my medicare part "b". when ever i go to the doctor to have the procedure done, tomorrow morning i am having an epidural injection, all of that has to be approved by the insurance company before i go. it seems to me that the government cannot manage anything. let the insurance companies do the job they do best. let the government paid them for it. guest: many seniors may lose the medicare advantage program, because under the health care bill just passed, they are changing the way the government

pays of those insurance companies for managing medicare advantage. companies have said they may drop out of the business. the government loans estimate a quarter and a half of all seniors will lose medicare advantage and will have to go back into traditional medicare. host: pittsburgh. caller: they use lows in china, cut taxes, by two wars, and not raise taxes? how is that possible? guest: to some extent, i agree with the caller. i think the problem is spending.

one person said the true cost of government is how much the government spends. under bill clinton, we spend about 18% of gdp. right now, 24% of gdp. republicans are happy to cut taxes, but they do not want to cut the spending that goes along with it. democrats do not want to cut spending, but raise taxes. either way, it does not do anything about the spending, which is the real problem. host: next. caller: what is the relationship between the minimum number of years you have to work to be eligible for social security, versus the minimum amount to get compared to the maximum number of years, where that is in definite. a lot of us have paid into it for 60 years, get the maximum amount, but many government employees retire and get a job

and they are entitled to get social security, and they get the minimum amount, which is not bad. it seems like there is a certain in balance there between what you pay in and what you get out. guest: you have to work for 10 years to be eligible for social security. after that, to qualify for the minimum benefit. it combines the retirement program and a welfare program. there is an income redistribution for lower income people who work less and pay into the system less, get a higher benefit per dollar paid in, then someone who is wealthy. host: several yetweets about your comments regarding medicare advantage and that it could go away.

some say it cost a trillion dollars. guest: there is argument about the reimbursement rates, saying it is slightly higher on medicare advantage than the traditional medicare. there are some benefits in excess of what traditional medicare pays. they provide eye care, dental care. there is some argument if they pay for themselves that way or not. we spend more on the medicare advantage plan than traditional medicare. host: hickory, north carolina. caller: i have a question concerning the health care market. not market, excuse me, this is my first time calling. my question is today, why does the government feel a need to

control the health-care market and social security and all of that. we are a capitalist form of government, so why would not be treated like a business transaction? host: how old are you? caller: 15. host: why are you interested in this subject? caller: i take a big interest in politics. it is a captivating subject. i am very interested in health care, because i want to go in the health field myself. i do not quite understand why if we are capitalists, we feel the need to control the average government. shouldn't our government facilitate health care. guest: people do not realize how

much of the health-care system the government controls. it directly pays for about half of all health care in this country. it indirectly subsidizes the vast majority of what is left through tax cuts. it regulates the health-care industry to out. we have nothing that resembles an actual marketplace of health care. when it comes to health care cost and quality, that is the big problem. liggett any other market. individuals spending their own money, they bring down the costs and increase the quality. a look at computers. when i first came to washington, the computer was the size of a house and cost $1,000. today it is 995, and i have one in my cell phone. why? people demand it better quality and lower costs. that is what a market does.

we do not have that in health care. it is a very restricted market. people are not spending their own money, so they are not demanding better quality, lower costs. host: illinois. caller: this is a pleasure for me to talk to michael. i believe he is the first person from the cato institute i have ever agreed with. i cannot believe i am hearing what i am hearing. we were talking about medicare, fraud, and abuse. i do not know whether anyone has ever actually called and tried to report fraud. my wife and i have. i am 85 years old. she has tried before. a lot of times, we think we are overcharged by the doctors or

charged for different procedure is that were not taken. i do not know if anyone has ever told you what the people that you get a hold of that security had said. the person we got a hold of, i had no ideas to no idea who he was. they send you a paper where you put down what you think you were fraud out of. if we actually reviewed to pay this, the people will come after you and you better be prepared to hire a lot -- lawyer and defend it. guest: medicare has an inspector general's office that is supposed to do with it. state attorneys look into this. they periodically to arrest people that are defrauding the medicare program.

it is often not cost-effective to go after the actual line item that is slipping into a bill someplace. it is very hard to do. host: thanks for being here. we will look at looking into the fbi. up next, we will talk about president obama's proposal on fuel economy standards. first and update on c-span radio. >> a senior administration official says president obama will deliver a major jobs speech next month. the proposals will be fresh ones, not a rehash of plans already announced. the official went on to say that the new plan will likely contain tax cuts, infrastructure ideas, and specific help for the long- term unemployed. well the president of wraps up his bus tour today in his home state of illinois, vice- president joe biden has arrived in china. the main purpose of his visit is to meet with that country's

vice-president, who is expected to take over as communist party chief next year. he is planning on visiting washington later this year. vice-president joe biden will discuss tibet and taiwan. the chinese concerns about the u.s. economy are a subject for his five day visit. chinese commentators are marking his rival by saying that the united states has to stop flooding the economy with cheap credit. one economist riding on his blog said, the united states has entered a long period of decline. . cabinet ind china's central bank. here in the u.s., stocks are headed for a slightly higher open today as investors await the latest data on inflation and the latest report on corporate earnings. ahead of the nightclub 30 a.m. open, the dow and the s&p both up -- 9:30 am open, the dow and

the s&p are both up. that is the latest on c-span radio. >> track the latest campaign contributions with c-span website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feet and facebook updates from the campaigns, candid biles, the latest polling data, links to c-span media partners. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> in a city that average as many homicides a year, investigator reporter steven janice takes on the tough question, why do we kill. it is one of the books featured on c-span2 book tv. armstrong williams will talk about his latest, "reawakening

of virtues." -- reawakening virtues." get the complete schedule @ book booktv.org. every weekend is american history tv on c-span3. every morning, people and events telling the american story. what historical events on oral histories. our bookshelves features some of the best known history writers. read about key figures, battles, and the events and the anniversary of the civil war. village college classrooms during lectures in history. but behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on "american artifacts." get our complete schedule at c- span.org/history and a sign up

to have it e-mail to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking about the standards. why is this such a historic big deal? guest: it would change and reduce the amount of gasoline we use. it should reduce about 1.7 billion gabarrels of oil. dramatically increase in fuel efficiency, that idea has been pushed by the president. 341 mpg by 2012-2016. -- 34.1 mpg by 2012.

host: how are we going to get there? guest: 3 more hybrids, fuel- efficient engines, turbocharging -- through more hybrids, fuel-efficient engines, turbocharging, making electric vehicles, especially pickup trucks and suvs. most electric vehicles on the road today are cars such a n as leaf or the chevy volt. 54.5 is not what people are going to get in real life driving. it is about 25% less.

the epa says 54.5 really means 39 mpg in real driving. -- real world driving. number, it 54 the. will cost a lot more money. it could be $30 billion a year. what people will say it will far exceed the higher prices. host: we want to hear from you if you have questions or comments about the new vehicle

fuel efficiency standards. democrats: (202) 624-1111 republicans: (202) 624-1115 independents: (202) 624-0760 outside u.s.: (202) 737-2579 david, this is released that to the white house send out, regarding the amount of fuel we are talking about. the fuel u.s. consumption is about 6 9 billion barrels of a fuel. the trucks make up about 45% of the fuel we are talking about. are there estimates about how much reduction this will bring the ta? guest: the estimated at 1.7 billion barrels of oil will be saved through this program.

they are trying to make it cheaper to drive. will it encourage people to drive more miles. $2 trillion miles per year. that number has been pretty flat the last couple of years, because of the economy. these estimates are predicated on the price of oil, which is a large determinant of how much people drive. and gas prices are so much higher and taxes are higher on fuel. and they are reluctant to raise gas taxes. host: baba, a democratic line, texas. -- bob, democratic line, texas.

we will move to the republican line from shreveport. caller:this is bob. how come germany has already gotten the so cars that are getting 54 miles to the gallon, and we have to wait 20 years to get here. that is ridiculous. there is no reason why if they have the technology, they can put it to work and put that in the united states and get us off of the european thing. they are trying to prolong and protect the oil companies. guest: a very good question. the reason why it is more prevalent in europe is the tax policy. the gasoline tax is much higher than diesel.

however, german companies operating in the u.s., volkswagen, up to 30% of their models in the u.s. are diesel. jetta, passat, a number of diesel vehicles. mercedes and bmw -- american companies are also looking at diesel.u host: how was it made on this deal at the end of last month? there was a lot of back-and- forth and criticism about what happened during closed doors. you followed it very closely. when did that process began? was that after the 2009 deal was announced?

guest: that has to get finalized and will take another six months to get finalized. about one month ago, later -- june, early july, the first proposal was made -- saying we are considering 56.2 mpg, an increase per year by 5%. that was about a month of talks. california is involved in the talks, because they have the legal authority to impose its own statewide standards. the clean air act, they were grandfathered in. a number of different regulations. they sought a waiver from the bush should ministration to have

their own standards. the obama administration reversed that. as part of the deal in 2009, california agreed not to seek its own. host: the concern was that states would make their own regulations across the country. guest: you would have to manage each fleet of numbers. you'd have to sell enough fuel- efficient vehicles to offset your larger as dvds. it would be much more difficult -- suv's. they worried that it would create a patchwork of standards and would lead to not being able to sell certain vehicles in certain states, if you have not met the numbers. this is about the national program that would be easier for the auto company. that was late june, early july.

top officials from the auto companies, people like ron blown, the white house autos are, -- it culminated in an announcement the president in late july said they had reached a deal. host: tell us about what the standards will do. guest: the biggest issue came down to trust. the telling capacity, and boost the efficiency of those vehicles will cost more money. the administration agreed to a concession that the first four years of the program, the light trucks will face 3.5% increases

per year the versus 5%. they will also get additional credit incentives to meet those numbers. then they would have a midterm review, to make sure in the final years, they would meet the 5% number. making sure americans buy the cars and trucks to meet those standards. host: could california walk away from this? guest: probably not. as long as epa admits, basis the decision on whether to continue the program the same way. california should remain at the table. they would have the right to sue -- and national program for

decades. it is probably unlikely -- depending on how the review those. host: we have a few people waiting to talk to you, kevin from louisiana. caller: i come from another side. i work for an american domestic automaker. host: what plant do you work for? caller: shreveport, and general motors. we used to build the homummer. the condition of the bailout is that we stop build h in

ing the hummer. so some of us are out of a job. now if they raise their mpg and will use less fuel -- not true. when car makers increased their miles per gallon, and gave people an incentive to drive more, move to the suburbs, where you travel 20 miles to get to work, because you can afford it. we are not going to use less fuel. all we have done is make it hard for someone like general motors -- even after the bailout, it is contingent on an increase in sales in a trust. you are putting us out of work by adding costs. that is all you're doing. guest: these regulations can be

very expensive. if you make it cheaper to drive and increase fuel efficiency, people will drive more. we do not know how much. they will not drive 60 miles per week. you will make some trips that you would not make if the prices were higher. i am not supporting or opposing the regulations, i am just trying to lay out what they are. host: last week, the obama administration released a different set for trucks. explain that and what we heard about that the debate going on at the end of july. guest: in 2007, congress passed an energy bill. medium and heavy-duty trucks, such as semis, trailers, garber

-- garbage trucks, most vehicles over 8,500 pounds -- this is the first time they have not been regulated 4 mpg. under the new rills -- rules starting 2014, they have to improve their efficiency by 20%. the administration said it will save about $50 billion over that period. some of this truck owners will save $73,000 session fuel over the lifetime of the vehicle. a small increase can reduce fuel dramatically. host: so over the lifetime of the vehicle, we are talking big

numbers. what will be the cost for the auto industry? americans for tax reform put out the light duty and the patrick standard came out. $5,700 to $6,700 per vehicle? does anyone know the actual cost? guest: there have been studies that it would be around $2,100? $2,500, and that is too low. no one knows exactly where it is. we know the 2012 standards will cost the industry about $50.5 billion. there is nothing free. one of the unintended consequences is how do we fix our roads through gas taxes?

host: in the estimates on that? guest: $60 billion in tax revenue that can be lost. there have been some proposals, especially looking at electric vehicles. host: we are talking with david at detroit news. shepards john, independent line, san diego, california. caller: thanks for c-span. david, i realize you are from detroit. you worked in the motor industry, which obama saved.

a previous caller said the same thing. you remember when we went through this whole scenario back in the 1970's. it is not 54.5. it is 39. you never see that in the media. the media will say obama -- this will not save any gas. you are telling the real facts. it did not work in the 1970's. by the 1990's, they will have to lower it. i cannot remember it. they kept up the mileage per gallon. and then it all went away.

if you want to put a general motors car on the market, no one is telling us -- no one can afford a $50,000 car. it is so easy to save money 20 years ago. they cannot afford that. my sister wants to buy a new car. she has always bought a subaru. it is still showing 80 miles per gallon. she said -- 18 miles per gallon. i asked -- she is going to buy the subaru until it stutters. if they are really serious, they should have subaru get their cars out of there.

guest: the big issue facing hybrids and the electric vehicles is the cost. the nissan leaf starts at $32,700. they are very expensive vehicles. when people go to the showrooms and are debating whether or not to buy it and see a traditionally powered vehicle, still very fuel-efficient, many are getting 40 miles per gallon -- a lot of customers to go with their pocketbooks. americans will go across the street to buy a hamburger that is 10 cents cheaper. it is difficult to get people to buy these vehicles given the cost. host: here is a tweet.

how did they come to that number? during the debate, there were original proposals in the '60s. how did they meet in the middle of this? guest: there is nothing magical about 54.5. 5%, 66.2. 54.5 was going to 3.5% for the first five-year period. we will not know exactly how they came up with the numbers until we see the regulations. in september, we will have thousands of pages of material to pour through. why not 55 or 53?

there are some many functions. they are guided a by the fact of the maximum speed per year, taking into account factors such as jobs. host: let's listen to something president obama said in michigan. we will come back and get a few more colors. >> we are investing in clean energy. that is why i brought together the world's largest auto companies, who agreed for the first time to nearly double the distance their cars can go on a gallon of gas. [applause] that is going to save customers thousands of dollars at the pump. it will cut our dependence on foreign oil. it will promote innovation and jobs.

it will help companies such as johnson controls. that is how america will lead the world in automotive innovation. we did not go through congress to get this done. host: how does congress feel about the standard announced with the white house? guest: 2007, congress made is legal to increase fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars. they gave the administration authority in 2007 to do that. i think one reason it happened is because of california. the auto industry has a huge incentive to make a deal to get national certainty that they would face one set of standards. california is not in the mix.

this deal came about for a number of different reasons. you cannot say it happened just because of a of an industry and the government working together. everybody had incentives to reach that the deal. host: one person the same the upset was the congressman from california. he has launched a formal investigation into how the standards were come up with. i will -- a little bit from his letter. he said i am concerned about the lack of transparency, the failure to conduct an open enrollment process, and increases on consumers. this agreement is out of the authority agreement. does he have a case here? guest: this is not the

traditional way regulations get made. they will go through a formal process. the public will have months to comment after public hearings. traditionally, the way regulations are done is administration proposes a rule, they find out the same day as everyone else, they file comment, and fight it out. [unintelligible] they have set a number at 54.5. if they did not reach something similar to that in the final rule, they would have the right to back out of this deal. you can raise the question, why is the process only around closed doors? the administration will argue that they pay the billions of dollars to meet these new targets.

this is the best way to get everybody to agree. if they did not do something like this, california could go on their own. i think they would argue there are a lot of good reasons to make a deal like this behind closed doors. if you do not do this, you could face years of litigation. host: dennis, a democratic a line from davie, florida. caller: i have a comment and then a question. if president obama was able to circumnavigate the congress on those mileage standards, maybe he can do the same thing for a jobs bill. that may get a more effective bill. puttingt we talk about governors on engines?

we need to change lifestyles. we could control the amount of fuel used, where they go, how fast they drive. host: i did not mean to cut you off, just wanted to get a response. guest: the higher you speed, especially going above 55 or 65 miles per hour, dramatically increases the amount of fuel you use in your car and is the least efficient. congress and administration could agree to put governors on vehicles, but when people slowdown, that is what 55 miles per hour became the national law in the energy crisis in the 1970's. that would go a long way to reducing fuel use. host: republican line,

minnesota. caller: this is the final blow to our economy. it is a radical idea by obama to ruin our economy. why does general motors only sell when hundred 20 bvolts last month? where can i buy a natural gas vehicle? guest: on natural gas, currently only honda is building a vehicle for consumer use, but other vehicles -- companies are considering bringing more vehicles to the u.s. market. the volt, the reason gm sold very field last month was they

took the plant down for a month retool. but still sell -- plan to sell between 15 and 20,000 worldwide. host: there is an article on hydrogen cars and stealing. how much does that enter the market as a right now? guest: it is something that has been talked about for years. toyota and honda are big on hydrogen vehicles. toyota wants to sell hydrogen vehicles by 2015. gm has also spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching. the problems have been one, the expense. the initial vehicles cost two million dollars, and then second is the infrastructure. we have about 180,000 gasoline stations, and very few hydrogen

fueling stations. host: andy on the independent line from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i hear this talk about better fuel economy, yet i see them put ethanol in gasoline, which cuts down still mileage. they talk about raising it. they should stop putting ethanol in gasoline. go back to using regular gasoline. the electric cars -- we do not have enough power to run air conditioning in big cities, and now they want to put more strain on our energy by running the electric cars? it does not make sense. we have to solve the energy problem before you start making these cars.

host: can you start with where we are on ethanol? guest: the caller is absolutely right. ethanol is about 25% less energy intensive than gasoline. a more ethanol, the less miles per gallon. congress, as a part of the 2007 energy act, required a huge increase to the amount of ethanol the americans will use. so, at this point, almost all fuel, more than 80% is now 10% ethanol. the epa has approved this for new vehicles. still is not been sold yet. there are still technical issues the need to be resolved. e15 could be sold.

it is not above mpg. it is about policy from oil to buy and corn. host: let's go to james, on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to make a statement. our government and auto companies lie so much about gas mileage. we have technology to get 35 miles on virtually every vehicle, and all it would take is one model change. ethanol, why do they not is sunflower oil? all you have to do it is filter it, and it produces twice as much per acre.

it is all of all lobbyists. thank you. host: geese think we can go higher, james? -- do you think we can go higher, james? caller: the problem is we have the standard to get 30 miles a gallon on virtually every four- wheeled vehicle. host: you do not think it will take until 2025 to get that high? caller: we have the technology. it is the lobbyists control in the gas companies and politicians. host: do we have the technology? guest: we have technology, but it is expensive. turbo-charged engines, lighter- weight materials, there are ways to improve fuel efficiency. you hear this suggestion that the auto companies are not

improving fuel efficiency because of oil companies. the oil industry is one of the most profitable industries consistently. the auto industry is a boom/bust industry with sales going up and down based on the economy. there is no evidence the auto companies are keeping back technology to aid the oil industry. frankly, fuel efficiency has grown dramatically on consumer preference lists. look at the advertisements touting the vehicles over 40 miles per gallon. they certainly could raise the fuel efficiency far more than it is currently, but they would have a much more expensive vehicle. host: one of your colleagues in "detroit news" wrote about some of the things we will see to get to the standard.

what will we see coming down the line? guest: there is our role -- rule that encompasses credits that are not captured by the active standard like active grill standards or solar chargers for your battery which would reduce your overall co2. host: actually putting solar panels on your car? guest: right. turbo-charged engines. there is a number of -- light- weight material. there's a lot of technology that will not change the way your car looks. host: and the government is funding some of the research, correct? guest: right. it is funding of about $175

million over five years. the government funds all lot of research, helping to prod auto companies to build efficient vehicles, giving loans to tes la, ford, nissan. the leaf inbuilds t the united states as a result. host: harvey, virginia. do you have a question? caller: my statement and concern is that as they increase the cafe standards on cars it

reduces the amount of gasoline necessary, therefore the fuel companies, who provide the gasoline, if their market dropped in half, they would have to increase the value -- you know, they would have to charge more for gasoline to stay in business. this thing about ethanol, and methanol, he'll hear about energy you hear us about cellulose ethanol. in brazil they have been running cars on methanol for 25 years. let's get real. host: let's give david a chance to respond. guest: the government has put a lot of money into research. a lot of companies are working to produce ethanol from switch grass, corn stalks, waste material, woody pulp, but the

caller is right. very little has been used for commercial use. the government wants refineries up and running over the next couple of years. part of the 2007 energy law requires 35 million gallons per year of ethanol use and most of that is a challenge given that there is not really any commercially-rival been produced yet. host: priscilla, and the republican line from minnesota. -- on the republican line from minnesota. caller: i have a comment. all of this talk is high in the sky. we will never get there. i have lived in many decades,

let's put it, and we have had goals of 38 miles per gallon. 54 is pie in the sky. i wish obama would understand we have a republic, not a kingdom. host: thank you. sam, go ahead. caller: i have a friend that gets 30 -- host: did i lose you? go ahead. caller: he has a model ford that gets 42 miles a gallon, drives it all summer long on two tanks of gas. host: he is going in and out

there. guest: the point the caller makes is one you heard during the cafe standards debate. the model t had 35 miles per gallon. those cars have no safety equipment, no air bags, were extremely light weight, and would not pass modern american safety standards or crash tests. the echoes have got much heavier. it is -- the vehicles have got much heavier. you are carrying around more weight. host: were you talking about technology to lower the way? guest: high-strength materials. some of the money the administration announced it is to go toward research for this high-strength of aluminum or steel, getting the same safety

benefits, but a much less heavy vehicle. host: will, and the independent line -- on the independent line. from tennessee. caller: i appreciate c-span. unfortunately, our government is not doing his job and most american citizens are really disgusted. the gentleman you have on today is another bureaucrat getting ready to fit his pockets -- filled his pockets. if you get down hit -- fill his pockets. if you get down to facts, this government, if they get scientists on board, they could do away with a lot of this crippling the economy, and put america back on the front of all of the other nations.

simply looking to technology, which some of us can provide -- i am a retired schoolteacher, can tell you there is technology that would put as 100 years ahead. host: what is the technology? caller: you could tell apart human beings. host: we will keep it to fuel efficiency standards right now. in the one minute we have left, i want to get to what you will be watching when congress comes back after their recess? guest: we will be looking for the rule coming out at the end of september.

yes, it will be expensive, but one thing the administration wants to do is say to people we will reduce the cost of driving. you do not like gas prices. we know there is nothing we can do short-term, but long-term, you will get more miles per gallon, and you'll see the president talking about this issue because it is a big issue for americans. it is political and policy. you will talk about raising standards. host: david shepardson, thank you for joining us. coming up next, which will have our week-long look at the fbi with david schlendorf. greta will be back, but first an update from c-span video. >> the labor price index rose 0.2% last month, following 8.4%

drop in june. -- .4% drop in june. food and pick up prices drove index up. tobacco prices jumped the most in two years, 2.8%. four of the five largest tobacco companies are suing the federal government, wanting a judge to put a stop to the graphic cigarette labels, sandy will cost millions to produce and the warnings violate free-speech rights. the defense department inspector general says the army and properly inspected -- improperly inspected battlefield equipment.

the pentagon report focuses on seven army contracts that are known as ballistic inserts. they were awarded between 2004 and 2006, totaling $2.5 billion. the audit finance the tests were incomplete or -- finds that the tests were incomplete or relied on and consistent information. tests under certain temperatures and altitudes were scrapped altogether. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> watch more video on the candidates, see what reporters are saying, and try contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. it is easy to use and helps you navigate the landscape with twitter feeds, facebook updates, candid biographies, polling data and link to the

caucus states. in a city that averages more than two hundred 50 murders a year, former baltimore attorney general has a book we feature this weekend on c-span to contel booktv.pan2 the court tv founder will speak with the former assistant "afterwards."a coat afterward every weekend, it is american history tv. starting saturday morning, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story.

watch personal interviews about historic events, with the best and-known history riders. revisit key figures during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms during lectures in history, the behind- the-scenes on american artifacts, and "the presidency" looks at pest american presidents. get the complete schedule and sign up to have it in mailed to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have been taking a lot of different aspects of the fbi, looking at court authorized britain's on monday, the role in counter-terrorism on tuesday, and tomorrow we will look at cyber security and fraud, and

then friday wrapped up with crime labs and forensics. today, following the money with david schlendorf. mr. schlendorf, let's begin with your title and what you do. guest: the resource planning office helps to direct with everything from thinking about the strategy and tracking data to assess how we are doing against the strategy. we helped to run the fbi like a business. obviously our mission is not to make money, but we have a 35,000-person organization and we have strategic and training challenges. our job is to get the most out of all resources, finding efficiency, internal consultants, and other things like corporate policy.

our place in to know what is permissible and what is not. we basically provide data and informed decision making. host: with a lot of talk focused on debt and deficit, how did your job, bob? guest: the director, -- , about? the director realize we need to run the company more like a business. our analysts that worked at the forefront of combating the threats come out we need to make sure the have the best technology, best use of resources, so we have more agents on the street toward the director hired people with more backgrounds outside of the fbi. >> when you run it more like a business, how you get rid of inefficiencies, waste, that sort of thing? guest: before 9/11, the fbi had

not invested much in information technology, so we need massive investments to upgrade the technology. when i got to the fbi in 2003, i did not head internet access. today, i have the latest and greatest, as does every fbi employee, but that has taken significant investments, upgrading training personnel to better understand how to use technology. it is critical to put the pieces together and find linkages. similarly, how we hire people at the fbi -- do we hire them as quickly as possible? we have an extensive background investigation process. finding ways to do that process more quickly and efficiency which efficiently. host: if you're going to make a big-ticket item purchase, how do you go about doing that?

garrison example. -- give loss and example. guest: the fbi is building a case management system. we use the system on a mainframe technology. we want more of the internet system to make it easier. we want to almost go paperless. we are able to move things around electronically. the fbi goes out, requests proposals from the best vendors in the private sector, using a competitive process. we go out and use the microsoft, oracle, and google of the world. >> how much is the personnel -- host: how much of the personnel side is the total budget? guest: in total, about $9 billion budget, and 60% is for

personnel. we provide services -- counter- terrorism, criminal investigations. host: what does that mean? how does that break down? what is the cost for people? benefits, pensions, all of that? guest: about 25% is benefits, and 75% is the direct salaries of those personnel. the fbi has around 35,000 employees. 3000 our intelligence analysts, the personnel helping to connect the dots and ensuring we share information. 18,000 or 19,000 our professional staff, which is everyone from the scientists in the laboratory, the linguists, the financial personnel professionals, human-resources, training experts that support

all agents. host: there's a lot of talk about debt and deficits, so looking at how the fbi follows money, prioritizes resources. david schlendorf is our guest. host: will get to your phone calls in just a minute. let's talk about salary. how much as a special agent making when they first come in? guest: the average joining ages about 31 years old. most of them come with about nine years of experience, highly-educated. almost all of them have master's degrees. when they come to the fbi, they start and the general schedule, level 10. that is on average about $52,000 a year, depending on locality.

almost all of these individuals take significant and substantial pay cuts because they have been in the private sector, media companies, consulting companies, doing much more lucrative jobs, but the mission is what attracts the fbi. hollywood, i always say, recruits for us. we get tens and thousands -- tens of thousands of applicants every year they start around $50,000, and they can grow. by the end of their sixth or seventh year, a maker around $80,000 or $90,000 a year. it is not as lucrative as many professions, but the mission is what attracts the people. we have a huge university hiring effort every year. people might be surprised to know the fbi is raised when the most desirable employers.

we are competing with the likes of disney, apple, google, microsoft, and general electric. we're at the top business schools every year. there is a business to the fbi, just like we have the special agents, we want the best people running technology and financial services. host: those people start at what kind of salary? guest: around $70,000 or $80,000. we seem them up with all of our heads, and their job is to help executives and better think about strategy, business policies. host: dam is a democrat in durham, north carolina. caller: you talk about some of the lessons from the business world to the fbi, but given your time in the fbi, what lessons

with the business world do well to learn from the fbi? guest: it is mission-driven. every business needs to find what is the mission they can get employees excited and motivated behind. our mission is to keep the country safe. we do that all while we all called the american civil liberties and protect constitutional rights. the mission that is what allows us to attract the best and key people excited. every business should think about what is our mission. host: i want to look at the fbi budget request for 8.9 billion. -- $8.1 billion. $81 million is in construction. 131.5 million for program

181 cements, and about new positions. three intelligence analysts seems like an odd number. how do you go about asking congress i need three of these guys and 87 of these guys? gee, it is convoluted. -- guest: it is a convoluted. three might not have been our initial request, but we will have the best we can find. we are asking for more efficiencies on the inside. if we can save money through the work we do in the resource planning office, we can then fund additional personnel of our base budget, so it is not just the enhancement peace. it is always looking for efficiencies. the total request, one of the $31 million in enhancements --

$131 million in enhancements, those our most -- are our most important programs -- surveillance, tracking terrorists. we think it is a reasonable budget request. we recognize it is difficult economic times. host: let's go to marty, a democratic caller in louisville, ky. caller: i want to know what requirements there are to become an fbi, or cia agent? i have a grandson best taken four years in criminal justice. currently, he is in law school, and this summer he is almost finished with a course in international law, but he really

has set this goal for so long. he does not seem to know for sure what the requirements are as far as education. host: what does it take? guest: it sounds like the right path. we're looking for people that are college-educated. we hire many lawyers every year into the fbi. what the fbi is looking for is a broad mix of specialties across a wide range of area, language skills, media skills -- there is no one special ingredient. i would encourage him to look of the fbi website. requirements for employment are there. there are jobs posted all of the time. is he is interested in becoming a as special agent? there are special agent positions open all the time.

he could reach out and talk to somebody personally about what he should be doing. host: here is a look at the fbi agent training. in 2009, more than 100 agents graduated. 2010, approximately 180 agents. they must score 85% or better . host: how much does it cost to train an agent? guest: i did not have the number of hand, but it is not an insignificant investment. we want all of a legal and fire

training. training int of intelligence and surveillance. the training at quantico is just the first piece of it. as you come out of the academy, we want to make sure you get the experiences they're just as important as that hands-on training at quantico. it really never stops. we bring them back over the course of their career for different stages of training. they will come back within the first three years. as they were a criminal agent, they would get criminal training. the training never really stopped. we have a leadership development program. we are a services organization. our people make the fbi great. host: you said you get thousands of applicants. i thought i saw one figure ed 70,000 applicants a year.

-- at 70,000 applicants a year. once you have accepted them, and they start this training, maybe they pass, or maybe they sell, but what is the upgrade? guest: we select the very best, and worked very hard to make sure they get the training they need. some people are better with firearms immediately. other people need more training. the pass rate is high, but there are some that did not make it through. we look to see if there are other opportunities outside of special agent. we have invested a lot into this individual, so maybe they just cannot have the skills to become an agent, but there are a few that do not make it through. host: tom is an independent in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: your director knows that william boynton on dick cheney's

orders murdered paul whitestone. these by delta force guns are threaten american citizens. he has done nothing. host: any reaction to what you just heard? guest: i am afraid i cannot agree with what you are saying. the fbi takes nothing more seriously than protecting civil liberties. i have spent a lot of time in meetings with a strategy meetings, and we are always talking about protecting civil liberties and upholding the law. i am afraid those conspiracy theories the u.s. pause there, we just simply do not agree with. -- u.s. house of there, we simply do not agree with. host: -- you espoused, we

simply do not agree with. a soviet taking calls for david schlendorf north. this is from twitter. guest: it is a good question. we make sure our employees represent the diversity across the country. for operational reasons, we need to infiltrate certain communities. about 20% of our special agents are female. overall, it is more balanced if you look at intelligence analysts and professional staff employees. it is something we work on all the time to represent the diversity of american society.

host: 56 field offices, why so many, and how much does it cost? guest: every major city has a field office so we can be where the threats are. in addition to the field offices, which are our resident agencies, we call them satellite offices, so we can be responsible as threats happen. it is impossible to predict where the threats can be, so we want to get there quickly. the best weapon against perfecting -- preventing terrorism is to be a part of the community. the fbi is active in the communities we work and live in. we want to be active members of the committee so they will call us when they did not -- when they see something that does not smell right or look right.

host: how do determine how many agents will be at each field office? guest: that is my group. we have dealt a model -- built a model to figure out where the risk is across the country. we try to figure out if we have the right number of people in dallas, given the amount rest? the models are a starting point for discussion. you get discussion tables like this one up where we say where do we want to move slots across the country. host: this from twitter -- host: how do go about balance in civil liberties and with your need to combat threats --

balancing civil liberties security to combat threats? guest: it is up to the american people and congress what level of risk we are willing to accept. after september 11, we realized we had sued -- we had to shift agents in synod -- national security matters. what that meant was there was a certain line of business that the fbi has exited from. these are lines where we felt our partners like state and local police could pick a more of the burden. it is a constant balancing act. we are really focused on being a threat-driven, intelligence- driven agency, making sure we are working areas where we can

make the biggest difference. we did not work public correction -- corruption, if we do not investigate them, there is nobody else. a lot of crime and terrorism as global today. you cannot work global crimes as a state or local police agency. host: republican line, pat, warwick, rhode island. caller: a desantis citywide to mr. schlendorf for everything -- i just want to say thank you to get mr. schlendorf for everything the fbi does to keep the state. host: florida, good morning. caller: i just saw an answer to my question as to the employees,

sell thank you for your service. guest: thank you for your calls. working at the fbi has been a real pleasure, and i hope every american has the chance to understand some of the great work the fbi does. it is an amazing organization with men and women excited about keeping the country's six. -- country safe. host: what is the size in terms of budget dollars? guest: it has almost tripled within 10 years, and that has been one of our challenges. we need that money to - effectively spending resources. personnel has grown about 30% since september 11. a lot of the budget has been

with the data bases. host: how the measure success? what are the metrics to say we are spending money wisely? guest: we are doing that already of ways. we sit down with the department heads, and give them a baseball. with every division leader to get some accountability. card with a picture of every division leader to get some accountability. we have a set of measures that defines what every objective looks like. we have metrics around and getting the specialized training to counter-terrorism agents, intelligence analysts -- we measure have we done that over time? if we see a measure where we are

not happy with performance, the director has priory and dishes to its parent and the most important might be -- party list. -- priority list. host: floyd is an independent in west virginia. thank you for waiting. caller: i have a question. my daughter has had her identity stolen, and it is in another state. she has tried to get the local police officers to take care of it in our county. our share of is a retired special agent -- sherer if is a retired special agent. i wish he would get back to the fbi. she has called the fbi and everything else. what does it take to get them to step in and stop the stock?

host: david? guest: good question. i know tomorrow one of my colleagues who runs the entire branch of cyber security can speak to these cases. unfortunately, sometimes the fbi as to prioritize, looking where we can spend limited resources to make the biggest impact to protect against a wide spectrum of terrorism. shawn could better address your question, but unfortunately, you can not work every case out there. host: has that become more resources and money -- cyber security? guest: there is no question. we see the growing threat across all different types of crimes using the internet.

host: cyber fraud? guest: exactly. we can talk about that tomorrow, but we have more resources in the cyber program. many of our agents in counter- terrorism encounter and intelligence are working in cyber. host: what kind of agent are you looking for when it comes to cyber threats? guest: people with a background in the computer industry, or comfortable working with technology. technology pervades everything we do today. we are recruiting people with more technology skills and we haven't a shot -- to initiative train people on things they need to know about over the course of their career. host: meghan is in georgia. caller: i want to know if corporations are able to lobby

you all they can not take individual people's -- you all. had they cannot take individual people's debt, -- they can take individual people's debt, but they cannot take corp.'s data. host: we will get a response. guest: we do not get lost in the traditional sense of the word. if we look at the biggest threats out there and make sure we are working with corporate .merica and academia we actively engage with all of our partners, we do not get lobbied in the traditional sense of the world. one of the most refreshing things about the fbi is that it

is a political. we have a mission, and it does not matter who is in charge. our mission stays the same. although we have to ask for resources, we try to stay out of the political minefields. host: total employees, 35,000, total agents, 14,000. does that include contractors? guest: 35,000 is in perfect -- actual employees, and on top of that we have taskforce officers and partners in the intelligence community that work hand-in-hand with us. we have contract linguists, for example, that we might only need of a limited basis. we have contractors on the technology side. host: can you give as examples of these important information technology systems? that sounds so washington. people need an example.

guest:, the fbi operates human sources, critical sources of information on and so -- investigations. when needed assistance to help us keep track of human sources -- we needed assistance to help us keep track of human sources, what skills they had, so we built a system to manage the human source population to ensure that they are taken through automatically through the agent's boss. host: you're talking about an informant? guest: yes. host: you want them to take action that shows where this agent has gotten approval for this informant to go on and do and z.an

guest: yes absolutely. we need a system. host: greensboro, n.c., a democrat. caller: there seems to be a lot of overkill. does the fbi have any influence in terms of stopping or slowing down the rate of the way management trains local police stops where people are approached with the officer's hand on the gun, and we have seen a lot of cases where it has become routine. the civil rights of most of the citizens, when they are accosted by police officers for nothing but a routine stop, do you investigate those in terms of abuses of civil rights?

guest: civil-rights is our second most important criminal priority. the fbi investigates every allegation. if the fbi does not investigate these crimes, there is nobody else to investigate. we take civil-rights extremely important repair and more broadly, we really partner as closely as possible -- important . we really partner as closely as possible with those in the community they live -- who live and work out there. they work on our joint terrorism task force, our state street task force. we have critical relationships. the fbi does a lot of training with state and local law enforcement. we have the national academy in quantico, virginia, where we provide chiefs of police with a graduate school education and law enforcement.

sharon intelligence with them as one of the critical functions. host: margaret on the republican line in jacksonville, florida. caller: my grandson and graduated with a degree in construction engineering. he has interests in police work. does that degree help him in his effort if he wanted to get into the fbi? guest: we are looking for people with a host of backgrounds, medical, language, engineering -- if there is almost no degree that is not a possibility. from the intelligence standards population, there are so many backgrounds. there are certain backgrounds that we might want to focus in, and have more interest in today, like the cyber security and computer backgrounds, but

nothing precludes you from a career with the fbi. host: john, cleveland ohio. caller: with increasing white- collar crime, how much weighted of an average to you include in the crime index? i do not see much about white collar crimes. why is it almost like a self- bomber type of thing. i know they are smart. the white collar is difficult. can you comment on that? guest: we are trying to become a more preventative agency on the national security and criminal sides. when i try to get emergency -- emerging threats, and get ahead of those threats. we try to deter crime before it

happens, stop criminals before these acts are committed. white collar is no different than the national security side. host: compare and contrast your resources and the money and agents you put on white collar crimes as opposed to terrorism. guest: half of our agents are working national security which includes terrorism and intelligence. half are working criminal programs, which is everything from white-collar crimes, to public correction, to civil rights violations. the mortgage fraud scheme -- as that became more important, the fbi devoted an increasing number of resources to those threats. we have been doing this for years. host: do you have experts that look at wall street and what we saw happen with the bernard madoff case? guest: absolutely.

the recent hedge fund, insider- trading case, the fbi was working on that. our new york field office is our largest. a lot of resources are devoted to financial crimes. host: here is running into legal with an e-mail -- ron in toledo, ohio with an e-mail. the guest: who spent a lot of time training afghan police, and law enforcement organizations to come up to the standard of the fbi. if we are s to look at allegations, it is something we were looking into. host: harvey, an independent in amherst, virginia, good morning. caller: this the fbi employ any non-college graduates?

guest: absolutely. we hire some straight out of high school there are certainly some non-college graduates. for many of our jobs like special agent, forensics experts, information technology, we are off their competing with the best companies in the private sector, so for the most part we are recruiting people that have five or 10 years of experience after school. paid by informant's get the fbi? guest: if we think they're valuable information, we're willing to pay for that information. host: how much? guest: would not have exact figures, but we will invest significantly in the conformance. our two guests -- installments. two best.

host: do they get a salary, or based on the quality? guest: they do not get a salary, but based on the quality of information, said they might be paid multiple times. we like to develop long-time informant's bed have access into groups that we believe are threatening the country -- that have access into groups that we believe are threatening the country test. host: and do you ever bring in non-citizens of the united states? guest: non- bring in, but sometimes there are some living in the country's -- not bringing in, but sometimes there are some living in the country. host: we will go to bill, a democrat call in indiana. caller: how many agents work for

--bushsident light bul how many people deal have guarding them out of office? guest: the fbi works closely with partners in the secret service, but any time there is a large security event like an inauguration or a g-8 summit, we work closely with our partners and the intelligence committee. depending on the event, we might have hundreds of thousands of agents partaking. host: the biggest expense? guest: personnel. host: salaries and benefits? guest: exactly. after that, we have the infrastructure costs. we have more than 500 facilities, so rented is significant, as are utilities. the fixed costs are significant.

host: how much in iran? guest: i did not have the exact figures. host: millions? guest: absolutely. we have to pay for offices in quantico. there are several thousand employees in west virginia, 56 field offices, 370 satellite offices. we built a model to figure out if we needed all of these agencies, and the director was able to go to congress and closed down 12 of these, which sounds small, but it is a step to rationalize the footprint. each company has technology costs and security costs. it's one we can minimize the city fbi money. host: what is the discipline a satellite and a field office? guest: generally, a satellite offices are much smaller.

in new york, there are large satellite offices, but typically, they would be as small as two or three agents. host: where would they be located? guest: it could be a standalone building, it could be a floor in a building that the fbi rents. host: one last phone call, but before we get to that, what is the least expensive thing in the fbi's budget? why don't you think about it? we'll go to michelle in florida. ahead. guest: i have caller: i have a son who was interested in the the fbi. what direction should he fall? thank you, and i will hang up and listen. guest: i would encourage him to check out the fbi website. we do run into engine programs to get a little bit of experience -- internship progms