[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we open this edition of the "washington journal" this morning with a look at the supreme court where u.s. citizens go for judicial interpretation of the u.s. constitution. today is saturday, september 17, today is constitution day. and we begin this edition of the "washington journal" talking about the significance of the u.s. constitution in your daily life. to get involved in the conversation, give us a call.

if you have called us in the last 30 days, today would be the day to put down your phone, pick up your keyboard, and send us a message elect tronically. you can reach us at. if you're on twitter you can follow us. and you can follow our conversation on facebook. this is one of the articles will be looking at this morning on the front page of the "new york times" under the headline, one day devoted to constitution, a fight over it. kate of the "new york times"

we're talking about the significance of the u.s. constitution in your daily life today on constitution day. our first call comes from michigan. tom on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span.

glenn: thanks for calling. glenn: thanks for calling. tell us about the significance of the constitution in your daily life. caller: every day i think about living in one of the worst neighborhoods in downtown detroit and listening to people [inaudible] talking about the second amendment, the right to bear arms. and when you're sitting in your own house, your own apartment, whatever it is, your crib, whatever you call it, you listen to this night after night, month after month. and i finally bought a gun. i was finally tired of wondering if i would be waking up with somebody busting into my apartment. so that drives every thought i have on a daily basis whether i can have a gun and carry it and protect myself when i go to the bank with large sums of money. glenn: next, tennessee on our line for republicans. paul on the "washington

journal." caller: good morning. i've got something to say sir. i want to make two points. our country needs to hear what i'm fixing to say. we have a constitution because we had people who read the bible and they understood it. and even jesus in his bible was so aggravated with his very own disciples that we have callers that call in just like a second ago that resort to those things that they're doing in this country. they have lost their spirit. the democratic party is crushing our constitutional rights. you look at health care. when you have a federal appeals court denounce the president's plan to invade your constitutional rights we have a real problem. i'm going to tell you something. if you want to know something about the poor you've got to be poor. you can't have people in the elected office with lots of money who don't no about the poor people. we have forgotten. that's what jesus told us to

do. sell everything we have and give it to the poor people. i believe that christ has been forgotten in this country and i believe there's a war on it. and they're taking right through our constitutional rights, taking them away from us and giving our children no hope. glenn: talking about the significance of the u.s. constitution in your daily life. next call from connecticut. you're on the "washington journal." caller: the constitution calls for the supreme court to rule on laws and the 16th amendment in 1916 stated that the 16th amendment gave no new taxing powers to the federal government. however, we have an income tax. and there is an organization called truth attack.org that has been offering a $100,000 reward to anybody, any lawyer who can prove or point to a law

that says the average american citizen has to pay federal income tax. that has been out there for seven or eight years and not one of those bottom feeders has been able to point to that law. where is the constitution and how come we aren't foming it? glenn: talk to me about the constitution in your daily life? caller: they keep robbing me of my money. if they want the economy to get going, get rid of that illegal income tax. and reagan administration proves that not one cent of it makes it to the federal treasury. glenn: we've got this from caller.com.

>> the item by robert signatureler of the american board of trial advocates goes on to say. back to the phones. wisconsin anour line for republicans. john, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. the constitution means to me that it guarantees our political, religious and economic freedoms.

and the person that talked about the federal government. it is restricted and that's what makes the constitution so great. it gives me the freedom to call you and express my opinions, to write a letter to the editor to express my opinion without fear of governmental rhett bution. and we need to appreciate it every day and recognize that those are individual rights. and it is indeed the document, the constitution, the beliefs in there that protect us from our government. so that's what it means to me. it's freedom. and that's what makes america what it is. it is for all races, it is for all religions. all genders. it's for everybody. and that's what makes it the greatest country in the world. glenn: our next call, mike in kentucky. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think this is a great topic. the constitution affects my daily life just basically in what we go through in our presidential elections. we violated i think almost

every presidential election. article 6, paragraph 3 states that no religious -- shall be given for qualification for president. and yet we ask our candidate what their preference is. we put president obama through the test whether or not he was a muslim or a christian. and the question of a religion should never be asked of a president. are you going to ask him to even expose what type of religion he is? and we should never ask a president or have a forium in a debate on what a religious preference is. and when we do so we actually are asking an illegal question and violating the constitution because no religious test shall

be given. glenn: mike in kentucky. we've got this tweet. scott on our line for independents calling this morning from north carolina. go ahead. caller: i have used the constitution in my life both the state and federal constitution to create changes that i see fit by proxying we the people with what's called petition get signatures and then you go to your local government and start the process. so the constitution is very effective. i hear a lot of people lately complaining about things they can change. but we have become my opic and lazy society for the most part. i have my name and i remind people the supreme court doesn't say we the people.

it says the name of the people who brought the state up first and then it puts the state or the federal government in the second position. they have to now defend themselves. so if you have a clear and valid argument, the constitution can be used every single day including religious freedoms to worship a piece of spaghetti if that is what you feel is right. and you cannot be held in a default of citizen status unless you use the 14th amendment which section 3 says if you don't agree you opt out and you become a ucc 1. which means you're independent. and then there's a whole other set of laws apply to you. i would say half of 1% of this country actually knows how to function in the legal system that we have, or the founding fathers have set up and we have at our disposal. glenn: in the "new york times" op ed section this morning,

kent greenfield writes under the headline

caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i marvel at our constitution and the intelligence of the people that wrote it years ago. we haven't changed anything. but at the time they didn't -- my call is about the illegal immigration. they didn't have the problem then that we have today. i think that the one thing that needs to be changed about it is that if you are born in the u.s. you are automatically a citizen. automatically become a citizen.

but i think it should be changed because the people that are coming in here to have the children, a lot of them are illegal. they're not supposed to be here. so in reality we're giving legalization to two people, the mother and the child. i think we should go ahead and take care of the baby and after they get the mother gets well enough to travel back send them back over where they came from because it's breaking our social security system and we really do need to change that, change that in the constitution. glenn: back to our tweet. back to the phones. louisiana, ron on our line for independents.

caller: thank you. my name is ron and i think the constitution is basically a great document that has stood the test of time. of course, i do believe that the amendment that's the last amendment was amended that should be implemented and you've heard a few callers that mentioned what they thought the amendments might be. however, i am a black person age 58 and i love my country. and the constitution is a good document. change is always good, in order but it's mostly constructive. the united states is a nation of immigrants so we must keep that in mind before we start talking about shipping people back to other places. glenn: how does the constitution, what's the significance of the constitution in your daily life? caller: the significance of the constitution in my daily life,

you know, it covers such a wide variety. for example, the right to bear arms. so in the state of louisiana you can -- we have a lot of hunters. i like to hunt, myself. so if i go through the proper channels, i can carry a gun and so forth. so it protects basic rights. and that's good. and we need to cherish that. so i think it's a good thing. glenn: troferinge the second amendment reads as follows chicago, illinois also on our line for independents. john you're on the "washington journal." glenn: i'm calling about the

earlier caller complaining about federal income taxes. my comment back to him would be then eliminate the entire federal government. we don't need the government, we don't need the president. we don't need the military. how are you supposed to pay for that if you can't have income tax? glenn: all right. john in chicago, illinois. and bridgeport, connecticut, cecil on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i really appreciate you coming on this morning talking about what you're talking about because i actually have two pafse pending in connecticut because of me exercising my first amendment right. i have a court case in new haven superior federal court and a case in hartford's superior court because i would not drop my public safety concerns i was terminated from my job after being there for 24 years and i have a problem with elected officials and people that look like you and i when

goy to them ask for support they say i know those people. and instead of them doing what they swore under oath to do, but they use it for that purpose and it's ashame that the constitution cannot be handled unless you go to court. glenn: in the baltimore sun this morning, solar loan questions heat up. obama fund raiser linked to program that helped the firm in the tribune newspapers.

back to the phones in our discussion regarding significance of the constitution in your daily life. wanda on our line for independents calling from louisiana. caller: yes. i am an independent and i've always been an independent. and our constitution has been raped. and i rap about that. glenn: you rap about that? caller: yes, i do. i do political rap. glenn: give me a couple of rap.

caller: i'm calling for a piece of revolution, like it said we can't end the constitution. thomas jefferson said change the government every 20 years and the constitution. i'm asking for a peaceful revolution. glenn: wanda in new orleans on our line for independents. a little more regarding constitution day in this morning's "new york times."

glenn: back to the phones. alabama on our line for dracts. caller: how are you? glenn: fine. talk to me about the significance. caller: i'm 75 years old an african descendant. but to me the constitution was written by flawed men. they were slavers at that time. they had people such as i who couldn't even vote and be counted as people. but let me say this to the gentleman who called saying changing the constitution. some people say it's written in stone. those men were thinkers too but if you could change the constitution the guy who was talking his ancestors 500 years ago or 600 years ago weren't

even known in this place. they were the illegal immigrants and they should go back and everybody who didn't come in here legally should be sent back and most white people would be sent back. so don't tell us about the constitution. the constitution has never pro tect african people. it still doesn't. it needs to be changed in order to protect the african people today. glenn: more news this morning. this from the "new york times."

zpwoo back to the phones and back to chicago. line for independents you're on the "washington journal." caller: look, i am a lay person and i will say to get [inaudible] into court because they committed, they conspired and committed fraud against -- they stole my money when i sold a house and the judge would not allow me to be there. zpwoo and have you been working through court system? ted: caller: yes. i used the constitution to ask the judge to move off the case because i couldn't get no

justice in the courtroom. i want my aun >> next up, jackie on our line for independents. caller: good morning. the guy from tuscaloosa, alabama, just took the words out of my mouth. i was going to say the exact same thing. europeans are the first illegal immigrants to this country. >> let's move beyond that and talk to me a little more about the significance of the constitution in your daily life. caller: it doesn't have any bearing on my daily life. the constitution didn't include people that look like me. that's my whole point. europeans came over here illegally and they -- nothing about the constitution applies to black people. >> nothing? caller: it is what it is. that's something that europeans created. that's because i'm here i have to abide by it.

but as far as in my daily life it's not important. you know, the united states doesn't even uphold their own constitutional way that they go around the world murdering people and invading sovereign countries. so all of their whole constitution stuff when these republicans that's running for president, brings up the constitution, they only bring it up when it's in their best interest. >> jackie in woodbridge, illinois. we talked earlier about house republican leaders finding things to like about president obama's job plan. the president talks about his job plan in this weekend's radio address. >> on monday i will lay out my plan for how we will do that. how we will pay for this plan and pay down the debt by following principles. making sure we live within our means and asking everyone to pay their fair share. but right now we have got to get congress to pass this jobs bill. everything in the american jobs act is the kind of idea that's

been supported by democrats and republicans before. and if they are ideas you agree with then every one of you can help make it happen by telling your congressperson to pass this jobs bill right away. i know some of them would rather wait another year than work together right now but most americans don't have the luxury of waiting. it was three years ago this week that a financial crisis on wall street made things much more difficult for working folks on main street. and too many are still hurting as a result. so the time for action is now. >> back to the phones we're talking about the significance of the constitution in your daily life this morning on the "washington journal." next call from massachusetts. joe on our line for independents. caller: good morning. first, to jackie from woodbridge, you go girl. i would just like to point out to my fellow citizens that there is nothing in the constitution that says one

needs to love the country. and there's nothing in the constitution that tells me i need to submit to flag worship. and that's my point. >> do you feel that in some ways that you've been forced to do this or that you've been against your will that you have to do these kind of things? caller: as a child when they tried to indocket nate me into this with the pledge every day and after i became war criminal during the vietnam war i realized what a fallsy it was. >> we've got an op ed in this morning's "washington journal" under the title, a pro-trade agenda for u.s. jobs.

freedom of speech and my personal presence, freedom of the press. i like the idea that the press really does do good coverage on thing but serp parts is very select. certain things don't get cord. and i believe there needs to be that more clarity in the press and everything because certain topics that people find really interesting and care about are simply ignored from time to

time. and the second thing -- host: hold on. let's stay there for a second. give me an example of a topic you think is not getting covered in the press and why you think it may have to do with constitutional restrictions rather than editorial choices. caller: well, certain editorial choices are rather select at times. one reference i would like to use is, well, the israeli protests that were occurring about a month ago when 100,000 protesters or so started their own protest er saturday. there was hardly any coverage in the united states. we speak for the constitution itself. and there was really none of this. and with all the interest, i figured, well, america should get into this a little bit. but it was rather ignored in the media. but the other thing, in honor of constitution day and in honor of our libertarian

candidate for president ron paul i make a shout out to him, good luck in 2012, sir. host: we'll leave it there. another tweet this one says back to the phones. john on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. one of the things that most impresses me about a lot of the calls, they have great points. but nobody has really mentioned that the constitution is just like the rules of the road. if you don't have rules, can you imagine trying to drive down the expressway? and i, while we drive on the right side of the road and there are other countries like britain where they drive on the left side of the road, they at least all have to follow some kind of rules. and that's what i think the

constitution is. host: constitution is rules of the road for john in philadelphia, pennsylvania. we have got an emp mail from an unidentified viewer who writes st. louis, missouri on our line for democrats. lauren. go ahead. caller: i just wanted -- i actually work for the city. one of the things that i have noticed is whether it's democrats or republicans or libertarian or what, when it comes to certain issues like property maintenance and things like that we all want to live in a democracy and have our

constitutional rights respected when it comes to our property. but the minute our neighbor or something like that does something that we don't like, it's like we want that democracy to turn into a dictatorship and we want the government to come in and make our neighbor, not us of course because we have rights, but our neighbor shouldn't have the same rights as we do. and the fact of the matter is that in this society, you know, some people take advantage of the rights to the point where it is a hindrance on your neighbors but still, you know, they're using their constitutional rights. the city can't make someone maintain their property or go on to their property and maintain it for them. we've got to give them, due diligence in maintaining their own property and things like that. so when it comes to our

perception of the constitution, i think it's fairly self-serving in a lot of ways. host: lauren on our line for democrats calling this morning from st. louis, missouri. this morning we also have this article from the baltimore sun. patent reforms boost to jobs far off.

back to the phones. columbus, ohio. judy on our line for republicans. caller: hello. good morning. host: talk to us about the significance of the constitution in your daily life. caller: it gives me the right as a woman to vote. and i have voted in every election since i turned 18. and also to see the right to own property as a woman. gives me property rights. host: thanks. michigan, sarah on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.

caller: i think the importance of the constitution in my everyday life is beautiful. i love it. i acknowledge a lot of the callers that have called in and saying the mind state of the forefathers, and how includes africans. as an african now it applies to us. it's a living, breathing, document. and so there's definitely a deep appreciation in it. but one caller said now gives us the same right as a white man who may be a descendant of one of the forefathers. so it's a beautiful document and if you read it and interpret it and find beauty in it then you can bring it into your life and find beauty in your life. so i love it.

host: and the "washington post" this morning.

apec's north carolina, karen on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the constitution is a great document. i disagree with some of the fellow americans that have called in and said that it does not include all races. just because some of them were slay owners does not mean they were following our great constitution because it says god given unalienable rights to all human beings. and i believe that goes out to our unborn also. and westbound fighting men that die for our freedoms all the time. but i want to concentrate on that one because that's where the rest of them are derived from. it's not given to us by men. and if it was given to us by

men then men would be able to have the right to take it away from us. and we have been to other countries and my husband and son have been into communist country where you could not go to another just into the town next to you without papers and without guns put into your face. so there are people out there just make this one more comment. there are people out there say what they may in the propaganda that has been put out and the things that i disagree going on right now within our government are thing that is have gone beyond what the constitution has given them to do. and so we just need to make those things right. but there are people all around the world right now that are trying to get to this country. people that spent years saving money to get to this country because they want to be able to live free too. host: karen from north carolina. the constitution of the united

states begins as follows. we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union establish justice, ensure domes strick tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordane and establish this constitution for the united states of america. indiana, kevin on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: my name is kevin and i'm 17 years old. and i'm not really educated as much as other people are on the programming. but one thing i do know, that the constitution it was ratified in 1789 to provide a framework for the governing nation composed of 13 separate sovereign states. and now there's over 50 states and so many laws have changed that it's just, i think it's so easy to mask things.

like with oil, anything. you can mask it with paperwork. host: even as a 17-year-old there in indiana talk to us about how the significance of the constitution in your daily life. caller: well, i like the second amendment, because i like to hunt and i do believe in the right to bear arms. and another thing is that i'm an independent contractor so i pretty much, i want to be my own business owner and i love the fact that i can do that in the united states. that's honestly, i love the freedoms that we have here. i just think that a lot of the things in the constitution are masked. i don't know. host: thanks for your call. in this morning's new york daily news.

kansas city, missouri. day on our line for democrats. caller: the constitution i agree with one of the callers. it does not protect black people. even though it states that all men are created equal in our constitution, you have certain rights, but like i said when it comes down to justice and equal rights and media, those things are alienated from black people. because the reason i say that is because they choose what

they want to put in the media when it comes down to black people to cover up their issues because i couldn't get media i had to post a website on you tube called the best way to get laid in court. and this is sad but true story about our constitution and our rights. basically i was arrested for returning someone's wallet and found not guilty and sued for damages and i went in the courtroom with no record and it was the judge, jury, and executioner. and therefore i feel that this thing is a mess about the constitution. they only give rights to whom they so choose. and because of that, you know, this whole thing is masked. host: we're going to leave that there and move on to tom for republicans in kentucky. good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. our constitution is a wonderful document but it was written in a very primitive time. just as our bible was. and yet we want to separate our church and state. we try to tie them together. and people want to use both of them to satisfy whatever need they want for today. and the best example is the right to bear arms. i'm sure our forefathers could never have foreseen what we have today. we have a lot of crime. and it's guns that cause this. and i'm not against owning guns. however, i grew up in the 50's and 60's and i bet there wasn't one gun in my neighborhood. today there are guns in every house. we think we need them for our own protection. but our constitution, it could never have ever have foreseen the things that we were doing today. i think it needs to be updated and i think the people need to

take into conversation that the bible and the constitution are not the same. thank you very much. host: we want to let our viewers and listeners know about a couple of programming notes. first, coming up on wednesday, live on c-span on the "washington journal," spotlight on magazines takes a look at go green by cutting the government. and they are going to be talking about how organizations have joined with others to issue a report that shows how much government is spending, is wasting, and environmentally destructive and reading their article at a weekly standard.com and you can join us in their discussion talking about going green by cutting government.

also, we want to let folks know that c-span's student cam documentary competition is under way for 2012. the competition is open to middle and high school students grade 6 through 12. this year's theme, the constitution and you. the video must be 5-8 minutes in length, show more than one point of view, and must include c-span programming. the deadline to submit your video is january 20, 2012. grand prize winners get $5,000 with other prizes totalling $50,000. coming up on the "washington journal" after this break, a discussion regarding the solar company backed by federal money. its col laps and what's happening. coming up to talk to us about

that is amy harder of the national journal. we'll be back to talk about that in just a few minutes.

host: amy is energy and environment report we are national george and is here to talk with us about the company that is looking like its collapsing and what the ties were between the company and the administration. welcome to the program. ted: thanks for having me. host: tell us briefly what is the company and how did we get to where we are? ted: it's a perfect storm for the administration and a hey day for the republicans in congress. it's a solar manufacturer. it was the first renewable energy company that the obama administration awarded a loan guarantee under its stimulus plan in 2009. it produced a more unique type of solar panel that didn't use

sillcon and that time seemed to have been market advantage at the time that changed over the last couple of years. and it got this loan guarantee and then just over earlier this month it filed for bankruptcy. since then it's been a downward spiral for the company and the administration. host: you wrote on september 14, we got this from national journal.com. bad bet or tip of the iceberg. talk to us about that. ted: i borrowed that quote from house energy committee chairman who at the hearing this week where two top administration officials testified that's what he said. and of course his coming is from a perspective but i think with the various investigations going on both within congress and different parts of the administration and different parts of the government, that answer will bear out is was this just a bad bet in terms of that particular type of solar panel or was this some sort of

systemic problem within the loan guarantee program? and i think even energy secretary conceded that he is going to have to look into the program. and he has been invited to testify to congress on that. host: talk to us a little bit more about the hearing that took place this week. who was there? what did they talk about? idgetsdz there were two top executives. they were supposed to be there but given another big part of this is there is an f.b.i. investigation going on which is sort of the cherry on top of the whole funding in terms of the perfect storm. they didn't testify because of the bankruptcy proceedings tand f.b.i. investigation. but the two administration officials, and the acting deputy director of the white house office of management and budget, those two officials are really the heads of the two

most critical parts of the administration. what i found a bit striking was neither one of them were present in the administration when this loan was approved. so a lot of the questions that the republicans and democrats asked, they couldn't answer. there were the, as part of the house republicans investigation, they uncovered a lot of these pretty telling e-mails that suggest to the white house has intervened and tried to speed up the process and there was some pushback and the officials from omd and dough couldn't answer the questions because they weren't there. so i thot there were a lot of unanswered questions. host: we want to take a look at that hearing. and at this particular exchange between representatives sterns and jonathan silver of the department of energy talking about what they were spending their money on. and we'll take a look at that. and then talk more with amy of national journal. >> so i guess the problem we have is what was solindra

burning all this money on? can you tell me today? >> in the most general terms, and i can't give you dollars and cents sitting here today, but they built this brand new huge fabication facility which was approximately a 700 and change million dollar facility. equipped with advanced state robotics. they had a smaller proto type plant if you will called fab 1. and they had hired, which was also part of the set of objectives, hired hundreds of additional people. there were 3,000 people involved in the construction of the plant. >> i'm just saying with your experience, i'm surprised you didn't see this cash burn rate as a serious flag. >> we did. we did, congressman. and we talked with the company about it regularly. but i need to underscore something i said before. as lenders, and particularly with lender liability issues,

we are not actually in a position to force a company to do anything. host: amy is here with us, energy and environment reporter from the national journal talking to us about the situation about the solar company backed by federal money. and that exchange that we just looked at also is illustrated in this headline from the "wall street journal" on friday. loan was their undoing. talk to us about that. host: right. i saw that story. i think that in that story it talked about how given the government support it was a $535 million loan or half a billion dollars of taxpayer money. as soon as the government got involved, then that made the investors a bit more cagey about getting involved as well and so it sort of stunt the company's own ability to make decisions in a more realistic market, which is cast with this

injection of cash from the government i think they had a bit more higher aspirations than the market would allow them to. i've talked to some energy experts within congress and also close to the administration and they said that they could have survived -- likely would have survived if it didn't try to be a bigger company than its niche type of solar panel would have originally allowed. for instance, if it had an employee count of maybe 300 people it would have been able to continue operating. but it tried to have 1100 and expand into the commodities market and it wasn't sustainable given the plummeting prices of typical solar panels made of silicon. that was really the biggest reason why this company went into bankruptcy. but clearly there's sefrl. >> for those who want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.

you can also get in touch with us via e-mail, twitter, or facebook. our first call for amy comes from glennford, ohio. rhonda on our line for democrats. caller: i have a question. if the bankruptcy is allowed to be put through even though it is federally backed by the federal government and the bankruptcy is allowed to be put through, what about all the student loans that are federally backed and everyday people, the hard-working man is actually being put into poverty because they can't afford to pay back their student loans that was federally backed? so why is big businesses allowed to file bankruptcy and with federal money? what is the stand on that? >> that's the question that republicans in congress at the hearing last week, that's what

they kept asking the administration officials about. and rightfully so, democrats also are very concerned that taxpayer money is going to waste because these businesses can't survive whether it was the government's fault or the company's fault. but it is a lot of money. and while their loan was a half billion dollars, there are just between now and the end of this month the energy department is going to hopefully, if it gets done, wants to approve 14 more loan guarantees. and the government runs the risk of more of these companies going into bankruptcy. and we don't know how that's going to turn out. and of course there's going to be a ripple effect in terms of where that money could have gone otherwise. host: and you are talking, or you're references a headline that's in the "washington post." so while on the one hand they're looking at why all this money went in, the energy department is still shoveling the money out.

>> exactly. i asked around yesterday as well. and between now and september 30, the way the stimulus law was written it had a sunset clause that by september 30, 2011 all of the loan guarantees under this particular program in the energy program have to be closed. and that was because when obama passed the law it was a stimulus. a short-term stimulus. so there was reason for that. but now as we're less than two weeks under that deadline, there's 14 pending and the administration -- the total comes to about $9.3 billion. and it's under a microscope now trying to get these through. between now and then and not -- who knows if they're going to succeed on that. several months ago, the director of the loan guarantee program sent out a letter to i think it was a dozen or more companies telling them that they would not be able to receive the loan guarantee as

they had conditionally been committed to and that was because of the sunset clause included in that list was cape wind, which is known as the country's first offshore wind farm. so those products in addition to the 14 in the pipeline now is going to remain to be seen whether or not the energy department can and should also do that. host: back to the phones you're on with amy harder of national journal. . .

when the obama put money into it, and put as a part of the stimulus program, it was actually created under the bush administration, it was to make energy technologies more prevalent around the country, but that does not seem to have borne out. host: paul on our line for republicans in ocala, florida. caller: was solyndra using their panels to power their own plant?

guest: you know, that is a good question. i do not know the answer. that is something that by the congressional hearing this friday will be a great question to ask. members of congress do not pass, i will make sure to test. host: we plan to have live coverage on one of the c-span networks. we will get the details later next week. indiana. on our line for democrats. caller: thank you. you're my favorite post. this is my question -- maybe there is a correlation between solyndra or renewable energy getting so little funding, and big oil getting so much -- maybe

if big oil got a little bit less, and renewable energy got a lot more, maybe it would be profitable, and these companies would not be folding and tried to create jobs here, which is of the republicans do not know anything about host: amy harder? -- about. host: amy harder? guest: you make a good point. at issue over this deficit, democrats have targeted tax breaks to oil industry is receding right now. they total $4 billion a year. while there is always a big fight over that, i do not anticipate a big unraveling of those subsidies given the subsidies. on the other hand, the tax cut which is imperative given this

solyndra story, whether it is loan guarantees, grants, whatever form it comes in, it needs to be renewed and one or two-year basis. that is why there is always a massive fight to get money continually approved. -- whether orry not it was the cause for its bankruptcy, or it was systematic issues in the loan guarantee program, it will have a horrible effect on trying to get funding for more renewable energy. so, i think it will have the opposite effect than what the administration wants, and they keep trying to underscore the importance of investing in a clean energy. interior secretary ken salazar is going to nevada on tuesday to firm, andw solar that as brave of him, but you

did not see president obama talking about that. host: lead story in "the washington post." host: back to the phones. cincinnati, ohio. john, on our line for republicans. caller: i cannot understand. i have been following the solyndra congressional hearings, and i cannot understand why our doe what have lent these people money. they said they did not have enough money to function through 2011, yet we turn around and give them half of $1 billion of taxpayer money, knowing they did

not have enough money to function, even with a loan. i watch this, and i watched these people skirt around the answers that the congress has asked them, and personally, i think they should all go to prison. this is nothing but a scam. it reminds me of the enron scandal. these people should go to prison. they don't the people out of half of a billion dollars at a time when people of the united states are struggling to get by, and none of them can tell us where that money is. guest: you make some great point. in terms of going to prison, i think the fbi investigation will shed some light on whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing on the part of solyndra or the federal government within the office of management and budget, or the loan guarantee program. in addition, the treasury

department is investigating a portion of its department called the federal funding banks, which has a role in the long process as well. still, there are several investigations going on to determine whether there was some sort of concerted wrongdoing. in terms of why the government approved the loan despite e- mail and other suggestions that indicated there were legitimate issues with alone, i think that is a great question that brings me back to what i said earlier that officials testifying lest we could not answer those questions. i thought there were a lot of questions not answered as well, and they did not shed any light on that. this coming week, with the solyndra executives, they will shed some light as well. in terms of the energy department and the federal government's decision, they had confidence in it. they wanted to continue going forward with that despite e-

mails suggesting otherwise. host: critics say the white house is playing favorites when it comes to choosing the first recipient of this loan guarantee and the white house says it plays no such role and nearly had an interest in the timing of the event because vice president joe biden was coming to speak. your thoughts? guest: this makes a much more political issue than it would be otherwise. comments from the administration from president obama, vice president joe biden -- republicans like to quote president obama same solyndra it is the true engine of economic growth, and joe biden tied the 1100 jobs or so that would be permanently created. now this is coming back to haunt them given the solyndra is going under. in terms of playing favorites, i do not think that is an overriding issue, and folks i

talk to on either side agree to that. the time that was really critically into whether or not this loan would ultimately get approved was that chilly march, 2009, when it was given at a which was actually march, 2009, when it was actually given a conditional loan. there were concerns around the the there were concerns around the timing. solyndra was the first loan guarantee that had given out before. it was sort of a guinea pig. it did not bear out to be a good guinea pig, there were unique characteristics of this situation i know there has been some talk -- situation. i know there has been some talk with the investor of solyndra been a fund-raiser for obama. republicans did not bring that up so much terror they're more concerned about tax payer money. -- so much.

they are more concerned over taxpayer money. host: on this sunday's addition of "newsmakers" henry waxman is our guest, and we will show you part of the interview, when he talks about why the administration used bad judgment in extending loan guarantees -- about whether the industry's -- the administration used bad judgment in extending loan guarantees. >> i see suggestions that you may have believed that it administration used bad judgment in making this loan, saying "there might have been potential for sloppy or inadequate that in." do you think used bad judgment? >> i think we need to investigate this matter, and

find out what happened pepys might be a possibility, but the thing that bothered me the most -- happened. the thing that might be a possibility. the thing that bothered me the most was the ceo of solyndra came into my office and said revenues would be increased, and within a month they were bankrupt. i want to know what they presented to the administration when they were trying to get their loan guarantee and further forbearance following additional money to be raised by private investors and have the guarantees apply to that as well. host: you will be able to see the full interview tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. amy harder, talk a little bit more about what henry waxman had to say, and how does this reflect on the administration? >> i thought the democrats were

much more muted than they usually are. this is a bipartisan concern. henry waxman and the representative of colorado, the ranking member on the investigations subcommittee where these hearings are taking place, they sent a letter, or so ago asking the majority to bring solyndra executives to testify because they both men with solyndra executives, and they are very rightfully concerned with what appears to be some misleading on behalf of the company in terms of financial well-being. in other filings to the government, solyndra did indicate it was losing money. so, i think friday's hearing, september 23, the investigations subcommittee will shed a lot of light on that, and it will be much more revealing than the one

we had last week, because a lot of decisions were made by the solyndra executives. host: we have a copy of that letter to chairman stearns. they write -- host: back to the phones, and our discussion with amy harder. houston, texas is where we go for our call from patty, and our line for democrats. caller: it appalls me that every time they get on there, -- i get very upset. i know he is trying -- president obama is trying to bail out the country. president bush did everything, and it went down, down, down.

it is a scam on that, too. when your guests come in, i can tell what date -- what they are. because suspicion right is a freedom of speech -- the constitution right is a freedom of speech and assembly. host: we will leave it there, and keep it to our discussion regarding solyndra. guest: i think where she might have been going with the is the track that obama is a it is not working, and i would like to point out that obama's just peace to the joint session of -- jobs speech to the joint session of congress and did not mention green jobs at all. he stated in january the clean energy was a clique -- keep

heller. in this recent jobs beach, he realizes -- in this latest jobs speech, he realizes it is not a short-term stimulus like state tax breaks to hire workers that are more immediate. i think that was an implicit acknowledgement on behalf of the administration. host: we have this tweet -- guest: right. i did not know the specific number of companies that have gone bankrupt, but in terms of china and its solar market, and renewable energy at large, is pouring billions of dollars into subsidies for the solar industry in china. that was one of the biggest reasons why energy analysts say solyndra went under because it's unique solar panels could not

compete with the more typical ones the chinese were producing. getting back to the "wall street journal, call article in terms of companies that do not -- "wallgton journal r-- street journal" article, in terms of companies trying to jump test an initial hurdle, that was not the case for solyndra. host: what exactly is the loan guarantee? guest: i think there has been a lot of confusion about what exactly it is. involved is a direct loan of money from one entity to another. then there is the loan guarantee, where in this case the government does not actually load any money, but it facilitates along with the

private lender, such as a bank. say a $535 loan falls through, the government and not the bank is on the hook. there is one small amount of difference. half of the company's pending for the loan guarantee, seven of those are actually darling from the treasury department of the federal financing bank, so when those seven cases it is actually a direct loan. that is not well known, and often glossed over. a lot of experts i've talked to have conversations about the distinction, and they say it is a difference with a distinction, because in the end that government is still on the hook. host: arkansas. brenda on our line for independencts. caller: there is a lot of talk

about george kaiser. he is been to the white house 16 times the visiting valerie jarrett. he bundle of money for solyndra and for obama. why are people not asking more questions about that? also, we do hedge races. when people say we do not have a choice about what is going on, we do. we go to the polls every four years. we need to look at our candidates and the things they believe in. president obama was very clear about taking energy prices through the roof. guest: you need a good point. there are a lot of connections between george kaiser and the white house, and there are stories about that. personally, i was surprised to

not see it come up more. the want and it did come up was by ranking member henry waxman, when he was trying to preemptively dispute the arguments he thought republicans would say about the political connections. it is being made more in the media than congress, and the reason for that is because there are so many layers to this story. the initial bankruptcy. obama calling solyndra the true engine of economic growth. touting all the jobs. there are so many things for congressional republicans to attack obama on, it is better for the republicans to talk about how taxpayers are effected, rather than talk about this one investor. i think it will continue to be an issue, i just cannot think it

is the most overriding issue, and whether or not that is right i think remains to be seen. host: for those not familiar with all of the players in this drama, remind us to george kaiser is? >> he is in the national gas industry. he made his fortunes in the national gas and oil industry. his from oklahoma. his top fund-raiser for obama over the last couple of years, -- he has helped fund-raiser for obama over the last couple of years. the other investors in solyndra are republican backers, so they tried to dispute the political connection. george kaiser is another character in this whole thing. i think is a supporting character in terms of the important thing, but it is true, and that is what makes this an intriguing story -- it is a perfect storm for the

administration, and as for republicans, it is the gift that keeps on giving. obama has not engaged at all because it is a toxic situation. host: raleigh, n.c., fred, on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you. from the local paper and read an article from the associated press -- "the obama administration restructured a half billion dollars federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors, including a fund-raiser for president obama move the head of taxpayers for repayment and -- in case of default, government records show." why do we the taxpayer get

blamed with this, and how does loans and other such companies turn out? guest: i have that story that broke yesterday evening. the fact that the obama administration restructure the loan in february of this year, that has been reported several times over the last couple of weeks, and yes, the obama administration did restructure in a way to private investors would get money back before the government, and congressional republicans have said that appears to be in violation of the energy policy act of 2005. part of that law states that the government can not be subordinated to any other investor of party. i think this is definitely -- know why and how bad the administration restructured the loan will be a dominant -- the why and the how the

administration ratio should alone will be a dominant issue -- administration restructure the loan will be a dominant issue. the administration, rationale is that was the only way they could get it to be restructured while keeping investors on board. it is a thin line in terms of whether they were trying to please charge kaiser, or save taxpayer money. they had conference the company would succeed if this loan was restructured. the end of been the wrong bet. host: there are scheduled to testify? guest: they're not scheduled yet. steven chu has made clear his interest.

i am confident they will testify in the coming weeks, although not next week. those are official said have been here throughout the process, unlike administration officials that testified last week. that is when those questions will be answered. host: amy harder is a energy and environment reporter with "the national journal." you can find her articles at nationaljournal.com. next call, new haven, conn., and john. caller: i realize amy harder is just a reporter, but all of these loans that are taken out, are they not given in portion as you go along? so, in the middle, you cannot say i spent $700 billion.

let's go with that large amount -- $700 billion was supposed to be spent. it is the third year. there is no way i spent that much because it is given in portions, so where is the other money, doesn't go back into the system, does the loan get deferred? how does that work? a lot of people are confused. you can not receive that as you go along and you submit more information, the more information you were going in the right direction, then you keep it. host: john, in new haven connecticut. guest: you raise it to a question. -- raise a great question. everyone refers to this as a $530 loan. -- $530 billion loan.

there is is almost all of the money -- they received almost all of the money. you raise a great question. at the energy department is given the ability to monitor these loans, and according to emails that have been released by house republicans, it does seem to look like there were several red flags about this company going under despite its active affirmation otherwise. but, the restructuring of the loan in february, 2011, said at that point, i think i would have to check my numbers on this, but it might have been around the five and a million-dollar mark. that would have been another $27 million of taxpayer money we would have saved. in fact, right before the company declared bankruptcy, they try to seek another alone and the energy department said no. so, we only saved $7 million.

you're right. it is these loans the u.s. to check regularly, and in -- you have to check regularly, and in this class, the red flags were not read enough to pull the plug. host: "the washington post, called ." want to assure you this from don ritchie -- guest: that is a great point. i keep going back to the perfect storm idea. this company was not the first renewable energy country -- co., if it was not the first, it would not be so bad. the administration officials continually stressed that that

was an inherent risk of this program, and everybody should know that. so many things are converging on this one company. it is setting a very bad political precedent for future ones. we will see it as a bad debt or the tip of the iceberg. i think the administration wants to stress that it was a bad back. i want to note that solyndra was a fall on manufactured. most of the other companies in the queue are actually power generators, solar farms, or wind farms. those are much less riskier than manufacturers. they're not s object to the changing market and other things like that. -- as subject to the changing market and other things. host: rocky martin -- rocky

mountain, north carolina. caller: i am concerned about senior citizens. since obama has been the president, and nobody has talked about the cost of living raise we are entitled to. i think they forget about the people that served this country. host: did you want to say something about the solyndra situation? caller: know. i just want to know what happened to the cost-of-living raises. host: patrick on our line for republicans. caller: the investors or their backers that the loan guarantee, were they considered when the firm failed -- were they given money for themselves? i understand't --

the republican administration saying the obama administration is a failure. guest: that remains to be seen. the bankruptcy filings and processing is on going with solyndra. they filed for bankruptcy several weeks ago. as a lengthy process. going back to what i mentioned about the restructuring of the loan in the way the government did that, apparently given the emails and other documents in the investigation, it does appear the the private investor would get their money back before the government does. it remains to be seen whether or not that was a breach of law, and whether or not that will happen. in terms of your second question, i think obama's debt on clean energy, while he is not retreated from that completely,

he certainly has no public statements and his jobs speech. even clean energy experts concede it is a long-term investment, not short-term, and that might have been -- a former member of the obama administration told me this is not the best program under the stimulus s, and that is the area to be true. i think there is some disconnect whether cleaner energy can be a short-term job post. host: amy harder of "national journal" thank you for being on our program. we want to let our viewers now you can get updates on what is airing on all three of ours is the networks by following us at c-span now on twitter. hit fog to get all of our schedule updates. -- hit follow to get all of our

schedule updates. coming up, a discussion on federal efforts to combat the stink bug. you are watching the "washington journal." we will be right back. >> which part of the u.s.

constitution is important to you? that is our question is this here's student cam competition. making a video documentary 5-to- eight minutes long, and tell us which part is important to you. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there are $50,000 in total prize is, and a grand prize of $5,000. ♪ >> spend next weekend in charlotte, n.c., with booktv and

american history tv. throughout the weekend, the literary life from the side of the democratic convention. the banking industry with rick acker and a visit to park road books. on american history television, tore 11th president james polk's first place -- birthplace. the discussion on lunch counter citizens, and visit the -- gold mine, or gold was first discovered in america. next weekend on c-span 2 and 3. >> watch more videos of the candidates, track what reporters

are saying, and track the latest contributions with c- span's web site for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with the latest polling data and links to seize the media partners in the early primary and -- to c-span's media partners in the early primary and caucus states. >> "washington journal" continues. host: will be talking about federal office to combat the stink bug, but to help us understand this issue we have a regulatory and industry affairs authority with the apple industry. mark, thank you for being on the program. tell us about the emergence of a brown marmorated stink bug and why this is a big issue for the federal government.

guest: this became important last year, even though it has been in the u.s. since about the mid-1990's. it has built up a population, particularly in the mid-atlantic area that as of last year cost really devastating losses to a number of folks in the mid- atlantic food production. that is one more thing that galvanized our efforts because this insect pests and invasive species seems to be unlike anything else that we had to deal with in terms of the scope that it attacked, the inability to kill it effectively with most conventional pesticides, and its unique ways of living, and destroying crops. all of those combined to make this thing a huge threat. u.s. apple estimates losses of

about 18% of the apple crop in the mid-atlantic area. that is a huge loss for one simple test. host: mark seetin of the usf association. talk about the loss in terms of money and the assistance you're looking for from the federal government. guest: we estimate the total cost of about $37 million. in terms of the economic impact, you could multiplied by five because of the relationship in terms of the retail chain. what we did it u.s. apple because our growers were so concerned, we immediately you -- looked to the usda agricultural resource to provide research support to areas of agriculture.

without that the infrastructure, we would have been in very, very bad conditions because of the time we have not noted, and in fact tracy leskey had been working on this incense for a number of years. we had an incomplete knowledge base. had we not have that the infrastructure, we would have been in much worse condition. host: we will talk to tracy leskey and a few seconds, mark seetin, what are apple-growers doing to come back this stink bug in terms of pesticides? what is the cost to farmers, and alter the, what will the cost be to consumers? guest: we have a great debt that we all to the researchers in the area and tracy leskey and her team, because they are really

under the gun of having the past attacked us, they put together a program that looked at pesticides that were effective and the way the growers have to apply them, and providing information to growers in terms of how they have to deal with that. as a result of that, this year, growers certainly were aware of it. they took action, and they followed the recommendations developed by tracey and her fellow researchers. we have seen some significant results. the harvest is still 45 days away or so from completion. it looks like these new techniques in terms of knowing that the bug is mobile, it does not reside in an orchard. you have to attack not think -. you have to be vigilant in looking for damage because you have to deal with the stink bug when it is present.

that information has been incredibly helpful. host: mark seetin, is the employer association calling on congress to act and what do you hope they could do? guest: we first thought that the allocation of funding resources to the agricultural research service -- says scientists have the resources to address this test that we still believe is a significant national threat to a cross-section of agricultural production. it is not just apples. the stink bug attacks almost anything. we wanted to have the usda provide a significant increase in funding for research activities. the second thing, of course the budget is very tight right now the federal level.

the specialty crop research initiative -- that was created in the 2000 farm bill to provide funding for minor crops and specialty crops, which ed balls are -- which apple crops are. a lot of times we end of getting it short shrift when it came to research. specific crises could receive funding allocation to address them. so, tracy leskey entertain, we supported very strongly -- and her team, we supported very strongly this research effort. they put together one of with the largest efforts in history. over 50 scientists in 10 states

across the country gathered together to attack this test on a broader range of fronts, so we could tip the knowledge as quickly as possible -- pest on a broader range of fronts, so we could get the knowledge as quickly as possible. host: mark seetin, thank you for being on the program, and how did this didn't understanding of the brown marmorated stink bug. -- and for helping us understand the braun marmorated stink bug. guest: thank you, and i want to sit thank you 2 tracy leskey. host: thank you for being of the phone with us. guest: thank you. host: we will continue our

conversation with kevin hackett. what is the federal government's role in combating a species like the stink bug? guest: mark seetin and the u.s. apple industry, this is national citizenship day, and we interact with which we depend on the interaction with growers -- we depend on the interaction with growers and the citizens. what is the the response of the federal government? we have responded in several different ways. one of which is organizationally, as mark indicated. basically, we have an infrastructure. mark mention that word. it is critical. we build decades of infrastructure. we are ready to respond to a new test when it comes into the country. we monitor. we have a general invasive species response. the president, in 1999, signed

an executive order that established the national invasive species council. we have groups associated with that matter -- that are association. this is a way that federal, state, and other workers come together in all aspects. they come together to respond, to get the right people of the table. in the case of the brown marmorated stink bug, we have been looking at this for all eight -- for about a decade. we found out it was in the country in early 2001. we did a risk study on this to find out how serious the threat was going to be turned -- going to be. we had national experts looking at the biology.

the agriculture research service, with tracy leskey and others, started doing research, looking to develop monitoring tools, biological control, etc. host: we want to mention that kevin hackett is with the usda's agricultural research service, the senior program -- senior national program leader. why is this a government responsibility? why is it not the responsibility of the farmers and the people that grow apples and other crops that have been attacked by this brown marmorated stink bug? guest: we are all working on this together, actually. it is certainly the irresponsibility of the federal government with its infrastructure of science -- certainly is the responsibility of the federal government with a sentence structure of science built over decades. they can provide important information.

even a citizen of. their backyard garden can provide information -- assistant in in their backyard garden can provide information. that kind of information is important to us. we feel taking care of scientific collections, and unseen part of the federal government, which systematics are a key part. we use our belts though laboratory together with the system -- smithsonian institution to identify the insects and the natural enemies we might be able to use for biological control. host: tracy leskey is a research entomologist with the usda agricultural research service. talk about the science of the stink bug. what is it, where did it come from, and why is it causing these problems?

guest: lebron marmorated stink bug is a native of japan, korea, and taiwan. it is not native to north america. as we were talking about previously, this particular insect has the potential to cause injury to crops, and to the economics of basically been a farmer these days. this insect is unique in that it has a broad post range. it feeds on over 300 different .lansts because this insect is native to china, the natural enemies that evolves with this incentive did not come to the united states, so in other words and our native natural enemies did not involve with this insect, which has allowed this incentive to really grow in terms of the size of the

population. host: why has the stink bug not been susceptible to the various types of pesticides? gee, some of the interesting things about the insect -- guest: some of the instant things about the insect is the movement pattern. it comes into crop areas and orchards. it forges actively. it might not be present in an orchard when a pesticide is applied, so there are times of risk where it is less susceptible and more voluble to the insects feeding. host: tell us how we think it got to the united states from the far east? guest: this is most likely an accidental introduction. it was originally detected in the allentown region of pennsylvania in the mid-to-late

1990's. the first official record that not come until 2001, when specimens were submitted by a homeowner, and they were identified by cornell university. host: we are talking with kevin hackett and tracy leskey of the agricultural research service at the usda about the problems being caused in our crops from the brown marmorated stink bug. if you would like to get involved, give us a call. a special line for farmers and crop producers -- host: we will lead to hear from farmers and people that grow our

food. our first call comes from missouri on our line for independence. -- independents' line. caller: i was not expecting this on your program, but i am a farmer here, and the question i ise while i'm on the line, is it still considered the squash betel as well? host: union are the two the same species? -- you mean are the two the same species? guest: it is a separate and distinct species. host: how would you recognize the difference? guest: with the brown marmorated stink bug, one of the key characteristics are the white stripes, and squash bugs are more elongated.

host: linda on our line for democrats. caller: have you tried the lady bug? i know they use other species to eat other species, and i was wondering if you used the lady bug to see if it could eat that species of bug? host: it sounds and he might have had some experience using lady bugs. caller: i have, and also just a regular soapy water. i have seen them around here on my hawaiian plants. i thought it was a tick of some sort. having animals, i was worried. so, i took a little bit of the soapy substance, put it in water, spray the tree, and i've not seen any. when i see them out front in the

rose bushes, i used the big package of ladybugs, and it worked. guest: one of the interesting things that we hear from people is that fed juvenile stages of the adult are tick-like in appearance. the lady bug might compete on the planet surface, but typically, we would not expect them to have a major impact on a later stages of the brown marmorated stink bug. we still live much more to learn about biological control agents in terms of what are the most effective and beneficial insects we have in north america. host: jay, on our line for democrats. caller: first off, he good

morning, america. i am concerned about the attitude of americans seem to have about the united states government. we have another -- we have many more products -- problems we have to worry about. everyone should do to -- everyone should do what they can to eradicate any sort of test. host: i think we are running off the rails. barbara, on our line for republicans. you are on the washington journal. caller: good morning. i was visiting my daughter blue ridge mountains area, and it was early spring, and i have noticed her whole house, the backside was covered with those stink bug, and we tried everything. we called every pesticide company there was, and nobody seemed to be able to do anything about it.

i am visiting florida now, and i was doing they are out here, and found some out here to. host: thank you for the call. kevin hackett of the usda agricultural research service. what is the usda been doing as far as tracking the movement of the brown marmorated stink bug? guest: we have an extensive service system in place. that kind of whether the detective in the first place fairly early on. -- web detected it in the first place fairly early on, and also individuals taking a test. it is important for people that find a new insecticide is on usual, they think might be -- take it into a county extension agent, and there's a whole network that moves out from

their. that gets everybody involved. also, the federal government has another role in this activity. we can take leadership, for instance, in developing new technologies that can be put to bear on this. there is an initiative to sequence 5000 insect genomes. the stink bug is read at the top of looking at the genes of those insects. the university of pittsburgh is involved and their cultural research as well. when we find those genes, we can look for vulnerabilities in the insect. so, there are new technologies coming to bear that are just coming to bear not. hopefully, there was hope of something like the stink bug.

host: what kind of progress have you head, or what kind of investigations have you had looking at what its natural predators were in the far east, and how they might be able to be used in the united states? guest: we have overseas lavatories and we use them to look and call left match -- collect natural enemies of the insect, and we find out where to go with our systematic entomology laboratories. we take those insects that we collect overseas, taken into quarantine, and retest them to make sure they're very safe to use -- and we test them to make sure they're very safe to use. we found a couple of different types them look like to have a lot of promise. one is a tiny, when-millimeter long wasp dead develop since the

pitch inside of the eggs of the stink bug -- wasp that develops inside the eggs of the stink bug. host: we are having a discussion on the brown marmorated stink bug with kevin hackett and tracy leskey. our line for democrats. you are next. caller: i am a person that likes to study bugs. i have used my magnifying glass. it looks ticket prehistoric animal to me. -- it looks like a prehistoric animal to me. what would the baidu to assess human subjects -- bite do to us

as humans? >> this is a plant feeder. we had occasional reports. they accidently have approached people occasionally, but that leaves behind a small mark, but those of been extremely rare. host: our next call comes from edgewood, maryland. dana, our line for republicans. caller: i was wondering if you would to any public service announcements because i started seeing them about two years ago here in maryland around different fruit trees in people's yards and things, and i always tell my children, whenever you see that stink bug, kill it. i know there are millions and millions of them, and it is hard for us to do anything as individual people, but if people knew more about it, that would be a good service announcement

to help people identify these bugs, and know they are a threat to our specialty crops. apples are my favorite. i do not want to see that leave here at all. host: kevin hackett? guest: imp centers put out test alerts. there are also websites. the university of maryland extension service as an imported website one can go to. host: what is ipm? guest: integrated pest management. host: if there are any farmers there want to talk to us and get involved in the discussion, your number is 202? -- 202-

host: or line for independence. floyd, you are on "the washington journal." caller: it actually ate my grape leaf, and i have tried different things. the only thing i have seen so far that does not seem -- it does not want to attack is the tomato. i've not had any problems on the tomato vine, but they are on my cabbage and everything else. is there something in the to made of the woodwork to keep these things away? -- in the tomato? guest: you're finding the preferred host on some plants in greater plants than others. using those really attractive hosts as a mechanism to lure

them to reticular crop to protect the others in your garden. we have heard from different people over the course of this season about certain crops. more attractive than others. we have a group of researchers working together to do these trials in a very scientific way where we basically have side-by- side crops where we can look at the movement of this insect. even at a particular point in time, we can see differences in how this response to a particular plant. as the effort becomes more right, in some cases, they seem to be more attractive to the bugs. it may be that as your tomatoes ripen that they become more attractive. host: is there any initial indication why they are attracted to apple's primarily? we have heard callers talking about grapes and we have pictures of them on corn, but according to a previous caller,

they're not attracted to tomatoes. guest: it is trying to understand their movement patterns through this season. we see an apple, for example, there will be seen on the dallas. fruit, but it seems are particularly attractive later in the season. as we approach this time of year, a lot of the other plants that could be feeding on have already been harvested, or they may have started to synapse or dry out. it is a dynamic question that we have to answer to route the season. host: tracy leskey is a research entomologist and kevin hackett is also with the usda research service. back to the funds. meridian, mississippi, you are on "washington journal." caller: the reason the government is involved in this is because of their regulations

restricting all of the chemicals that we can use to rid ourselves of these pests. i want my beloved dtd back. have you all tried animals? they like anything that moves. maybe you could just have lots of these running through the fields? i do not know. host: before i let you go. caller: my mulberry trees. fix mimed disease. host: what is that? caller: it is like an african chicken. host: kevin hackett, can you address her concerns? guest: a lot of birds do eat the

mark seetin -- brown marmorated stink bug. but we need other techniques as well. host: iowa, go ahead. caller: how they handle a problem of where the bugs originate from? what is the ratio of the entomologists to the farmers in the usda to figure this out? host: kevin hackett, have we been able to cut off the influx of more brown marmorated stink bugs? caller: -- guest: they are established in this country and they will not be eradicated. we can only learn to manage the bug at a level that is not harmful to the consumer, grower, or the environment. host: have there been changes made in the system? we believe they came here from the far east. are there now items in place,

processes in place to keep more of them from coming into the united states? guest: this is a work in progress. customs and border protection does excellent job to stop and sex from coming in every year we have people stationed overseas that looked up the products coming in to a country to try and interdict them from the country they're coming from. of course, when people across borders, they are supposed to report any agricultural goods to the customs and border protection. there are a lot of ways of interdicting. diagnosticoping new tools and new ways of intercepting these tests. it is taking years, but we're working with our colleagues with the animal and plant health

inspection service to develop these kinds of techniques. host: our first farmer, david, from michigan. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. years ago, back when i was farming in corn, we had won an insecticide that was probably one of the world's most are insecticides that killed at absolutely every insect. i'm wondering if it has been addressed to use that insecticide. that is my comment. guest: this is a material longer registered for years. we are looking for substances that the epa has registered and looking at those materials defined active ingredients that are most effective against the brown marmorated stink bug. host: one of the earlier callers mentioned dtd. guest: we have many that are

effective, so the next piece of information we need to understand more poorly is the basic biology and behavior. as we develop more informations about that, then we can target are insecticide application against them using the most effective material at the times when they are most likely going to be threatening the crops. that is where we are now in terms of the using the most effective materials must efficacious lee. -- efficaciously. host: but those do not include dtd. host: here in washington county, we are just over run with stink bugs. she has killed literally thousands of them. this year, she is using the new rescue traps outside that have the attractant and they are working. she says she needs 100 more

traps. she also says that some chickens will eat them. talk to us about these rescue traps. kevin hackett? ok, tracy leskey? guest: these are designed to basically attractive and trap these insects. they have been available attractant in them. it does capture many insects and many brown marmorated stink bugs. it is interesting to learn that the person in the email indicated that it is working. we know that we can attract and trap them, but we do not know if we can basically remove the movement into people's homes. host: another e-mail said she chased them out based confirmation she found online.

back to the phones in lynchburg, va., on the line for democrats. caller: we have a friend to move to california from lynchburg and had her stuff in a storage unit for two years. she got a message from her real estate agent to come home because there were bugs all in the house and all on the boxes outside. this shows how good of hitchhikers they are. i know no how bad they are in the california, but it could devastate crops out there. i do not know if they had already been established in california, because they were not they are now unfortunately. she moved to the san francisco area. guest: they are established in

california and in many states across the country. it is unfortunate in this situation that we already have problems for the growers that could not fight these because of the colony collapse disorder. we decrease the number of bees and increased the number of the pests. we have one new passed every 60 days coming into california, -- one new pest. this is one more problem we have to deal with at a time when we have economic challenges in this country. host: we can see on this map that the severe agricultural nuisance problems reported are in the atlantic coast area, pennsylvania, maryland, west virginia, virginia, new jersey, and delaware. nuisance problems appear to be in the northeast and midwest, new york, new hampshire, rhode island, indiana, ohio, kentucky,

tennessee, and then in the california and oregon. that have been detected in those a green states. is there a way to explain why they seem to be more concentrated in one area and less so in other areas, and then nonexistent in the west and midwest? guest: in the mid-atlantic region where we have experienced the greatest problem, they have had time to establish populations that have been a problem, not only for farmers but for the household communities as well. some of these states where we have seen nuisance problems really has to deal with population is just becoming established. oftentimes we hear about brown marmorated stink bugs burst from homeowners and that is when we

know we do have populations that are becoming established. host: jack on the independent line from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. how are you doing? caller: i have a very nice garden, so i am really interested in these stink bugs. this is for sure, but there were stink bugs on the side of my house, and i found a really big praying mantis in my garden. i took the mantis and he went right over and started eating these stink bugs. if there is a way, and he ate quite a few of them, but if there was a way we could speed up to breed these mantises, that might really knock them down a whole lot, because they do eat a

lot of something that they like. they do for sure eat these bugs. host: track from pittsburgh. entomologist tracy leskey. guest: some of the general creditors will eat these stink bugs. what you are describing is enhancing biological control come whether we enhance a lot of a particular species to help take down the brown marmorated stink bug, or in a case like kevin was describing with the classic biological control problem where we look at natural enemies from asia and like this non-stinging wasps that could help reduce the population. we think this is really one of the long-term solutions for the sense that in terms of biological control. host: what are the long-term concerns of increasing the numbers of praying mantis or wasps in this case to go after the brown marmorated stink bug?

once they are all gone, then we have a nation of wasps. guest: this would be very specific against the brown marmorated stink bug. if they have no stink bugs to eat, then they disappear. the praying mantis is a general creditor and eat a lot of different insects. -- general predator and eats insects. host: next caller. caller: we have been a sweeping them up and emptying them. what are the dangers? what alternatives are there? should we not do this? we need to get them off of the house and all of the walls of the brick homes. guest: a dust buster is a good way to pick them up. you can also make a trap.

if there are a few bugs come you can make a trap using a liter soda bottle and make a funnel. if you really want to get high tech to come you can cut and elie de in there and try to catch the ones in -- high tech, you can put in an led light and tach the -- catch the ones in your attic. after you sweep them up, or however, you can put them in the freezer to kill them. put them in a bag, sealed them, then put them in your compost. host: we will leave it there. kevin hackett and tracy leskey have been our guests talking to us about the brown marmorated stink bug. their boat with the u.s. the aim agricultural research service.

-- they are both with the usda agricultural research service. coming up next, college athletics. we will be right back. >> pcs and networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and history. funding for recent natural disasters, keeping tabs on the deficit committee as they develop a plan to lower the debt, and follow the presidential candidates campaigning. all available on television, radio come on line, and social media sites. search and watch any time with these these and video library.

we are on the road with the digital bus and local content of vehicles. events around the country. washington, your way. created by cable and provided as a public service. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, celebrate constitution day with richard dreyfuss. 25% of the union war effort was financed by california gold. find out how and why from the civil war museum. oral histories, barbara franklin on recruiting women for high- level jobs. but for the complete weekend schedule on c-span.org/history or for emailed schedules. watch more videos of the candidates come and see what reporters are saying, track the

latest contributions with c- span's website for campaign 2012 with twitter feeds, facebook update, and the latest polling data. links to c-span partners all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> which part of the constitution is important to you? that is the question this year and in the student cam competition. tell us the part of the constitution important to you and why. include more than one point of view and video of c-span programming. entries are due by january 20th, 2012. there is a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: representative thomas mcmillen joins us to talk about college sports. he recently wrote an op-ed talking about accountability. a series of scandals about players receiving money, cars, and other improper benefits has debased the already tarnished reputation of college sports. schools like the university of miami, n.c., and usc have been in the news for abusing the rules than teaching their students. welcome to the program. tell me. what is it that you think congress can do to reverse the situation that schools like usc, unc, miami, and ohio state find themselves in? guest: i had introduced a bill called the collegiate reform act which would have overturned a 1984 supreme court decision

where the n.c.a.a. lost its monopoly. that was the oklahoma n.c.a.a. case. what happened after that was the arms race where everyone was trying to outdo the other schools. the great rhodes scholar and supreme court justice said this is what would happen. we would have commercial values overtaking higher education values. my bill would have restored that trust, given the n.c.a.a. a monopoly, but taking the money and distributed it evenly, not necessarily for winning and losing, but for academic performance, gender equity, a diversity of programming, and the like. it really would have weakened the juggernaut of college sports. that is one thing congress can do. when i was in congress, we had a

bill called the student right to know bill which require graduation rates to be disclosed for colleges and universities for their athletes. that has had a tremendous impact on reforming college boards because it has put pressure on schools to improve their graduation rates. i do not think congress is the solution for everything, but given the situation in college sports, where the players are fighting for more and more rights, and eventually they could win a court case that gives them the right, then title ix comes back in. host: what do you say to the people who say if the n.c.a.a. really wanted to control the problem, and if the schools really wanted to control the problem, that they could, but they do not because there's so much money involved especially in the schools like we talked about, division i schools and

bring in some much money based on the performance of these athletes and they look the other way when these infractions take place. an extension of that is, as long as these players are performing like this, the schools are bringing in money, nobody really cares about graduating. guest: all of those points are very valid. the dollars have become so enormous that, really, the almighty dollar is in control of college sports today. you have the conferences and the n.c.a.a. only really controls the basketball tournament. they are afraid to go too far that they could lose that, as well. the top schools would try to develop a competitive alternative to the n.c.a.a.. i am sure there are limitations on what they can do. as far as the individual schools, you are right. it is hard for eight -- an

individual school. no country would disarm in the arms race. my thought that was about the boards and regents taking more responsibility on this issue. my own university, the university of maryland, where i served on the board of regents, we are looking at how we can improve our government to deal with some of the issues in college sports. it will not stop the juggernaut, but it should help put some controls back in place. host: we are talking about reforming college sports with former representative thomas mcmillen for the state of maryland from 1987-1993 currently with the university regents system at the university of maryland and a former nba player for 11 years, retired in 1986, and a star at the university of maryland.

go terps. if you like to get involved in the conversation, give us a call. for eastern and central time zones -- 202-737-0001. for mountain and pacific time zones -- 202-737-0002. we of a special line set aside for college athletes. talk to us about how this problem has grown over the past few years. what steps have been taken so far in congress, especially in some of the committees, most notably the commerce committee, why is this a concern? guest: over the years, congress has had some oversight of this. going back to the 1970's, there

was the very important passing of title ix which created tremendous opportunities for women athletes. then we had the bill to disclose the graduation rates. commerce and taxing committees have been looking at the n.c.a.a. for non-profit issues. should they be taxed as businesses? that is one issue that both the finance committee and ways and means committee have looked at. the energy and commerce committee have looked at these, as well. there are so many issues that congress has to deal with, obviously, so college sports is not at the top of the list. i have always said that congress would really never get involved unless it went to a crisis level. there is a similar example back in 1978 when the amateur sports act was passed because the n.c.a.a. and the congress

finally gave the olympic committee and monopoly to run olympic sports in america. that is an example where congress stepped in. i do not see them stepping in unless there is a major gambling scandal, the players when a court case that allows them to negotiate for salaries for schools, and then title ix would kick in. i do not see them stepping in unless there is a major, major crisis. host: our first call from houston, michael. you are on "washington journal." caller: i am curious what the arguments are pro and con to separate out college sports, perhaps just football and basketball, and making them a professional in some sense. guest: an interesting question and certainly an alternative where you have a for-profit

entity under campus. the usa is the only country in the world that have put schools and sports together. in europe, sports clubs exist away from the schools. this is true in our high schools and everything else and it has created the kind of conflict we see in america that is unique. that is certainly an alternative. you could say we should manage them as businesses. there are overriding laws on that, including title ix creating opportunities for women, did not know how title ix would fit in. it is a very complicated issue. i'm not sure that would be a favored solution, but it could be a possibility. host: hunts bill, alabama, you are on with tom mcmillen -- huntsville. greg, you there?

i think we lost greg. tell us about your background. you were on a full scholarship to maryland, correct? what all does that cover. guest: room and board, tuition, books, and $75 per month which was considered laundry money. that is no longer the case. in the bill i introduced, there would be a living stipend. the n.c.a.a. needs to address the stipend for players. to their credit, they are. in in a recent meeting in indianapolis, they discussed how to ride some level of sustenance. when the coach makes $5 million, more than the president of the university, and their players cannot even afford to go to the funeral of a family member, it is very unjust. a pulitzer prize writer had a

wonderful article talking about the shame of college sports. he talks about almost this system of colonialism that exists where the n.c.a.a. is very paternalistic. coaches, the administrators, they'll make millions of dollars but the players are left with very little. i'm not advocating paying the players. i am advocating an nfl structure were you pull the money together and you spread it around for the right reasons, not the wrong ones, which are winning and losing. host: burlington, north carolina. james, you are on "washington journal." caller: it seems to me that the laws are not being enforced quite like they should be. everything seems to be handled

behind closed doors, it seems. i am wondering where more people are not going to prison over these issues of giving out money in this. i am the father of an adopted child from overseas and i take all children's issues very seriously. i think there needs to be some type of a federal organization created to monitor all schools and colleges. guest: an interesting point. there is no question about enforcement mechanisms in the n.c.a.a. not being strong enough or independent enough. it is almost like a judge of your peers deciding who should be penalized and how.

sometimes that creates tremendous conflict, as you know. the money race in college sports is so great and it is difficult to control. how do you enforce it? you realize that the incentives are built in to the system and it is almost a better to push the limits and succeed, win, and win championships than it is to abide by the rules. that pressure oftentimes creates distortions in the ways people behave. one thing i advocate is for coaches and athletic directors, if they leave in the school gets in trouble, that there is some kind of clawback in compensation. we did that in sarbanes oxley. i think there needs to be some penalties for those who perpetrate a crime, often times

the athletes being fairly innocent. host: alexandria, minn., on our line for democrats. you are on with tom mcmillen. caller: good morning. i am a big fan of the show. i think that one of your callers had it right. these guys come a man and ladies, they are professional. they are providing a service, performing for the school, and they are being compensated by room, board come and tuition. do not call them amateurs. call them what they are, professionals. there are two levels of players. you have those that are there as a steppingstone to the next big thing, professional sports. you have those that are there that need the money to help them go to school, get an education, and get a job. host: how would you decide who

gets the money? is it just the athletes playing in revenue sports like basketball and football? would it be sports across the board including track, tennis, swimming? how do you decide? caller: i think it should be across the board. they are calling it "amateur," but it clearly is not. they are doing a service and getting a fee for it. guest: are really could not hear his question. host: he was talking about the players getting a fee for playing and perhaps it should be something that should be looked at. it may be in the reference to the article we have here from the associated press with the headline, "should college athletes be paid as much as $1 million, says a new report." it was written by a former ucla

linebacker. guest: the issue of paying players is a very complicated one. why does the nba and nfl have their own development leads so kids could go through a different pathway. the colleges are doing it for them and quite cheaply so they do not have to build up player development. if you start paying players and give them the right to negotiate, bringing lawyers to the table, that opens up a pandora's box. women through title ix have certain rights. then you have other minor sports dealing with this. the idea though that they should

be given something more, like a living stipends, or or putting up sponsorships and endorsements is a slippery slope. bailout athletes to do sponsorships and endorsements, -- they allow athletes to do endorsements. i am in favor of athletes getting paid because i think it will blow up the system and we will go back to the nfl model that i suggested, one that is based upon revenue distribution, not necessarily based on a winning and losing but all of the other values including academic performance, diversity, gender equity, all the things that colleges and universities should be worried about. it would not change the quality of play. they will play just as hard. the only thing the money has done has allowed the middle managers to get very sizable benefits, the conferences, the n.c.a.a., coaches.

none of this is going to the players which is a very unfair system. i think the colleges have been damaged by this. point in fact, miami and north carolina. when that becomes front-page news, that costs the university hundreds of millions of dollars in public relations. we cannot allow the tattoo whale -- the tail to wag the dog. host: when you were in school you got $75 per month? when you there? guest: 1974-1978. host: was this across the board in the acc or was this just unique to maryland? guest: across the board. i am not sure that all athletes at maryland got it, but i knew the football and basketball players received it. i do not know if the swimmers

did, but it was a living stipend for college scholarship athletes. host: did $75 per month help anything? guest: that was a lot of money back then. host: did $75 back then cover your expenses? guest: it was amazing how helpful it was for the players to be able to buy pizza and do those things. host: tom mcmillen, former representative, former nba player, former university of maryland terrapin talking about perhaps paying college players or something that congress can do to take care of the problems in collegiate athletics. diane, you are wrong "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my

call. i have felt that all of our schools, the regular school system into the university system, has had a cold shifting -- a cult shifting upon them. when they no longer support our universities, like giving a stipend to some of the players, they have to get that money from somewhere and we are forcing them into this situation, it seems to me, where if the parents cannot pay for supplies, food, gasoline, money for the movies that you have to go to the private sector to get it. i think we are being disingenuous to be upset about it because we, the people, have forced it to take place. i would love to hear your comments. guest: that is absolutely correct, especially for the

elite athletes. they can find an nfl contract worth millions of dollars, so it is a little paternalistic where you have a system where the coach can bring in a high- powered lawyer to negotiate contract, but if a player does they are knowledgeable. i am not advocating paying it athletes in college, but giving them more bigger point is right on. it is a very unfair system where one side wins and the other side gets very little. they talked about getting an education, but if you look at the graduation rates, so many of our athletes are being run through college and are left without even an education. it is shameful for the colleges and universities. we are in the middle of a global battle. chinese universities do not have

these issues. english universities do not have these issues. we are spending this time on these matters. it definitely needs to be cleaned up. as i said, when these scandals break they can do tremendous harm to a university. host: back to the funds. south dakota, jim. you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is -- host: jim? caller: the morning. my question is how much is the education of students being hurt by all of the emphasis being put on professional sports in colleges? we are not looking at academics anymore. we are looking more at sports all the time.

would it not be a smarter thing to allow students to play sports if they do good in academics? guest: that should be the thrust of what college and university is all about. the n.c.a.a., and i applaud them, supported secretary arne that you dotiative not get a certain gpa that you do not play in the post-season tournament. i was a chemistry major at the university of maryland with a very difficult curriculum. i would come into practices late, but i do not think i could be a chemistry major today the way that college sports are conducted. it would be too difficult. it is making it very difficult for college student athletes to

go to school and really be almost a professional athlete at the same time. the idea of the student athlete was a euphemism that came from the 1950's because they did not want to deal with workman's comp cases where a student got hurt, the university did not want to be liable. the system developed from that history. they were employees, and it has been that way since the very beginning. the idea of the "student athletes" was a concoction to avoid workman's comp cases. host: we have this tweet. wage and hourply laws to student-athletes." guest: if you go down the pathway of employer-employee relationship with wage laws,

there is an overriding federal law called title ix. it has been a wonderful thing for colleges and universities. think about how many young women today have done well in sports because they have been given the opportunity. that is one of the great college rules. when you open up the payroll door, it changes things. that is why i prefer the nfl model of spreading the money around, keep coach salaries within limits, give the players a living stipends so that they have sufficient to dollars to go to school, make their scholarships not just one year renewable at the school's discretion but long enough for them to get an education. i think that would be the ideal system that could be concocted here. host: tom mcmillen is the

chairman and ceo of a homeland security capital corp., an international provider of specialized technology-based relief and security solutions to government and commercial customers. back to the phones. the next call from washington, d.c., an athlete. caller: i just had a couple of different points. being a former player, i understand that there are a bunch of different profit centers that the school profits from that is not just the game or the ticket sales, would they sell at the games, and when you sign on for a scholarship, you signed away the rights to your name. even after you leave, they still make a profit over whatever merchandise they have with your name on it and you get nothing. whether you make it to the pro's or not, and a big percentage of

student athletes do not, they have nothing to fall back on. granted, you do have an education, but when you look at the numbers of how much they generate, especially football and basketball, there is really no balance or no equality there. host: where did you go to school, what did you play, and were you on a scholarship? caller: i went to florida and m, -- a & m, football, no scholarship. guest: i concur. when the olympics throughout the vestiges of amateurs and they opened up players to do more spot ships, that is one area that is -- sponsorships, it is unfair. there are court cases going through on that right now. that is one area where they

should open up something to the players. host: richland county, south carolina, you are on "washington journal." caller: first of all, i would like to make a comment that i am of the age where i remember mr. mcmillan playing back in the old acc days. he was a pretty good player, i might add. the terps were good back then. my comments about today's show is that i think they should educate kids when they are in middle school about the way to win these scholarships and they should make it a good point. if you are going to be dumb in class, you will not get a scholarship, because that way the kids would try hard in school.

they would know they would need a certain grade point average before they could get those scholarships that way we would not end up with the dexter manly's of the world. he was a great player for the washington redskins in tears admitting to the fact that he could barely read. i am not trying to embarrass him, but those are just the facts. host: thank you for your call. guest: when i was in congress, that was a very tragic situation. i tried to pass legislation that would require more standard that the high-school level. this problem does not just all of a sudden and merge in college. the fact that some many of these kids have been coddled through high schools and they are not getting an education of their. they come to college unprepared. -- dick are not getting an

education there. they go through the system and come out with no education. your point is right on, we ought to be focusing earlier on this. it goes back to the problem in the world, that we're the only country that does this. maintaining balance is tricky. host: does it make sense addressing this in the collegiate level when now we're seeing that sports in the high- school level are being broadcast nationwide? it seems like the problem is going to be moving from colleges, where we are trying to solve the problem now come to high-schools, where our last caller said we should educate them in middle school and high- school. if we have them on tv in high school, where is the incentive to make the grades to get to the college level? guest: you are right on.

talk about the new texas league, putting high school sports on television that will only exacerbate the problem. when i was co-chair, we mention there were not enough grassroots opportunities. the average kid gets shut out of the system because they cannot compete. now even in high school, kids have to pay to play and there is no physical education. we have treated this pyramid where all the money is at the top and at the bottom when we should be focusing on community sports and those things that are good for your health, good for the nation, yet we're really focusing on these elite athletes. in the high schools, and sometimes even before that among these kids are not -- and even before that, these kids are not getting an education.

they say they cannot compete, they are done, they're going to go watch tv, and then we end up with obesity levels of our out- of-control. the elite sport issue is not just a problem for them, but a wider problem for the country. host: i want to get your comments on this. h.r. 390, the college playoff act of 2009 sponsored by representative joe barton prohibited advertising in a post-seasoned football game as a national championship game unless such game as the culmination of a fair and equitable playoff system. your thoughts? guest: that was part of the playoff system. there are a lot of people pushing for it. it would generate millions of dollars, but only exacerbate the same problems we have today. host: this is basically going

trying to set up a system like in basketball. guest: right. i am all for big-time college sports. we need to spread the money around differently. we need to make sure more kids get the opportunity and we do not have to take the middle management -- pay them 10 times more than the president of the university. and we can help women through title ix. we do need to focus on more of an nfl model. host: when you were playing at the university of maryland, how long were practices during the season? guest: when you are in the early parts of the season, it you go from 3:00-6:00 p.m., you are exhausted, you go eat

dinner, then you go study. it can take three or four hours of your day. host: in the three or four hours -- years you were on the squad, how many times did you make it to the sweet 16? guest: it was a different situation because they allowed fewer teams. riemer one of the top-ranked teams in the country -- we were one of the top, but they expanded it. initially it was only 16. we were always ranked in the top-10, but we went to the n.c.a.a. once, the n.i.t. once, and we played a great game against north carolina state and they went on to win. our team was so good that it opened up the n.c.a.a. tournament.

host: albany, new york, on our line for -- well, people from albany. caller: think you for taking my call. -- thank you. young men and women are going to college and not really getting an education. it seems to me that we are almost penny wise and pound foolish to talk about paying children or young men to good college when we are really not focusing on the opportunity cost that they are incurring to go to school and not be educated. one caller said we needed to do a better job in high school. my problem is this. if we look at the statistics and we see that children who are born to single family homes and who are not ready to -- read to have a vocabulary at the age

of 12 that is equivalent to the child of an age of the four who has been read to and gone to pre-school. the child is at a terrible disadvantage to route the -- throughout grammar school. they become athletes to make a way out. we bring these athletes into a college environment and they are not ready. my daughter played college sports. you put a lot of time in with practicing in fact manager time very carefully. more than anything, you have to be prepared for college from my vocabulary standpoint and from a schooling standpoint. host: where did you go to school? caller: i went to seattle and my daughter was crew at harvard.

these children do not have a chance. they will not be able to compete putting all that time in on the practice field and they are not ready for school to begin with. i think we can talk about paying them, but five years after graduation or after their class leaves, they are not earning anywhere near what their colleagues in school have earned. and they have been used. guest: first of all, you are absolutely right. the number of kids who go to the pro's is small. so many think they will, and they do not have the job or the education. that happened when i was in school and it is happening today with more frequency. we really do need to find a way to educate these kids come and give them something. college is not for everybody. many of these kids should not go

to college. there should be alternative pathways for their career. the nfl should have a development league. there should be different choices besides going to college and being put into a system where the have no business being there in the first place. your points are very valid. host: there is one of bad from "the washington times" -- one op-ed. about an nfl farm system. this is from the director of policy from the john william pope center for higher education. if you want to look at that, go to the times website. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was a walk on after vietnam to a state-run school in baseball.

we were given a list of stores where to buy things from, who to give us tests. it was so ridiculous it was unreal. i can remember going into the local liquor store, putting $5 a down, getting a keg of beer and $100 in change. one of my suggestions is that if they would give student- athletes amnesty after they graduate to testify against schools and charge the schools to dollars for every $1 -- $2 for every $1 and make the athlete sign an agreement that he did not receive anything. with regard to a stipend, grant students to get scholarships for education and are allowed to work for the university 20 hours per week.

if you give that same stipend to all athletes, it would help them. i understand that. if they want to work on the side, that is fine. if i went to a junior college in a small home town where the boosters were giving basketball players $300-$400 per month. guest: there is no question that there is a huge illicit economy under this. one of the things that i have suggested is a whistleblowing system for athletes designed for athletes so they can call in. often times when these schools get punished, it is the innocent athletes. the team gets hurt, your career gets hurt, and you may be innocent. having the opportunity to have it pass away of communication is a good point. -- having the opportunity to have a pathway of communication

is a good point. it is the european model. get it out of the school, clear the pathway, let the kids to do not belong in school realize their dreams. host: realistically, that will not happen. these schools are filling up 100,000 seat stadiums every other weekend, and there is no way they are going to drop those programs. guest: a lot of kids are going to europe early. the globalization is creating a situation where a young star athlete has more choices than just the nba in america. host: we have run out of time and collars. tom mcmillen, thank you very much for being on "washington journal." we want to tell our viewers and listeners about tomorrow's program. we discussed the role of the evangelical v