50th anniversary of in about 45 minutes, we will talk with the president of the third wave think tank, the president of the american postal workers union cliff guffey, and a look at the political fight over epa regulations with national journal correspondence -- coral davenport. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning, everyone. we begin with campaign 2012 and a headline in "the wall street journal." hispanics rise in three states. the number of hispanic u.s. citizens 18 and older having swelled in swing states like north carolina, florida, and nevada. we want to get your take on the role of hispanics and how should

your candidates tried to appeal to the hispanic vote? we have a fourth line this morning for hispanic voters -- let me show you "the wall street journal" this morning. both parties vying for support from an ethnic group that have voted democratic in the past. but say -- they say this --

remember, the democrats are holding their convention in north carolina as well. we want to get your take. what is your candidate's appeal to the hispanic voter? we want to hear from hispanic voters as well. let me show you the graph "the wall street journal" put together based on the census data. we talked about florida but in colorado they saw the number of hispanic voters jump by 41,000. in missouri, 17,000. and in nevada, 44,000. new mexico, 36,000. north carolina, 54,000. in va, 33,000 more hispanic voters in that state then in 2008 -- in virginia.

a little more from "the wall street journal and then -- "the wall street journal" and then we will take your calls -- mike, independent from woodbridge, virginia. do you have a candidate yet and

what do you think their appeal is for the hispanic vote? caller: they should be treated absolutely equal as any other boater. there is no reason to cater to the hispanics. it just like you should not cater to anybody else. host: what are you were -- your issues you care about and you what the candidates want to put them on top? caller: the economy and the deficit. get that straightened out. it is universal. you don't have to cater to individual constituents or minority constituents. just treat everybody equally. host: let us hear from a democratic voter from kentucky. it did we lose you? erie, pennsylvania. at laura is a republican. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i am almost insulted by the question. just let me have a minute to explain this. what is good for hispanics is

good for blacks, is good for whites, it is good for every american. it and that is to have, first, a balanced budget -- not only in their households and cities and states. we are wasting so much money that is thrown away just on interest alone, $800 billion from the way on interest that we could be using in our lives? -- $800 billion thrown away on interest? why hispanics are growing. the abortion rate, sadly, for blacks is so high especially in inner-city is that planned parenthood is setting up clinics in those inner-city to target blacks. we have black americans for life calling it genocide. they make up 13% of the population and one-third of the babies that were aborted since 1973 were black. that is almost a racist policy. host: where are you getting that

information? caller: american life league and all of the pro-life organizations. you can even go on to basically the cdc stuff. blacks account for 13% of the population and they have a third of their babies aborted. host: melissa, a hispanic voter from ohio. good morning. what do you think about this and who do you plan to vote for and what is the appeal? caller: i voted for barack obama in 2008 and i plan to vote for him next year. i do think hispanics are an important voting bloc and for too long their needs have also been ignored. a previous caller referred to everyone being equal and nobody should be catered to. well, ideally that would be great but realistically that has not been the case. i think probably in the history of politics. hispanics have a lot of needs. they contribute greatly to the country. i know popular media will often

say hispanics are a drain on the economy, that they are not contributing to the economy, that they are not paying taxes, and that is simply not true. they do contribute greatly and their needs needs to be addressed. host: can you hang on the line -- either by turning up the television or the fall -- i want you to hear what president obama said yesterday when he participated in a roundtable responding to questions from readers of yahoo, msn latino -- when he talked about the deportation policy. >> actually what happened, if you look at the statistics, two -- two things happen. there was a much greater emphasis on criminals rather than non of criminals. there has been a huge shift in enforcement and it began as soon as i came into office. that change has taken place. secondly, the statistics are

actually a little deceptive because what we have been doing is, with the stronger border enforcement, we have been apprehending folks at the border and sending them back. that is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours and sent back. that is counted as a deportation. we have been much more effective on the borders but we have not been more aggressive when it comes to dealing, for example, with a dream act kids, that is not the case. host: are you still there? what is your reaction? caller: i agree in some pieces that perhaps more has been done all around the borders. i live in an area where there has been an increased effort to deport people who are in the state. and those have been targeted.

certainly, nobody wants a criminal in our country. if they are not citizens and they are a criminal, nobody wants that person here. but i don't think it is fair to paint a picture across an entire population that they are all criminals. certainly they are here without the documentation. that is a problem. that is not following policy. but to say all of them are violent criminals is not accurate. he did also referred to the dream act. promises were made not only to latino voters, but this affects the country nationwide and the dream act is a very important piece. we have students who are present here, and they want to do well, but they are so limited in terms of contributing to the livelihood of their families and to the rest of the country because they are limited in terms of their education. host: in that same discussion he had yesterday, he said, you know, as president, i can't just

snap my fingers and do something about illegal immigration and setting up the pathway to citizenship. it has to come from congress. does it sit well with you? caller: no. host: but you still plan to vote for him? caller: our memory is long and we know that republicans have been much harsher critics and have put up more roadblocks and president obama. we will continue to push him to follow his agenda and in -- to making a better policy. i understand it a republican was in office this would not be on the table. host: betty in birmingham, alabama. your thoughts. caller: i and calling because i live here in birmingham, alabama. they passed the strictest immigration law that was from here yesterday, that was allowed

to stand yesterday. i hope you have something to read from the papers. i also hope that hispanics are looking at that. because, first of all, being an african-american i know the saying of discrimination. and i feel that the hispanics are being discriminated against in a lot of ways. i am not one of the african americans who make the statement that they are coming here to take our jobs. it is not like that. everyone, if you -- you want to come to the united states to live and make a better life. and as far as the borders are concerned, the republicans need to stop playing games. president obama has put more border control offices -- officers on the border and he has done more at the border right now. i have one more statement to make. i am so sick and tired of people talking about president obama causing class warfare. that woman who called in a few minutes ago, she broke my heart.

do not talk about pro-life, about african-americans having abortions. i don't appreciate that. we need to stop. host: alright, we will leave it there. the front page of "the washington times and -- "of the washington times" -- let's hear from a republican. daddy is next from tennessee. caller: i just wanted to say that it seems our society and culture is appealing to the hispanic population in every

other area. i know i worked 28 years in the health field, and several years working in clinics, and how we have helped the hispanic population. i know i am a republican. i don't have a problem with people in their beliefs and understandings, but we are talking about a young degeneration. we are talking about them possibly being catholics, and how some of them have the traditional values of the republicans. we have no guarantee of that. we can't seem to look at one another as one nation under god. it saddens me and breaks my heart that we continue to look at this diversity and this group and this group. and to me, it is sad that and has to be that way. our country is saturated with marketing to this person and these people. all the statistics that are done are dividing us and breaking us

up. it is really sad it has to be that way. i don't understand politics. host: you think any presidential candidate, democrat or republican, should not have to cater to hispanic voters or tried to appeal to them like some of the previous callers have said? caller: what i believe is, it is going to happen. we need to accept it. it is going to happen. host: what do you mean? caller: they are going to appeal to a certain population. because we have no control over the way other people -- we are talking about a culture that came from mexico or from other countries to come here for a life. to have a life that maybe they don't have an another country. i know it is not typical for a republican to speak like this, but i took care of people who may have otherwise died had they not come here to the united states and brought their children. host: as a republican, why

should a hispanic voter vote for a republican candidate? caller: what i really -- it is all what your values are and what you believe. i believe that a hispanic person should vote for a republican candidate because we have that right in this country to make a decision. i and not saying -- i believe we have the person in the white house right now because that is to god wants. i know right now that we have a long way to go. but i am not going to say absolutely it has to be a republican, because i have not seen a republican candidate get at this point that i would vote for myself. i am not happy. so any one republican -- but i believe they have of the right to focus on anyone in the united states to get their vote.

host: do you believe that is a fundamental belief of republicans, and that should appeal to hispanic voters? decide. to caller: i do. host: what did you make of red. 's comments at the recent debate about his policy in texas for in-state tuition -- what did you make of rick perry's comments? caller: i understand it was 1993 when a lot of that was done. is that correct? host: i could look at this article. but what did you make of what he said? caller: he is trying to be voted as president. i think sometimes -- i disagree with it, but i understand where he is coming from. but i don't have to agree with it. he has the right to make that statement. i don't completely totally agree.

everyone is trying to weigh and balance everything. there is no way you can balance everything when you don't have the truth. host: let's hear from tony, a hispanic voter in d.c. good morning. you are on the air. caller: thank you very much. i am not very happy with mr. obama. i voted for him last year, in 2008, and i don't think -- he accomplished a lot but he has not done a lot for the hispanic vote, especially on the issue of immigration. however, i just don't see myself voting for a republican. they seem to be extremely nasty. i have been here 30 years -- i do not see a hispanic who had been here a long time tending to vote republican. we need to educate the new

citizens of the policies, and really the nastiness of the republican party. i have lived in oregon, arizona -- host: would you call yourself a religious person? caller: i am catholic because i grew up as a catholic but i don't believe that religion should place -- play the role the republicans want to place in the political system. there is a difference of church and state, it is fundamental. the tea party is coming now with all of the issues, and the way they are going about expressing themselves is simply not consistent with what i believe this country is all about. host: "the baltimore sun" this morning has this headline -- she was in clive, iowa, yesterday. this is what she had to say.

>> it is not a subsidy. when you consider washington has failed to secure the border, has shown no signs of dealing with the millions who are here illegally, states like texas are left with one out of two choices -- either we take care of those populations, or they get on welfare, which is a greater cost to our taxpayers. or we give them the opportunity to graduate from a texas school, the opportunity to be a contributing member of society. host: many of you probably remember that with perry and that last debate said opponents of this policy on in state tuition "don't have a hard." yesterday he said "i'd probably chose a poor word to explain that. probably over-passionate using that word and it was

inappropriate." getting your thoughts on campaign 2012 and the hispanic vote. joining us on the phone is adam smith, political editor for "the st. petersburg times closed would in florida. it looks like florida is going to decide to move up its primary. what is going on? >> they want to make sure florida is the biggest battleground state. host: if they move up to january 31, that would make them the fifth primary? guest: that is the goal. they don't want to get in front of the four earliest states -- iowa, new hampshire, nevada, and south carolina but they want to be alone. host: why does florida feel they should and they can have a decisive impact on the primary? guest: the feeling is, especially for the republicans,

you can't really win the nomination without florida. it is the biggest battleground state and they don't want to be waiting until the nomination is already locked up to 2 vote. the idea is to move early, even if it means penalties from the party. host: what are the penalties? guest: they will lose half of their delegates. they have about 116 delegates so the rules say it that will be cut in half. i think the view in florida is, a couple of things, who cares, delicate stone mattered -- it is just people making -- wearing funny hats at the convention. two, florida is too important to actually get that penalty. the convention will be in florida and ultimately they will not be penalized. host: what is of the financial benefit for florida to move up its primary? guest: it certainly will be good for tv stations. we will get a lot of

advertising. we will have some campaigns year. but i don't think it is a big financial benefit. it is more about influencing the nomination. host: we see from census data that florida's hispanic voters jumped up 250,000 since 2008. what is the impact of that in the primary race? what are these gop candidates going to have to say to appeal to the voters? guest: when you talk about immigration, florida has a different population than some other states. we have a lot of cubans and people who've been here for a long time. they are not especially sympathetic with illegal immigration. it is not that hispanic voters are going to be opposed to tougher sanctions on illegal immigration, but what you have to be careful is, is on the

rhetoric. if you are to anti-immigrant you have a problem. host: which candidates are focusing their resources, their money, have a campaign organization on the ground in florida right now? caller: florida is such a big state. it is not a retail politician state like iowa and new hampshire. pierre greece has a decent organization and romney is -- romney has been of florida for a long time so he has a lot of support. has a campaign structure and a fund-raising structure. host: which part of florida does a gop candidate need to win to get the dominant -- nomination? caller: it is over the map. it is different from the general election. but my area, two and orlando, about 45% of the primary vote -- tampa bay and orlando, about 45% of the primary vote.

but you have to do well pretty much everywhere or target your campaign to specific areas to over, where somebody else might be strong. host: adam smith, political editor at "the st. petersburg times." if you want to send us a comment on our facebook page, go to facebook.com/c-span. here are a few of them today. remember, facebook.com/c-span. you can also send us a tweet --

from jeremiah,ar and independent from michigan. what do you think? caller: i think if any presidential candidate needs to use smoke and mirrors, then all voters should be aware. i think they should hit on every race and not just pick out one and do what is right for everyone. if we don't do anything now, then there will be nothing but words in the end. i have a jobs plan that would give $12 million per state -- and i don't understand why the president himself can come up with something better than he does, by cutting programs and not really fixing the problem. host: jeremiah, we will leave it there. lewis is a republican from cherry hill, new jersey.

caller: let's cut right to the chase. republicans and democrats have no interest in any kind of reform because of all the illegals that use illegal social security cards. they don't get their taxes back. billions of dollars every year. that said, i work in the landscape business. i have worked with latinos for 20 years and they are great people. i have no -- known guys, i consider them part of my family. but the fact of the matter is, you go to restaurants and we service about 20 or 25 restaurants, you go into the kitchens, it is a hundred% latino because they work under the table and unfortunately they drive wages down. i have several young men in my neighborhood that i have seen growing up from children, they can't find work. when i was 16 i was working as a dishwasher. they can't find work. unfortunately you have the cbc

complaining about african- american unemployment, but then they refuse to do anything about the borders and they want everybody to come in. it is just taking jobs. host: the breaking news out of europe this morning, german lawmakers cleared the way for an expansion of the size and power of the bailout fund in a major step to tackle the sovereign debt crisis. germany will be guaranteeing loans of about 211 billion euros, to help bail out greece and its backers. a clear majority of lawmakers in the lower house of parliament voted thursday in favor of expanding it. the vote was seen also as a test of chancellor angela merkel's center-right coalition. we will talk to the eu ambassador to the united states tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. this is something from "the

independent" website -- the front page of "the financial times" says this -- so, that is being considered in europe. let's go back to the phone calls. hispanic voter in jersey city. what do you think, michael, also about campaign 2012 and the

prospects of your gov. chris christie getting into the race? caller: how are you doing? good morning. i just called because i am a hispanic voter but i do not agree with illegal immigration because that is not our number one issue, that is not my case. i waited seven years to get into the united states. joe, -- so, why should we give things to people who came here illegally? now they claim they work better than u.s. citizens. so, i don't agree with having people here illegally and then ask for -- i waited seven years from my country to get to the united states. i waited so long, so they should go back and apply. host: does that mean, michael, that republican appeals -- republicans' appeal to you more than democrats?

caller: i am a democrat. i am not going to deny that. the obama is doing what he can do. he deported already 1 million illegal immigrants. host: the front page of "the washington post" -- also in "the financial times" -- republicans i hispanic path to ticket -- eye hispanic path to ticket. that is "the financial times" on that. a report on governor chris christie is saying he is opening the door.

they are saying this is an exclusive story and "the new york post" this morning. we covered the speech at the ronald reagan library. go to c-span.org if you missed it. other headlines, the front page of "the wall street journal" -- a story that is in many of the papers this morning. democratic caller in michigan. good morning. jesse, are you with us? good morning. caller: good morning. it all depends on what is the definition of appealing to. -- cater to.

are we catering to israel? because, you know, i think white people have been catered to since slavery. but look -- host: we are having a hard time understanding you. a lot of static. a republican from south carolina. caller: i wanted to make a quick comment. recently me and a friend went to an italian five-star restaurant. it was awesome. i said you must have great italian chefs. he said, we don't, they are illegal immigrants, because he knows the owner. the democrats pushed these illegal immigrants. they come here and take over good paying jobs. and then what happens? you have them creating the wealth -- the gap between the owner who makes more and more money and save a ton of money, and he ends up making more money and you have the democrats

in essence pushing -- they claim there is a gap between the rich and poor and that is part of the problem, by letting in illegal immigrants. now we have extra illegal immigrants they want to make voters out of so they can promise them more money, access to medicare and medicaid, things we are already having trouble affording. i don't get how people can connect this, that the democrats are in essence causing the gap between the rich and poor by many of the small-business owners getting away with paying much lower wages and then they turn around and wind it is happening. the point is -- would you please have an letson seminar on c-span for the democrats to be able to follow how to push their buttons and tell people what line they are on? i think they get confused. i just wonder why they can call on the right line. they must be midialing and of top of it lying -- misdialing.

host: "the denver post" frontpage has of this headline -- has this headline -- one federal official is saying if you have kenneled, throw it away even if it is not from this specific farm -- if you have cantaloupes, throw away. and this -- that is the front page of the papers this morning. "the new york times" below the fold has this story about a college.

rhonda, independent from wichita, kansas. our topic is the role of the hispanic vote in 2012 and your candidates's appeal. caller: yes, i am here. i feel totally disenfranchised. i was critically injured in a car wreck in late 2000 by a woman who was and probably remains in this country illegally. i lost everything. and both parties pander only to the hispanic voter. i just love to leave -- i would just love to leave this country but i can't. i am stop. where is help for me? where is the help of for all of us who have worked and now --

can you get by on $737 a month? by the way, my social security disability is late this month. where is help for me? host: we will hear from a hispanic voters in new mexico. good morning. caller: i confirm with betty from alabama and tony from new jersey. mexicans from mexico and south america are americans, too, and that is what republicans fail to consider. also on the religion issue, separation of church and state is the key, and republicans use religion as a wedge issue. thank you. host: new york. sandra, republican caller. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i have a couple of things just to -- personally my own opinion

-- but as far as illegal immigrants, i wonder if anybody has thought about the statistic on what happens to an american if you've illegally entered so many countries around the world. you are put in prison, never heard from, put in jail, shifting back to the country you are from. in this country, we embrace them. we give them a free education. we give them housing. we give them social security even though they are an illegal immigrants. -- an illegal immigrant. i have a problem with it because it is my tax dollar footing the bill and i think that is what most republicans are thinking, is our money is going out the window that should be taking care of us. and the issue of social security, how the government inc. that that money from social security -- incorporated that

money from social security and used illegally to enter it into some many other areas of the government. that is why social security has such a problem today. host: let me focus on campaign 2012. do you think and republican candidate can win in a general election without trying to court the hispanic vote in some of these swing states? we saw the article this morning about the numbers going up by 250,000 in florida, one of the key states for winning in the general election. caller: i don't really think that anybody can win without courting some of that vote because i am talking -- it is legal immigrants that have come into the country and have a right to vote. those people, i think they need to court that the vote.

host: what is the appeal? caller: i don't know i can honestly tell you. i don't think, though, that most people -- at least i can speak for myself. i have nothing against any person coming into this country legally, and i don't care what nationality they are. but why not try to come in legally? i understand there are problems in mexico and people come across the border, but why not try to enter legally? that is all we want, enter legally. host: in more can been 2012 use. newt gingrich, the former speaker, who is also running, delivering his due, -- his new contract with america today. we will be covering it. it will air tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. and you can go to our "road to the white house" website.

let us go next to a hispanic voter in miami, florida. caller: i am a hispanic but i am also a republican. i and cuban. one of the things that i have to say about florida is this -- his not only the cuban population, but many of the hispanics who have come here " -- who can vote now have come because their countries have become a socialist. and what they see in obama is he is doing class warfare. it is exactly how fidel castro got into power. what they are seeing, they did not like. they, for the most part, are not communists. and we see a tendency from the left in this country that wants to turn us that way, they want to turn this country into a controlled by the government. all that does is make everybody

equally poor. host: who is your candidate in 2012? caller: for president, i am not quite -- i like herman cain very much. but i would vote for anybody who can get rid of obama. and i do hope that the vice- president would be marco rubio. he has quite a story to tell to hispanics. his mother and father worked very hard to make him what he is today. ok? so i am sure it is quite a story for hispanics. it is not a culture of give me, give me. it is give me the opportunity to work for it. host: what do you think of mitt romney? caller: i like him. i also like governor. bang. -- gov. perry. and i also like herman cain.

and chris christie would be great because he tells of like it is. it is not candy coated. host: someone said his immigration stances might be problematic for him, chris christie. caller: i do not believe in illegal immigration. i am retired from ice. host: what did you do? caller: i was an investigator assistant. host: here is what "the new york --mes magazine" says dut it goes on to say, then there is his record on illegal immigration and the u.s. attorney in new jersey, the job the held before governor, back in 2008 a producer on lou dobbs now deceased cnn show could only find 13 illegal immigration

cases prosecuted in the chris christie's office between 2002- 2007. in kansas, despite a much smaller population, prosecuted 597 cases. what is your reaction? caller: my reaction is this. until we secure the borders, you cannot do anything about the illegal. because the problem is, we would deport them and a month later they were back again. host: was specifically about chris christie. do you have any concerns with what you heard there? caller: no, no. like i said, we have many problems in this country. one of the things -- beyond that. one of the things that worries me is the way this country is headed. it is headed toward socialism and making everyone equally poor like they did in cuba. and the government taking over

every aspect of your life. that is what obama stands for. and i do not like that. i said that from the beginning, from when he started running, to many people around me. also another thing about obama -- my daughter and lot is from honduras. her family is democrat. they voted for obama. after what they did in honduras, the united states is trying to keep that socialist president that they had in power, they were very upset and they told me personally i would never vote for obama again. host: did you vote for john mccain? caller: yes, i did. host: despite his past support for a path for citizenship? caller: it has nothing to do with that. it has to do over all. i am not a socialist. i think socialism is bad for

this country. and mr. obama is a socialist. whether people like it or not. host: let us hear from pete, a democrat from rhode island. you are the last phone call. caller: a couple of things i wanted to mention. i heard a caller a moment ago saying he went into a four-star or a five-star restaurant and a comment about the workers being illegal immigrants. i really wonder how many republicans are hiring illegal immigrants. it sounds 20 when they make those comments. number two, i hear folks talk about all the time about regulations, regulations, that president obama wants to put more regulations. how do they feel about the fact that we have no regulations and we went down the tube. host: you are taking as a different way. we will talk about epa regulations in the last hour of "washington journal." in 45 minutes we would turn to post offices and talk to the head of the postal workers union

about the future of the postal service. but next, a discussion about washington gridlock. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now get regular updates on what is on the c-span networks with c-span now on twitter, a quick program information and which event our lives and links to help you watch. it is easy to sign up. it just go to twitter.com/ cspannow. >> he founded several labor unions and represented the socialist party of america as a candidate for president, running five times. the last time from prison. eugene debs lost but the changed

political history. one of the 14 men featured in the new weekly series "the contenders." live from his home in indiana, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. it a preview about him on the special website for the series, c-span.org/thecontenders. >> you should always start with an assumption if a politician or a ceo is saying something, they are not telling you the truth. they may be telling you the truth but the burden should be on them to prove it. >> he was an eagle scout, was briefly and editor of "mother jones" and created one of the three best-selling documentaries of all time, and his latest memoir is "here comes trouble." on "in-depth" you can call or tweet michael moore. then on october 3, the supreme court will start hearing oral arguments on whether states can

be sued for failing to pay the required rate set by the medicaid act. on friday hear a similar case from 1990 arguing states cannot be sued by private parties to enforce medicaid compliance. arguing for the united states, supporting virginia governor wilder, the justice john roberts -- >> returning to the language of the statute. that language specified the state medicaid plan must provide for a payment of rates which the state finds and makes assurances satisfactory to the secretary. >> listen to c-span radio in washington on 90.1 fm, nationwide on at some satellite channel 119 and online at c- spanradio.org. "washington journal) continues. host: we are with jonathan cowan, the president of "third

way." you and other groups put forth three strategies for helping with gridlock. one of them is changing the way we do redistricting. the article pointed to a couple of states which put forth policies to do that. explain what kind of change you would like to see on that and you have any evidence it could work? guest: guessing your viewers were frustrated by gridlock in washington and no news there. one thing that has to happen to change the dynamic is to lessen the power of the two polar sides -- the furthest left in the furthest right. if you look at a lot of the voters in this country, and not just independents, but democrats and republicans, many of them feel that they as a centrist or moderate have too little a voice in washington and people who are more liberal and more conservative have less of it which in washington.

what you can achieve through different redistricting schemes and other similar processes such as changing primaries is actually lessening the power of those extremes. there is no perfect case study right now because no state has gone far enough to do it but one of the things you see just looking at, for example, president of primaries in the state of new hampshire, the fact that the new hampshire primary is open -- for example, the last time around -- was really good for john mccain because he was somebody who, or early in the primaries, didn't appeal to conservatives on the far right but did appeal to a lot more moderate republicans and even some moderate democrats and they had a chance in the new hampshire primary because it is open to actually vote for him. so there is a whole basket of reforms you can undertake that would force people particularly and congressional districts and elections to move more toward the center and give the extremes less power. host: what about california's

open primaries, that their voters ask for? have we seen the impact of that? guest: we have not yet seen the impact of that. i did that impact will be like new hampshire but on a much larger scale in which you actually force candidates to appeal less to the basis of their party and more to the center of the electorate. frankly, that is good politics, but it is also good policy because most of the major issues we get stuck on in washington are issues that do require compromise and the finding principled common ground. voters often it, if they are coming more from the far right of the far left, penalize politicians who want to find principled common ground. we need to convert that incentive and reward them. host: a strategy brought forward in a "use it -- "usa today" article is you reform the filibuster. explain what you would like to say.

guest: for your viewers, many probably know this, the filibuster requires in the senate you get 60 votes to actually effectively move anything. even if you have 58 senators who want to see something done, you actually can get it done. host: when you say get it done, just want to be clear -- you are talking about putting a piece of legislation on the floor, allowing it to be debated, allowing the debate to end, and then allowing a vote. in all of those is -- all of those steps can require 60 votes. guest: another important thing to remember is the filibuster is not in the constitution. you can change in this role. of these other rules that govern the senate and the roles the senate design. it is not that there was a filibuster and then into the constitution, so this is required. what it means is every step of the way, even if you have more than a majority, more than 51 senators, you still can be

stopped. what it means is, that a smaller group of senators can actually thwart the will of the majority. in a country in which we have very divided government, that is a huge problem making a very difficult to get anything done. if one party had 70 senate seats -- for example, the democrats had a few times in the 20th century, then a filibuster is a lot less relevant except on the ticket instances like on civil rights, you can overcome. one of the reforms we and others would like to see is you actually fix the filibuster rule. there are a number of proposals. senator udall has one that was mentioned. you need to fix the filibuster in some way so it is either use less often, harder to use, or when the bar is lower. host: the third strategy is to make lawmakers spend more time with each other across political lines.

they are here for three weeks and then off for a week and 11 apartments together. -- live in apartments to it. dick cheney was quoted in an article saying washington was set up for gridlock. that is what the founding fathers wanted. the popular vote and sentiment is passed in the house and then it goes to the senate were cooler heads prevail and it's harder to get something done. guest: a couple of things on that. first of all, i don't think vice-president dick cheney would have been saying that if everything the bush administration wanted was completely thwarted. host: are you advocating for everything president obama wants to be put on the floor? guest: well, look, our view is -- and i do not think it is a particularly radical view -- is you have a majority in the senate, you should be able to put things on the floor and get them vigorously debated and voted on. but your last point of spending more time together -- a third

way is actually the group that proposed almost a year ago bipartisan seating that was kind of known as date night on the state of the union. we didn't do that because we thought everybody having sit together would somehow magically change washington. but it is a pretty ridiculous spectacle to see both parties sitting on opposite sides when we are having a national conversation about the state of the union. things like that -- small but the suggestions -- are not going to make washington suddenly function better. but one thing we do know is the better the senate and house members know each other, the more relationships they have across the aisle, the easier it is to negotiate to have something done. host: here is the reuters story with a report from eric cantor saying this -- republicans and democrats don't and won't agree on everything. maybe some of these other issues will have to be left for the election. guest: at third way we do not

believe that compromise is the be all and all in any sense of the word. and most voters still believe that. we are a center-left leaning organization. we believe in advance in moderate policy and political ideas. so there are plenty of ideas on both sides, particularly on the republican side, that we often don't agree with. however, it is true that some issues have to be left for the election. but most importantly, there are a whole bunch of issues that are not going to be resolved by any election. obama won a large majority in 2008 and republicans came back in 2010. the country cannot afford years and years and another decade of divisiveness and gridlock. both parties are eventually going to have to find principled compromise. host: let us hear from george, a republican from manassas, virginia. caller: good morning. first of all -- greta, i enjoyed the work you did on the national mall last week. i was out there on saturday. to get more to the point that

was raised -- there is nothing wrong with gridlock. sometimes the way nothing is acceptable. sometimes it is the best course. the senate and the ways the rules are it, it allows us to give thought to what should and should not be done. the fact that we have people using tools available to them -- and both parties have different viewpoints and different ideas and sometimes stopping stuff is just as important as implementing stock. host: george, here is a tweet from cameron that says -- dguest: you are both right. having tools and place such as the filibuster can be very important. sometimes it is important to slow down. but there are huge national issues that really slowing down is just an excuse for doing nothing. i will give you one great example. social security. we are going to have to reform social security. we have essentially over the next couple of decades a

doubling -- doubling of the population receiving benefits, a doubling of the average lifetime benefit, and only a one-third increase in the number of workers who will support those retirees. that is a completely unsustainable system -- called, left, right, the president's deficit commission and many others agree we have to do something. gridlock is an excuse not to do something in this instance rather than actually a way to slow down and think about it. host: dale, independent in ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. about the taxation problem in this country. last year, general electric made $15 billion in profit and paid zero in taxes. and i would like to know why it is ok in this country. because if they are not paying for services -- say that general electric got robbed and it paid $0 in taxes, then why should the

police department go and stand up for them and protect them question on guest: -- protect and? host: let me ask you about the sentiment on main street america for corporate america and what that has to do with the gridlock we are seeing? guest: so, i am personally not an economic expert but our organization of a ton of economic work. it is a bit of a myth that ge pays no taxes. that story was retracted. there is a case that our corporate tax code is messed up. there are two problems. one is some corporations are not paying enough taxes or no taxes, and that is not good for the country, and it is also a problem because we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in a world. -- in the world.

the sentiment you articulate is precisely right. there is real tension between main street and both wall street and washington. it is very clear for a lot of folks around the country that they feel like, for example, on the bank bailouts, that big banks and big institutions got help, where many americans did not. our view is two fold. we cannot separate out wall street and main street. they are intertwined. we need a healthy capital market system that has transparency and accountability. and that is very important to help folks that run small businesses and so on. politicians have to realize there is a lot of frustration in the country. it is very clear that the defining issue for 2012 will be

the question who does better for the middle class, and both parties will fight over that intensely. host: we are talking to jonathan cowan. this from twitter -- guest: the rules do have to change. generally, what you see, after an election, a lot of things to happen. after obama came in in 2008 and democrats have majorities in the house and the senate, a lot of things happened. some voters liked what happened with the health-care bill and the stimulus package. others do not. it is not just a matter of getting rules in place. the elections push a majority in one direction or the other and you generally get aggressive

legislative action, and will probably see that in 2013. host: let's hear from scott, a democrat in saint louis, missouri. caller: -- one way to pay for social security and medicare is to let in more immigrants. % of latinos are working, so they are paying payroll taxes. also, the corporate tax rate, after loopholes, it is it the highest in the world? guest: no doubt that actually having more working age americans, including some path to legalization helps social security. by no means is it the largest or most crucial fix, but it will

bring in more workers. on the corporate tax question, there are some loopholes that need to be close, but if the united states is going to be competitive in the 21st century we need a lower corporate tax rate. the thing that ties a lot of these issues together is both parties have severe disagreements on reforming social security, corporate tax, and a list of things. the question is how you bridge the differences and break gridlock, and eventually on some of the defining big issues, we will need to have both parties compromise. host: david, a republican in florida. caller: my name is david and i voted for barack obama in 2008, and i plan to vote for him again 2008 also.

my question is -- my thing is this tea party movement is the wrong moment for america because the tea party movement is that about what abraham lincoln did. host: what do you make of president obama's shift in rhetoric, trying to compromise? caller: he has to get tough on these key part years. i like his -- tea parties. to me, they are mad because abraham lincoln beat the south. host: we will leave it there. guest: we completed a cold, and it is clear a lot of voters in the general do not like the tea

party because they stayed -- they say they are standing in the way of getting things done. i am not 8 tea party fan. i understand sentiment about fiscal responsibility, but i will say i do not believe the tea party is motivated by racism or what abraham lincoln did. i think there is no evidence for that. . it is not a racist organization. it is for family fiscally conservative, maybe more so -- profoundly fiscally conservative, maybe more so than americans would like, but i do not pay their racist. host: according to a third way report you put out, since 1980 no democrat has been elected president without winning of the 60% of the moderate vote cast for the two parties. how well obama's language help him or hurt him in his reelection bid?

guest: great question. on the percentage of moderates, this is the basic math, and it is very steep for the democratic party. 20% of the country self- identified as liberal. 40 percent so -- 40% or so, conservative, and the rest of the moderate. for any democrat to get elected statewide and a presidential level, you have to win an overwhelming number of moderate voters, which means if you're running for president you have to directly appeal to moderates. in terms of what obama is doing, we thought after the 2010 election he steered it a more moderate direction. bill daley used to be on the staff of third way, and we are a huge fan of his. we are very cautious about some of the recent, more populist,

approach. the jobs plan is the right plan, and they are clearly concerned about the deficit. that we agree with, but when it gets into questions of populism, we think that is not the way to win over the center of the electorate. host: karl rove writes in "the wall street journal" -- guest: we will leave aside the irony of karl rove giving someone a lecture about slash and burn this of politics, and

calling people up on american and unpatriotic. he is the last guy in the country that should be doing that. that said, there are folks of the democratic side, not hard- core conservatives like karl rove, who do have concerns about it populist strategy. if you look back, populism has not worked for us. walter mondale ran, when he said he would run -- raise taxes and he did not win. you had al gore talking about the people against the powerful. john kerry was saying help is on the way. americans are not victims. they do not want to be proceed that way, but that does not mean we should not fight hard for the middle class. you should, but there is a way to do it that is focused on growth. the populist approach does not work. it does not work any more than,

frankly, some of the politics that karl rove and george w. bush practiced did not work. to a highly-alk sought independent voter, larry, in ohio. caller: i want to say they should get over the gridlock. item 25 years old, and they have had this problem since i was a kid and they have not done anything in my eyes. i do not like the health-care bill at all. it is 2400 pages, and we only heard 10, the 15 things about it. i do not trust anything they do. i would rather than stay in gridlock. guest: larry, you are not alone in that sentiment. the previous caller said it

sometimes gridlock is what voters want. i will vigorously defend the health-care bill. if you believe in universal health care, it is a bill you should like. it covers millions of more americans and improves the coverage of those who already have it. it was an expensive bill. it is the closer -- closest to universal coverage this country is going to come, but also puts in place measures to keep costs contained for the long run. we have to do more of that if we're not want to bankrupt our health-care system. for somebody who wants universal health care, you should really like this bill and should be glad we did not have gridlock around it. host: what the might of the obama administration asking the supreme court to weigh in on the health-care lobby for the 2012 election? guest: is a bold move because it is not clear how the supreme

court will weigh in. there are strong arguments on both sides. we support the bill and think they will prevail, but this will probably be a 5-4 decision in one way or the other, and maybe the most controversial decision the court will make in this decade. it is gutsy to ask of to move forward. if you're looking from a political standpoint, if the cord were to strike it down, obama would have a sdr-like issue where he could run against a conservative court that is blocking against improving our health-care system, and maybe that is not a dead issue for the president to take into the election. host: if you are arguing for less divisive politics, is this not a decisive move? guest: we think that politics is by its very nature and divisive,

and these arguments are important to have. the issue is after you have argued, can you reach a common ground. when you are changing one sixth of the economy as the health care of. the house bill does, there is no way there will not be serious arguments and debate. all the way back to give a roosevelt and through, we have as serious debates about the level of involvement of government tests. sometimes issue has to go to the supreme court. host: a republican in pittsburgh. caller: when officials vote, it should not be made public for

two main reasons -- pressure from their own party, and some of these people are getting donations from lobbyists, and obvious to the lobbyists want them to vote their way. guest: that is a creative solution. i do not think you could get it through because there is something inherent in the nature of a democracy like ours because you want to know how your senator voted. the problem you articulate is spot on. there have been votes in which if you ask a member of congress if it was a secret ballot, they might vote a different way because of less lobbying pressure, and much more because a party pressure. you just saw the republican senator and lamar alexander, he

-- senator lamar alexander quit his leadership position because he wanted to be more independent-minded and work across aisles. i cannot do that from a position of leadership. there is real pressure inside both parties to conform. host: we talked to senator lamarck air of the vendor -- lamar alexander after that decision. democratic caller in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. in reference to gridlock, senator mitch mcconnell had said when the president was elected that he is going to be a one- term president, and that he is going to waterloo him. that is a bold statement. then you have republicans who have signed a pledge to not raise taxes. that is in itself gridlock.

therefore, if you have someone who wants to compromise, and you have pledged you're not going to raise taxes, and when the economy needs revenue as well as cuts in spending, you're not going to have a good outcome. the republicans ran on creating jobs in 2012. that is not what they are doing. basically, they're talking about cutting benefits. guest: i could not agree more. grover norquist, a famous activist in washington, his tax pledge is a disaster for the country. we believe no politicians should be taking pledges that bind them in ways that they cannot find common ground. and no new taxes' pledge is observed as a matter of policy.

we did a calculation at third way that basically said what would you do if you have to reduce the deficit and you did not touch taxes at all, and that is pretty close to what the paul ryan plan does. you essentially, other than social security, you basically cut everything in half -- fbi, border guards to let air traffic controllers, go on down the list. it is not an option. we're going to have to raise some taxes if we are going to close the deficit -- a very, very large deficit that we have. might bexes' pledge good politics, but it is horrible policy. host: rabin, an independent in syracuse, new york. caller: ok.

question and comment. health-care reform -- how will the government supports the with no one working? guest: well, a couple of things. a lot of people are working. the unemployment rate is far too high, but in many states, eight out of time, or nine out of 10 people are working. while we do have a high unemployment rate that must be brought down, there are still a lot of people working and taxes been brought yet even though they're at which they are at a lower level because of the recession -- even though they are at all lower level because of the recession large portions of the plan to not take into the sheet recession. large portions of the plan did not kick until 2014.

the real issue will be beyond, where the real question is what is in the affordable care act and beyond the affordable care act to control those costs? left to their own devices, both parties might actually have gridlock over containing health- care costs because it involves tough decisions, reducing the benefits in medicare and medicaid, potentially increasing taxes, raising the retirement age, and other stocks that are not popular. we should be encouraging our politicians not to be gridlock around fixing medicare and health care costs. we should reward them for having the courage to step up and get something done across party lines. it's called bob, in texas, and the republican line. -- host: bob, in texas, on the

republican line. caller: in texas, we are a work- to-right state, and there is a job on every corner right now. for this country to get on its feet, people have to stop putting their hands out. we need to make tough decisions. i have six kids and two grand kids, i'm scared for their future. texas is a perfect example of low taxes and government giving the cities and counties more power to do what is right for them. as far as i'm concerned, the only candidate running for president that can make these changes is rick perry because he as from this great state for 10 years and have positive results. guest: we know where your sentiment and your vote lies, and good for you, will in for your home state governor, but there are many folks that share

your view and they're not just republicans, but their independence and some democrats got a lower taxes and regulations spur growth. there are other points of views. you do need the right kind of regulations so small and large businesses are playing by the same set of rules. that is crucial if you're going to have capitalism function well. the second thing is i think governor rick perry needs to be careful that he does not do what michael dukakis did, running on "and the massachusetts miracle." there is a lot of truth that the texas economy has boomed, but it is not as simple as low taxes and blow regulations. texas gets a lot of money from the federal government, and has taken a lot of money, including the stimulus. if governor rick perry as we do make his record in texas the

prime reason to elect him, the record will be scrutinized, and he had better hope that he does not within the toll up as michael dukakis did in claiming a texas merkel -- miracle. and international call. in germany. caller: the me give you an example of what goes on with corporate taxes. t-mobile, a telecommunications company has customer service jobs in the united states, paid the corporate tax, and charge for we -- monthly services. you have sprint has outsourced jobs in the philippines, they do not paid a 35% corporate tax, and are still charging $100 a month for unlimited phone service.

guest: i have not read the annual reports, so i do not know the details of their profits and cost director, but, look, in the 20th century, and this is something for voters of all stripes to keep in mind, the united states could take growth for granted after world war two. we have no real competitors. everyone was on their knees. we have a small scare from japan, but it is only recently that the rest of the world, india, china, and definitely now europe, are really rising economic powers. did not have to worry about growth. we will have to worry about it a lot in the 21st century. we could be looking at and unit growth rates, 2 -- anemic growth rates, 2.5% or so.

that would be bad for republicans and democrats. both parties have to become obsessed with long-term growth prospects and turning that around, so that will mean that we need to do things that democrats do not likely chlorine corporate tax rates to create more incentive -- like laureen corporate tax rates to create more incentives. host: this is a tweet. he says your math is off. guest: we did the math very carefully. if you take the paul ryan budget, which was widely talked about, he put together budget to reduce the deficit by 2035 and did not raise taxes at all. it was all gone through spending cuts. do not take my word for. it is very straightforward.

the paul ryan plan cuts almost all government services except social security and medicare in half, some less than half, and some more. it is not an opinion. we looked at the budget and that is what it does. why is that so? it is so because if you actually want to close the deficit, it is so large, that if you only do it with spending cuts you have to make very deep cuts. if you hold entitlements like social security harmless when you are trying to reduce deficits, you're left with a small portion of the budget to actually fix. i am simply saying that most of the items in the discretionary budget have to be cut in half. that is the fact. host: the so-called super committee has to come up with $1.20 trillion in savings. your group has submitted a way to do that. guest: the super committee has

until the end of this year to come up with a plan. there are a lot of folks in this town that say go big, try to strike a grand bargain, go for $4 trillion. we do not think there is time to do that. if they could pull a rabbit out of the hat, we would support it, but the deficit committee needs to be ready to essentially break the glass,, with an emergency plan that can get -- break the glass, come out with an emergency plan. what do we do with our plan? we divided into thirds. one-third of the savings come from the defense department. a little more than that comes from changes in entitlements, modest changes that would have minimal effect on most americans and no effect on older americans. then, cuts in discretionary

programs, then cuts in water so- called tax expenditures, essentially closing a series of tax loopholes. if you put those together, you end up with more than $1.20 trillion. we pay for the jobs plan, and there is interest savings on that. if you look at our plan, and here is the key, all it takes is both parties putting aside their orthodoxies. if you laid them aside, you can readily, almost easily come up with a plan that is more than $1.20 trillion. host: barbara, a democratic caller. caller: i take exception to the notions that the reason corporations go to other countries is because of the tax code. they go for cheap labor and no responsibility to the employee

or the environment. that is why our jobs are going there, a we need to recognize that. one american corporations go to other countries, they go with the understanding that they are american and temperate region depend on the united states military to protect them -- and they can depend on the united states military to protect them. barack, as hear from republican in hastings, minnesota. caller: i have three points. i think the gridlock is the form of our government that we have the three branches. where we run into gridlock, and my feeling is on this is we have far representatives in congress. you have your judicial branch

that is all lawyers, and your president is a lawyer. varian lies the greatest problem in our tax code. lawyers, lawyers, lawyers, writing things to benefit them, and not the nation as a whole. i think herman cain has one of the best proposals and it should be given more press time, because you do have to hold corporations responsible, as the last caller said, when they go out and take their jobs overseas. why do we continue to protect them? guest: clearly you are not a lawyer, and i am not one either. perhaps that could be a platform -- remove the lawyers. i think that a lot of gridlock happens in washington, and this is not a popular thing to say, but because a lot of voters wanted that way. we have heard folks say that, but even beyond people

expressing that, we are a polarized country, and they have legitimate differences. those lead to gridlock. that is acceptable in an era where we had smaller problems and can take growth for granted. if we have gridlock for the next decade, we will end up with a .uge entitlement problem and your statement on the herman cain plan, it is interesting, but to be clear, his 999 plan would not have any bearing on what corporations do overseas, and do what i am arguing, significantly lower the corporate tax rate. host: one last call for jonathan cowan. it comes from monday, in washington, d.c.. caller: there are 400 individuals with controlled the

united states of america, the congress and the senate. changes needed. we have a group of republicans, 60% are millionaires. we need a change. it makes me cry. we need a change. congressman and senator leaders need a term limit. the united states postal service does not tax funded at all. all of their revenues come from the states. republican darrell issa, give the carrier said dedicated their lives to the postal service. host: you are in luck. that is the topic coming next, looking at the postal service and the future of it. jonathan cowan, as we wrap up, i want to take one part of what she said, term limits. why not change term limits?

guest: we have tried term limits. we are not huge fans of term limits. they have their place, but you end up with people that are in for a short period of time, and they do not develop an expertise or a deep set of relationships. they sound good on the surface, but do not really fix much. the thing people have to remember is ultimately the problem is not the system. ultimately, voters have to decide. voters are conflicted, whether they want gridlock or whether they want big things done. one caller said i think we should of gridlock, but i want universal health care. which is it? we do need systemic reforms, but those are not a panacea. ultimately, the way to solve these problems is for voters to decide what they want, and clear signals to the parties to

reach common ground. host: jonathan cowan, thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up, we will turn to the environmental protection agency and regulations, but coming up next, the future of the postal service with the president of the american postal workers union, but first an update from c-span radio. >> a data caught 33 in washington, d.c., here are some of the headlines -- in boston, federal officials said the public was never in danger in a man's alleged plot to blow up the pentagon and the u.s. capitol using remote-controlled airplanes filled with explosives. federal officials say the explosives were closely monitored. in alabama, authorities can question people suspected of being in the country illegally and hold them without bonds. those key aspects of the immigration law were upheld by a

federal judge yesterday, and governor robert bentley says those parts of the law take effect immediately. a leading syrian opposition figure said supporters of the president a hit the u.s. ambassador with tomatoes. the head of the outlawed arab socialist democratic union party says ambassador robert ford was meeting with him in damascus on monday president assad supporters tried to break in. four senators are traveling to libya. it is the highest profile u.s. delegation to visit libya since the ouster of muammar gaddafi last month. john mccain, marco will deal, lindsey graham, they arrived in tripoli today, and will meet with members of the national

transitional council. they will mile regional also tore murder's square. those are some latest headlines. -- it will also tore march her square. >> on "american artifacts" export 19th century america through its art, inventions, and discoveries. from "oral histories, called in 1973, u.s. -- elizabeth holtzman became the youngest woman is elected to congress. look for the complete week and scheduled at c-span.org.

>> this is a confession in front of a large and very important, influential audience. i have never embarked on a book about a subject that i knew all about. >> for the 11th year, more than 100 authors and c-span to's booktv return to the national mall for the national book festival. here about the latest releases -- hear about the latest releases from the authors themselves. it is washington coming your way. -- it is washington, your way. host: we're back with cliff guffey, the president of the american postal workers union, here to talk about the future of the post office. let's begin with how many union workers to represent. guest: we represent approximately two and a 20,000.

-- 220,000. we represent the clerks that word for windows, that sort the mail, the drivers, the mechanics, and the maintenance employees. host: there is a lot of debate about the future of the postal service. congressman darrell issa has legislation to reform it. senator john mccain has introduced a companion legislation similar to that legislation. are you willing to make concessions, and what are they? guest: we just went to negotiations and made a lot of compromises. representative lynch has a bill in congress which has 220 code- sponsors, -- co-sponsors, which will reform the post office. on the other side, senator

carpenter has introduced legislation that would support the postal service. john mccain's rubberstamp of darrell issa's bill will help destroy the post office and layoff toyota thousand people. host: what are the concessions so far? guest: week relaxed rules on flexibility so the postal service -- the post office could be open longer. there would be no legacy costs. we recognize it is in flux, in transition to a whole new world. we started out with lower level tried our best to meet their needs. over the last three years, 100,000 jobs have been removed from our workforce.

we have done it without laying off people. we thought that was important to go forward with that. there are many people eligible to retire, and they do not need to be laid off. in darrell issa's bill, he says if you have reached the age of 55, if you are ready to retire or not, you must retire. that is age discrimination, and those things are not acceptable. host: what about how the pension system works? guest: there are three areas of concern here about pensions. the postal service pension plan, which is paid through by postage revenue has placed 285 billion dollars into the pension plans. the first has $90 billion in debt. there is no question that there is $6.9 billion to much.

postage has input into this fund. that is plenty of money to take care of the pension. in the service retirement plan, there is $195 billion there in which all of these actuaries from the office of the inspector general had said there is between $50,000,000,000.69 $5 billion too much in that fund. we're not saying to give that back, but to shifted to other things in the deficit. what the postal service is doing right now, it is like someone buys a car, and had 36 months to buy the car, and you pay it out in defense, the government says you have paid in advance, but keep making your patience. that is a tragedy.

into thousands the key to making your payments. that is a tragedy. in 2006, there arose a requirement to refund health insurance payment premiums in 10 years. in the same law, they said you cannot pass that on to the rate payers. if you have a non-profit organization and to not have money to sit on, and the price of gas and everything goes up, and you can only raise your price of stamps, what is going to happen with that? they will go down by $5.5 billion a year. host: why do we need a non- profit organization to deliver mail in this country where we have fedex and other private carriers that do the job for profit? guest: they did not go to every door in the united states.

we go to 100% six days a week. we deliver 25% of their mail. in other words, they do not take the trucks to the rural areas. they can take the mail over the counter because the cutbacks does not allow us to leave post- gulf with -- post offices open past 5:00. host:, darrell issa was on the show. he had comments about the postal union. guest: who would not be willing to be in a pension plan that essentially we pay later if we stay in business? more importantly, he is right. this is the only agency to do this, because this is an agency that is allowed to get its own revenue, said its own benefits, which are higher than the rest of the federal workforce cut and an agency that was at independence, we want them to have it.

it is a business unit and that is simply not making a profit, and it is primarily because they have not made the changes they need in how they do business, and how many people work there. it is not they cannot make a profit. it is not that they are paid too much. there are too many workers, and they know it. host: cliff guffey, to many postal workers? guest: i think anybody that goes to a window and stands in line knows there are not too many. there has so much drain on postal revenues to subsidize other parts of the federal government. when you have hundreds of billions of dollars in pension retirement accounts that were not there for postal employees, they will not get it back because it would show how under- funded the rest of the federal government is. what they said is not true. we get the same dollar-for- dollar benefit. it is paid for only buy postage

revenue. we get the same health insurance plans. the cost is the same. the post office might pay a little more for hours then what the other federal government does, but that is through negotiations. it is the same benefit. host: we're talking to the president of the postal workers union, cliff guffey, and the future of the postal service is our topic. we have a fourth line set aside for current and retired postal workers, and you call in. we will also incorporate some students. our campaign 2012 bas it is visiting a high school in indiana, until the next 45 minutes we will hear from 15 students participating in the program. the high school is located in northwest indiana, and over 1000

students attend. thank you for preparing the students for the call in, and comcast cable for sponsoring the visit. our first student is jesse. >> how would you suggest to financially restore the united states postal service besides cutting back employment and benefits? guest: we think it is simple. there will be a slow, gradual change in the post office that needs to be done. we recognize there are people that will not use the post office and probably never use it again, but there is $65 billion of revenue by people that are utilizing the postal service. they should be done gradually. they should be done humanely, was consideration of the poor communities and rural areas, so they did not lose their service. that could be done by using these over-funding, the money

ained.as been dreame that is the humane way of doing this. you have to remember, if you read a post office with two hundred or 300 employees, it does not just that those employees. it affects their families, the businesses around the post office. the post office is the core of a $1 trillion economy, and 0.8 million other people, and as these offices close, a lot of people will be effected. host: it is from james, a postal worker in lafayette, indiana. caller: the $5.5 billion, is that for the civil service employees only, or for all the

civil service people that are retired to route the government? guest: the $5.5 billion, which is the of the deposit -- which is the yearly deposit into their retirement, that is for everyone. they are funding it all for 75 years. we would like to see a recalculation. if we're going to be the only agency to refund all of that, we would like to see that amateur rise over 30 years. the problem that we have right now is a set the bill based on 700,000 employees. we're down to 500,000 now, and as they lay off another 120,000, and the people that they layoff will not retire, and not the benefits, who gets that money? it just becomes revenue the federal government has to spend another bridges to know where. host: let's go back to our campaign 2012 bus.

taylor is next. go ahead. >> good morning. what are the possible causes of the financial losses to the postal service? guest: there are a lot of things playing into it. the internet plays into it some. people did not communicate in hard copy. when i was in vietnam, i love getting letters from home. today, people in the war zone can open up their laptop and talk to their families through the internet. communication style is changing, but still, there is a lot of this nation that relies on getting their drugs, their medicine through the mail, checks and various other things.

advertising to the community is still a hard copy item. most believe the best way to advertise is putting something in the hands of the consumer. host: i want to show you what the postmaster general have to say when he was on this program about the negotiations with unions and how that came about. guest: we have talked to unions. there are opportunities with overtime reduction and other things. you could create opportunities to boost people off of the roles and irresponsible way. >> will this have an impact on the union negotiations? guest: there is always discussions. we have to go unions in negotiations and won in arbitration. any time, especially with the economic situations we are

facing, that has to be taken into consideration when we sit down with unions. host: cliff guffey, what is your reaction? guest: it is trooper we work very closely. we entered negotiations -- it is true. we work very closely. he has three unions he is negotiating with. dohink they will work iand their part in saving the postal service. it is in no one's interest to destroy the companies that is feeding their families. we try our best to work for the postal service, and i'm sure the other unions will, too. there are things that should not be focused on the postal service, when we can resolve our problems ourselves. host: a postal worker himself, in indiana. caller: i want to make a quick comment darrell issa is not our

friend. love him, but he is not our friend. mr. cliff guffey, make sure you tell everybody out there that the post office is the way to go. we beat the price at ups, and sex. and, when it is snowing outside, the post office is the only one moving around. host: have you been participating in the protest around the country? caller: yes, ma'am. i have. i love it. remember, this is not a bailout. this is our money, and we want congress to take that money and give us access to it so we can help the post office. it is not a bailout. we did not ask for tax money from the american people. it is our money. host: cliff guffey? guest: i appreciate you calling in. u.s. the but the

demonstrations, we have -- you asked about the demonstrations. we just had demonstrations across this country. we feel like the average is around 50,000 people. that is postal workers testing congressman for help. -- asking congressman for help. i would not say any congressman is not our friend. some support us more than others. i do not like to get into partisanship. i hope the government and the congress can set aside differences and solve the problem, not with a bill, but the name means that would allow the postal service to -- not with a belt, but it means that would allow the postal service to survive. host: matt has this tweet. can i guess, and why he thinks this pre funding and it applied to the u.s. postal service, does

this apply to other agencies? guest: i can only speculate because i was not in the room with the gentleman, but anytime you say you cannot raise the rates to pay for something and put an additional $5.5 billion on their, you are setting up somebody to fail. what this did, for less six years, it cause the post office to go down by least $5.5 billion. without that, they would have been in the black. we have been struggling to we've had a lot of problems, but we would be meeting those problems. host: how would you need pension responsibilities? guest: well, the pensions are there. they're being paid for separately. this is an additional $5.5 billion for future retiree health costs. host: how would you meet that? guest: how does any other

country -- company in the world make it? host: sometimes they did not. guest: for health care, and they do not. host: some look at the auto makers and say that is part of the reason. guest: all of that has been paid back. host: right, but it was because of health care. guest: we already have a future retiree health care insurance fund -- almost $40 billion. about 40 or 60% of that, any private company who does that is usually only financed by about 30%. so, we are overfunded there also. we are not saying do not contribute to it, but stretching out over 30, 35 years. they talk about is the post office sales. the post office owns $50 billion worth of property in this

country that could be sold to pay off things in the future. host: you would agree with that? guest: at some point, they should sell off. taxpayers should not pick it up. host: good morning, ron. caller: what steps are they taking to revitalize the postal service on a local level? guest: we have tried our best to provide lower-cost employees, provide flexibility, maintain offices, and keep offices open longer. we are given post offices the right to have flexible schedules. if somebody is working eight- five, they could be scheduled eight-seven, and work less days

a week, so they can keep the post office open without having to pay overtime. we have done everything to help generate more revenue. there are a lot of situations out there were a lot of union rules forced the post office to contract out work. i will give you an example. driving a truck from oklahoma city, to dallas, and back, would require at least 10 hours. if the work day is eight hours, if we could not do it, the contractor could charge whatever they wanted to. we say we will waive those rules, provide lower-cost. the post office could then save money by doing it internally. instead of contracting it out, they could do it now internally without having the additional costs. host: are those ways to not only

save money, but increase revenue? guest: sure. my office in washington, d.c., is one block away, in one of the hearts of the downtown area were a lot of lawyers takes things. we close at 5:00. and ups are open to it. this talk about putting them beyond a -- putting them into a grocery store. that is the way to build your business, drive people to other customers. host: there are ideas to allow advertising on the side of postal trucks. do you think that is a good idea? guest: it depends on the type of advertising. if it is family-friendly -- i do not want to see budweiser on the

side of the truck. the post office in small communities is where the flag flies. there should be other government services put into the postal service. i am a disabled veteran. i could get a lot of my benefits -- checked my benefits online. to further access greater depth, i must go to a va facility, which could be 150 miles from home, and i had to go three times. if you could do that a post office, why not? verification that you are who you say you are. host: consolidate services? guest: consulted government services. host: in rural areas? guest: in all areas. there is no reason it could not work in large cities. we have a position that could benefit the country more if we

were allowed to do services that our hands are tied, preventing us from doing right now. host: california, you're on the air with cliff guffey. caller: this is unbelievable. in 2006, george bush and his cronies decide to destroy the one industry that has been sustainable on its own without taxpayer money, and all of the sudden, you are seeing that the post office has to many employees. are you serious? the republican government is crippling this country, and taking everything from the american people. they are stealing your benefits. they are stealing billions of dollars. that helps them with their war chest. i cannot believe it.

i thought it was all about e- mail and facebook and twitter, the reason the post office was going bad, but it is because of george bush? host: cliff guffey? guest: it is a shame, but there are people in government that do not want government to work. they want government to fail, and the postal service has been an entity since 1970. for 36 years, the employees salaries went up at the rate of inflation, and a product that we postage was about 10 cents and newspapers were about 10 cents. newspapers about 25 and posted about 25 today it's about 44 cents. newspapers are a dollar or $1.50. newspapers are a great buy. we stayed well below inflation. fix006 someone said let's

that. they fixed it by putting in provisions that would destroy it and make the postal service look bad. that's what happened. >> one of our 15 students aboard are 2012 bus in indiana at the high school. go ahead, steve. caller: good morning. do you feel the u.s. postal service needs to be more concerned about saving jobs or saving money at this point? guest: i dig they can do both. there are ways to streamline the system without causing the system to collapse. if you move too fast in a changing world, you can eviscerate the need for your service. when you start closing plants and delaying the male, then that causes people to look for other ways to get their product delivered or what have you.

to stay competitive, they cannot close down their network. in other words, you don't take care of a medical problem on your ear by cutting off your leg. you cannot do as large a surgery on this type of institution as fast as some people wanted to happen without destroying the service. that is widespre what a lot of s debate is about, how to gradually take this down to meet the needs of society as they decreased. do you do it quickly right now or do you do it over a longer term? by doing it over longer-term would not cost the taxpayers any more. it would do nothing except the postage money that has come in through posted sales that were put into the postal service to provide this service to be used for that service and not to be used for other government services. host: we have a postal worker in

houston texas, you are on the air. caller: hello. what's been going on for a long time is detractors of the postal service have been trying to do sabotages it. every industrial nation where they privatized postal service, the rates have gone up and the service has gone down and no one is happy with their postal department anymore. this misinformation that they are calling ethis a bailout, this is a scary propaganda when they are not telling the troops and trying to predict not .elling the truth an guest: i would love to compare our postal service to the german postal. equivalent. germany has contracted out all

their stations and branches recently, all the retail product. they have a system in germany where they have a great rail network, a whole country is crisscrossed by rails. they don't have to put mail on airplanes like we do in this country. it travels in a steeper manner across the country. they have socialized medicine in their country, so their s goals of this is not have to make big deposits. but their postage is 22 cents more than ours. you are correct. when you talk about the taxpayer bailout in this country, if they get to the point where a lot of this is likely going, where they would like to contract out huge portions of their country, people will think that is profitable, we will do that, someone will make a lot of money. but then who would deliver the mail to the small rural areas and poor communities? that would be done by government again and funded by taxpayers.

while the post office cannot make a profit overall, they used high-volume revenue areas to pay for a new low volume areas. prepare try to do is do away with low volume areas which would hurt people in rural communities, or they want to contract out to work in large areas, which will hurt their rural communities. it is a node installation if you go down the road of some of these congressional bills just to destroy the post office. it is an american service for the american people and has to be universal service or its not a service at all. host: guy allen is calling from aborted campaign 2012 bus. go ahead with your question. caller: 1 and do you think it's the biggest misconception that americans have about the postal service? guest: clearly the biggest misconception we have in this country is that it paid for by tax dollars. it is solely run by the posted revenue that comes in, 44 cents at a time or the individual advertising mail.

we started running a commercial several months ago that it's not funded by tax dollars. host:, is banned on the commercial advertising? guest: over $1 million. it was an awakening to the american public and changed the dialogue in a lot of the news media that were saying it was paid for by tax dollars. it also woke up a lot of our people. our people are dumped at all the time through the window with people saying that we pay your tax dollars, when they really don't. they don't take tax dollars. we everything for the postal service. we pay for the trucks and the gas and future pensions and retirement plans and health care. we pay for that out of postage. i think that is the biggest misconception out there right now. much of the american public thinks taxpayer dollars pay for

the post office. host: here's an e-mail from franklin, conn. also service needs innovation, no saturday delivery. what you think about those ?ursar-- those what about eliminating saturday service? guest: we could save everything and not deliver at all. if you are a service, you are a service. it's not going to save that much money when you have overpaid pension funds by $70,000,000,000.-1589965110 and overpaid into the future retiree health insurance. when you overpay into all those, to say we are going to cut service to the american people to save $2 billion? if they close 3700 post offices,

they will save less than a couple hundred million dollars. but they are having to cut and look at the bottom line of everything because they're being required to put this money off to the side. it's not necessary. when you are fully funded -- and they keep saying put more in there and more, there's nobody in america, that would do that with their bank or anything else. they prepay their loans and the bank said we are going to foreclose on you, it would be observed. the same people in this country if these and kind of regulations were put on any private company, they would say you cannot put these regulations on, they are the same ones and we must put these regulations on the post office. host: michael is a republican in michigan. caller: good morning. i am also a disabled veteran. that makes us brothers. guest: very good brothers.

caller: we used to get our medication delivered by ups or fedex, as you know. we now get it through the post office. although it is probably a lot cheaper, you guys are not getting it done. i get medication -- they dish it out to 30 days at a time. you do not get it until the 30 a day or possibly the 31st day. when it does not show, is a problem. call the post office, they don't answer the phone. and when you to answer the phone, to get an attitude. guest: i sincerely apologize. i get my medication, of them per month, 90 day-spurts.

the minute i get them this month i call nine days in advance. i have never missed one. we do recognize that there is a staffing problem on the lines, but you cannot drain the money off that goes for service and then say why is service not there? i think the postmaster general is trying his best right now to try to improve the communications and we want to work with him on making sure that the postal workers have good answers. we have people there to solve the problems. it's just not there right now because we cannot drain this kind of money out of a system and not cut service. you are talking about exactly what we want to correct. you have to have people there to answer the problems for people. you cannot do that with putting the cash flow somewhere else. host: daniel has sent this e- mail.

guest: the issue has been addressing lately over the last number years, there's been a great reduction in the number of overhead costs. thee looking at one of things in the negotiations was we will give you lower costs employees and more flexibility, but in exchange you cannot be taking any work away from us and paying someone at another level could do. we want all that work back. responsibly bring order back and have been paid for by a working person who gets paid much less money. >> level 18, level 6, with the average salary? guest: level 6, around somewhere in the mid 40's. low 60's is probably 60 or 70. host: that as a supervisor?

guest: correct. they say we are overpaid, but anything they can strip away from us by timekeeping and various activities, personnel work, they say we are overpaid, take it away from us. host: i want to get to another student, cody jones. caller: hello. are there any services that the post office could cut that are not useful to americans anymore that would help the post office reduce layoffs? guest: i don't know that there are any services that we are not using. there are some services they may have to bring back. things like -- if they go to your days of deliver door-to- door, it would have to bring back maybe special delivery, so people could get their medicines and parcels could be

delivered on the sixth day. we are not advocating a reduction in any of the services. but i don't know of any services right now that are provided that should be coupled -- cut. there are some services we need an back so we can help the customers. bafta provide the service. host: frank is a postal worker in oklahoma city. caller: i would just like to say congratulations to mr. frank duffy. became a long way from oklahoma city. i think he's done an outstanding job and we need to let the public know that not all issues at the postal service are negotiable. thank you, sir, have a blessed day. guest: banks alike, frank. -- thanks a lot.

i came up through the system? 40 years. host: joanne is a democrat in chicago. caller: i am a retired postal worker and my question is, why is our health care insurance -- it has been so high, we pay all of our premiums and it has been going up like $200 every year and the choice of insurance that they give us is high. i wonder is that because of what happened in 2006 or is that just the way it is that retirees have to give up all of their pensions to get health care insurance? guest: i agree. that's a tragedy the way the health care in this country, the costs have gone up 14% or 60% per year, which is reflected in

the pavement for retirees and current employees -- payment. the products coming out of their tech is going up faster than their attacks are coming up -- .han their checks are they have to pay a large stock of their salary for health care. if we are working on that in different ways. the postal service has creative suggestions to maybe take us out of the federal employees health benefits plan. there are issues on medicare, getting more people -- getting more people into medicare and may be paying medicare supplemental insurance rather than all the fees. we want to do what is best for the workers, retired or currently working. we will be looking at working as best we can in all these areas,

because there's one group of people making a lot of money and often that's the insurance companies. host: the postmaster general spoke about the pre funding retirement. >> i agree with the fact we have to move away from the retirement or pre-funding of retirement. second issue is looking forward. changing the requirement to pre- fund $5.5 billion would of been a great solution four years ago. revenues continue to go down. even if we would reduce the pre- funding and just do that, next august we're out of cash. you have to take many more steps to change what we are doing. that is why we are pushing for this option and pushing congress to refund overpayments we have made. retirement systems, to give us the operating cash we need to handle some of these business changes going forward. host: let's hear from our

students aboard the campaign 2012 bus. zach. caller: what is your opinion of removal of saturday mail? guest: i have stated repeatedly that i don't like to see any services, to the american people. they have paid for the services and the money is there, but it's being utilized for other government reasons. they are taking the money that was paid for by the rate payers and utilizing it to subsidize funds that should be paid by the taxpayers. the retirement system's for the department of agriculture workers or the treasury department and all these other different agencies, they get appropriated tax dollars and spend the tax dollars and they're supposed to be putting money into retirement funds, but they're not doing that. overages are our zero bridge

showing. they are terribly overfunded. any employer must pay workers' comp insurance. the post office was in dire straits this year. it threatens not to make their workers' compensation deposits into the federal government. -- they threatened. what would that affect have on all federal employees? they wrote me back a letter from the government saying no one would get paid. that shows me how much they rely on the postal service money. why would the people from the usda and other agencies put their money in there to pay their own people? they need the post office money and service charges from the post office to make sure everyone gets paid. that's not right. that is taking money patrons

have paid for oil service and then utilizing it for other government services, which should be paid for by taxpayers. host: high school student test and is our last phone call. caller: hello. what can economists do not do to restore profitability to our postal system? guest: i think this is a misnomer. the post office would be profitable to if they were not overcharged for all these other congressional funds. if they would set that right. all congress has to do and is looked at the lynch bill and a few of these others and recognized the postal patrons have overpaid into the postal service which has required the postal service to pay into the congress. if they were to relax those and allow the post office to utilize that money for postage usage,

for services for the postal community, the, to do anything else. the post office and employees in the postal service have a great tradition of providing service and cooperating with each other to take care of the problems of global service. we can do that without the congress putting more obstacles in our path. they need to remove the obstacles and the postal service will serve the community as best as possible. host: what happens next in the debate? guest: i think the next battle turns to capitol hill, the struggles. it is a continuing struggle in congress at this time. i don't want to characterize it as a partisan debate. that creates a lot of problems in many areas of government. , want this to be a debate about the service to the american people. we think this is a service that the government provide the best and has done well for 200 years or so and we are respected by

the american public and we want to continue that. if we don't want to be characterized as a partisan or this or that. we will do our best to educate our people about which congressman support us and which don't. we have bipartisan support from congressman weiner's bill and we are proud of that. host: cliff guffey of the american postal workers union. thank you. we also want to spanx the high school students aboard our campaign 2012 bus in indiana and forwant to stathank paul preparing the disappearstudents. now an update from c-span radio. >> 9:22 in washington. new economic news from the government. the economy grew a little faster in the spring than previously estimated, but still stayed weak. the commerce department says the economy grew at an annual rate

of 1.3% in the april-june quarter. that is up from an estimate of 1% a month ago. even with that provision, the economy grew at an annual rate of just 9 cents a 1% in the first six months of the year. that is the weakest six-month performance since the recession ended more than two years apart. the number of people seeking the unemployment benefits is down sharply. an encouraging sign that layoffs are easing. the labor department says the weekly applications dropped 37 cows and to a seasonally adjusted 391,000 last week. that is the lowest level since april 2. a short-term spending bill that would prevent a partial government shutdown at midnight friday is expected to be approved in the house today. buying time until the entire house get back next week from a one-week break to take up the longer-term funding measure that has already been approved by the senate.

the senate is in for pro-forma session today at 1:45. live on c-span 2 and on c-span radio hd3. 80% of the members of congress are on facebook and twitter. paxil social media experts say lawmakers should be doing more with what they have. those on capitol hill should be more interactive in using on- line communication tools to reach out to young people. one of their most elusive constituent groups. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> get regular updates about is on the c-span networks with c- span now on twitter. get information once an hour of programming information and links to help you watch. it's easy to sign up. go to twitter. the latest and most instant information of what to watch on

the three c-span networks, now, on twitter. which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is our question in this year's studentcam competition, opened the middle and high school students. make a video documentary 5-8 minutes long and tell us apart that's important to you and why. include more than one point of view planned video of c-span programming. entries are due by debris 20, 2012. $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for details, the web site. >> washington journal continues. host: coral davenport is the energy and environment correspondent for national journal," here to talk about the fight over epa regulations. what is the environmental protection agency and what gives its a story to make incremental regulations? guest: the environmental

protection agency was created in the 1970's under president richard nixon. its basic authority is to regulate our air, water, basic environments. there's a couple of big pieces, a couple big laws that congress passed cups soon after the creation of the agency in the 70's that gives the epa legislative legal authority to control the pollutants that go into the air and water. the biggest one and the one then there's the big debate about today is the clean-air act, which was passed in 1970, which essentially lays out -- defines a series of pollutants that are hazardous to human health. that law from 1970 gives --i'm

sorry, the clean air act gives the epa the environmental protection agency the authority to regulate, to control various entities that are committing pollutants that cause harm to him and helped. host: without congressional approval? guest: correct. if a chemical or something that is going into the air is defined as hazardous to human health, that qualification, then it gets a legal definition of pollutants. if something is defined as a pollutant, under the authority of the clean act, environmental protection agency has not only the authority but the requirement, anything that is defined as a potent to human health, the epa must regulate under the law. host: that is what the supreme court decided.

guest: there is a debate right now about the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide. there's a number pollutants that have been determined to be hazardous to human health over the years. and so, under the clean air act, the epa has to regulate them. one of beckham is a look and called sulfur dioxide. this is a common pollutants, mainly contributed -- minister did to coal-fired plants. so for dioxide has been determined by a wider of rate of studies to cause harm to your lungs if inhaled. it is like getting a sunburn on your lungs if you inhale and sulfur dioxide. it causes asthma and causes your lungs to fill with liquid. it's clearly meets the definition of hazardous to human health and a pollutant. under that definition, the epa must epait under the law.

there's a number of other pollutants that fall into that category. mercury is another one. we have heard that one a little more. studies have clearly shown that mercury is linked to prenatal diseases and developmental disorders in the fetus. it is linked to nerve damage and problems with brain development and a lower i.q. and children. clearly a pollutant that is hazardous to human health. again, because it meets the definition, epa must regulate it, epa must find entities that in mercury and control them and regulate them. in 2007 there was a very big, very contentious of the court decision. that was over greenhouse gases. massachusetts vs epa. what was at stake in that

decision is the question, " scientists have shown greenhouse gases contribute to global warming." the question is do they meet the definition of a pollutant? does global warming cause hazards to human health? the supreme court decision of 2007 essentially told the epa that it would have to make that determination. the epa gets the authority to make that determination. the epa looks at these reviews and studies. since 2009 the epa determined that carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, to contribute -- are a hazard to human health. -- in 2009. it is a little harder to drop a direct connection. if you are breathing carbon dioxide in the same way that your breathing mercury, you will not hurt your lungs or

immediately gets sick. if you are breathing mercury or sulfur dioxide, a problem with your lungs immediately -- you will have a problem with your lungs really. carbon dioxide is kind of broader. that contributes to global warming. global warming is linked to a wider spread disease. it is linked to warmer temperatures. it's a couple more steps that you have to take. studies that they did said ultimately greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, are pollutants that hurts human help, so the epa gets it. once you make the definition, the e.p.a. cannot choose whether or not to regulate it, under the supreme court decision. or rather under they original clean air act. host: it is going to be a potent, but after goingit, said

the supreme court -- the supreme court said that if you deem it to be a potent, than you have to regulate. there was an article that said -- guest: what happened with that ig report is essentially it did not find fault with any of the data or any of the science that epa used in making this endangerment finding. that is a very important distinction. thedoes find faultles with process that was used. essentially, when the epa gave this endangerment finding, came to this conclusion, they evaluated all of the peer-

reviewed existing scientific reports that were out there. they did a review of the reviews. there's a lot of data, a lot of evidence, a lot of recording out there about the effects of carbon dioxide and the global warming. there process was they reviewed all these. they did not conduct an independent fresh study. ultimately, the ig report determined that this was such a high-profile decisions -- a decision of such high profile and high influence that it was going to be a high influence decision, they should conducted scientificfresh fin study. they are saying you really should have done in your own rigorous review. rather than reviewing the reviews. the ultimate conclusion, of the

reduced added, there's no question that science is accurate, that those reviews or rigorous. the final conclusion is the epa does not have to go back and redo what they did. they should be more careful about the process is going forward. but ultimately in does, underpin the content of their findings. it is a slap on the wrist. it does not look good. at the end of the day it does not change epa's ability to go forward and regulate these gases. it does make them look bad and say you should have been more rigorous about this process, but the final outcome is still the same. caller: is the reaction from republican darrell issa. he says this --

guest: i would question chairman darrell issa's characterization. here's why. the epa is doing rulemaking process right now on carbon dioxide that affects a global warming. they had a rule making a proposal that was due this month which there recently and delayed indefinitely. reason they gave is their wont to go as slowly and carefully as possible to make sure every piece of that -- that they are really as progressive as they can possibly be. hthat the greenhouse gases. here's why this whole issue -- the epa is in the midst of rolling output an unprecedented school of new rules and regulations. it's not as a global warming

rules. this one on smog and another on mercury and another on sulfur dioxide. there's a whole big pile of them. they're not coming out very quickly. however i differ with the chairman eisa, a lot of these goals greeted i'm sorry, i spoke about the clean-air act from the 1970 oppose it, but there is a follow all that was passed in 1990, the clean air act amendments. it was signed into law by george h. w. bush pickshe worked very hard on it. -- he worked very hard on it. they learned a lot more about the science in those 20 years and realize epa should be raining in these other pollutants, so a lot of the rules epa is willdoing now, epa scientists have been working

on some of these rules 20 years. it is a stretched to call them rushed. even though there are a lot ofw themlote have. host: let's hear from a democrat in shaker heights, ohio. caller: not many years ago, i was running a company, a distillation company, in florida making 190 proof from the second squeezing of oranges. i had a small problem with the epa and even though i had a zero water discharge plant. thomas dickerson said the role of government is to protect the public, so i don't disagree with regulations. but the problem it is cool too many of the people will carry out the regulations are mechanically and inaccurate. the regulations have become very

abrasive because of the way they are carried out. there are other problems. host: henry, from what you heard from the epa, does that economically impact your business? caller: did its impact my business? nitpicking just an in pic about nothing. it was a plant next door that complained because we were having a problem over our border a, it's this peopl -- these people had nothing to do with. there were dumping chemicals that kill the orange trees. they said we were dumping water on the ground. if the water be dumped on the ground was water that came through the water treatment plant. we were having trouble keeping close him out of the water. the bond producers are putting tells him in orange juice anyway. host: we have a republican

in abilene, texas. caller: the epa should be abolished for so many foolish decisions. we live in west texas which has produced oil for about 100 years. probably the biggest employer and in west texas out here. our water is good as well as the air. they're going to shut down that plant. i guess they could not do it because of the air and the water, so they have cstop it because of the lizard that is indigenous to that area. it is going to displace so many jobs here in west texas. in the midst of all this, right in the middle above the basin, the epa is putting a toxic waste dumps.

it would be terrible if the toxic waste dumps hurt the lizard. caller: our guest road about that in a recent edition of the national journal." guest: epa and a lot of independent groups and think tanks have done studies on the costs and benefits over all of all the rules. by and large, independent analyses have generally shown there's a couple of patterns that i saw looking through these analyses. absolutely these epa rules will have a cost. they are going to lead to shutdowns of mostly coal-fired power plants. they are also going to cause a lot of polluters to have to invest in cleanup technology known as scrubbers which is like

a filter that you put in the smokestack that cleans out a lot of the stuff . that can be a billion dollars per facility. the companies will have to take on these costs and in some cases pass them along to ratepayers and customers. there's no doubt that a lot of these rules will cost industry. in some cases tens of billions of dollars per year. if you have closures of coal plants, " as of oil refineries, there are a lot of jobs lost there. overall, the way they account the benefits is in public health and the overall benefits to the economy. in that they count a lot of these pollutants are so clearly linked to problems with human health, so they count kids not getting asthma, fewer premature deaths, you're lost workdays is a big one that they count.

and so, generally -- another thing that does not going to give an accounting of caused back on it was interesting is when companies pay to install all the cleanup technology on the polluting plants, they are paying a lot of money and creating a lot of jobs. american electric power estimated that due to the epa one big cleanup for coal plant could probably hire about a thousand people over a period of two years up to five years. overall, the public health and broader economic benefits do outweigh the cost, but there's no doubt that especially in in oil and coal parts of the country you will see pockets prepare its case a small stream

hit balanced with a broad overall benefit to public health. caller: here are some numbers from your report. galt is an independent in columbia, south carolina. -- paul. the firefight between the epa and power companies.

caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. mrs. davenport mentioned global while ago. every time i hear that word, it makes me angry, because we have regulations against manufacturers in the united states, but yet we've are shipping jobs over to a communist country, which is slavery, and then ship them backs. it causes as much pollution in the air with ships and buildings and containers and what have you than it would cost if we kept the jobs in the united states. caller: dennis is a democrat in piedmont, missouri. caller: i would like to ask about the regulations pertaining to creeks and rivers. when i was a child they

regularly cleaned out the creeks and rivers to reduce the flooding, especially the creeks. we have a creek that runs through town. local officials have told us for years that they cannot clean it out because the epa regulations and it flooded the whole town. we lost a lot of homes. sadly, after the flood when the creek was back down to normal levels, and they said they could clean the creek out down to the water level, but no further. my question is, do the regulations require you can go down only to the water level? are you not allowed to clean them out to reduce flooding? guest: i am not familiar with that specific set of regulations. a lot of the callers are illustrating the fact that these regulations do touch people to in their daily lives. it touched people in

communities in so many ways. a lot of people experience a lot of good of the epa and a lot of the hassles. bureaucratic regulations. that is part of why this is really a bubbling up pinsetter debate right now, as the broader debate about regulations takes hold. there are so many regulations. i don't know about that particular one. it is interesting, the previous caller spoke about the jobs going to china. one of the reasons the debate is so inflammatory right now isn't we are seeing all of these new clean-air regulations coming out -- is we are seeing all of these new regulations coming out. if you go to china, you see so

much development in some parts of the air is thick with sm andog and soot. the regulatory environment is completely different. they are incurred to build and go crazy. there's a question of the trade off. you see the economic boom. is there going to be a trade-off in public health? host: we have to become a republican. caller: i have a question concerning the mercury. she says that mercury is so dangerous for us and yet we are told to take light bulbs into our homes and have murdering in them and if they prepare so much danger because there's mercury in the light bbulbs.

we're not even allowed to make a light bulbs in this country because they are so dangerous. they make them in china. if it is so dangerous, why do they want to bring it into our country and into our homes? guest: the debate about compact fluorescent light bulbs is an explosive issue and that we have seen in this regulatory context. i'm not a scientist. i do know that it says on the package that you should not put them in the trash. households with pregnant women are supposed to carefully dispose of them. grandstanding generally is that the amount of mercury in one light ball is -- bulb is so tiny compared to the mountain mercury and that comes out annually from the smokestacks in major coal-fired power plants. it's a magnitude of difference

of scale. that's my broader understanding of the difference of that. that's why we see the regulations, a call for regulations to really cut down those much higher scale emissions of mercury. caller: rick is an independent in cleveland, tennessee. caller: ms. davenport, pro-green energy movement? guest: i am a humble reporter. i talked to people and write about what's going on. caller: ok. my question on my statement is this transition to the new green movement has crossed the economy, in my opinion. whenever we could depend on our own natural resources and get off of foreign energy would be a win-win situation. let me ask you this, do you think the president will still

support the keystone pipeline that is going to add a five-hour energy shock to our economy? guest: all signs point to yes on the keystone pipeline. there's a final decision due from the state department by the end of the year. they're supposed to give a final decision by then. bucks all the signs that we have seen have been in the direction -- click looks like the administration will approve the caller: keystone pipeline the pipeline would start in canada and go to through six states. here's a map of it in the new york times this morning. it would go from canada to the midsection of the u.s. and has taken on an unexpected your duty this week as the stakes of the message process-focus at a time of festering anxiety about the nation's future. around a public hearings by the

state department -- a round of hearings is meant to focus on a single question period is it in the national interest? now to st. louis, nathan is a republican. caller: hello. it's common knowledge that krupp and dioxide is exhaled by human beings which the plants breed -- breathe. -- carbon dioxide is exhaled by human beings. are they going to tax human beings? guest: carbon dioxide is a special kind of pollutants. most of the pollutants regulated by the epa until now are primarily produced by giant entities like a coal plant or an

oil refinery. when they got into the business of regulating carbon dioxide, they opened a pandora's box for themselves because carbon dioxide is ubiquitous. it is produced by plants and and buy your vehicle and pretty much every building. once it was determined carbon dioxide in large quantities ultimately is a pollutant, epa has to regulate. they were faced with how do you regulate something that is everywhere that you and i are breathing right now? and so, epa came up with a rule called the tailoring rule. essentially they said we are only going to regulate it for entities that produce around 120,000 tons or 60,000 tons per

year. so we are not going to regulate for smaller emitters. we concluded is dangerous when only produced at these larger scales. the epa made very clear, lisa jackson, the illustrator, the president himself has made clear because are not in the business -- we don't want to regulate churches and schools and houses. they want to regulate these giant polluters. o they did this tailoring of a lot. that has come under fire as well. --ler: jim wright's this now let's hear from rich in connecticut, independent caller. caller: ok, osha in the

workplace. manufacturers vent all these things that the workers were exposed to all, to the outside air. also, there's a worldwide diabetes epidemic, even in populations which are primitive and have not changed their ways or anything in the last years. the cancer rates, it is all in the wind. the wind is out of the west. one is d.c., number two is road island, #four is new jersey. if we go by the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, we need clean water, clean food, and clean air to breathe. all of the pollutants are dropping on the fields on our food. surface reservoirs, the levels of mercury and cadmium levels are higher than in isn't i --

that -- higher than in well water. guest: for pollutants like mercury and sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, that is essentially what drives the regulation. what are the health hazards of these pollutants? what are the scales at which they cause health problems and the scales at which they don't? and how do you bring that down? host: does the epa have scientists within the agency and that do scientific experiments? guest: yes, that is a big part of what they do. the syntax and, the administrator, started her career as a career scientists with the epa many years ago. so, yes, they have teams of scientists that evaluates what

are help the levels and unhealthy levels of these chemicals in the air and water. -- lisa jackson is the administrator. caller: in new york regarding the marcellus shale area, they are still under debate. the epa also has a report that they will be generating that will produce results within the next few months. after watching and seeing any time you go into some areas it's almost like baking a cake. you don't take the particles out after you have done the chemicals. what can the epa do to regulate the effect of hydrofracturing?

the water and the air in our area is going to be totally and unprotected and we are all going to suffer from that. i don't see the epa or any other organization stepping up to protect the people. guest: the epa study is everything. hydrofracturing is not federally regulated right now. some states have state regulations. but by and large it is pretty much regulated by the companies that do it. if it is generating another big debate. tpa is in the process right now of conducting independent study. if the spoke about the study on carbon dioxide and global warming and they were slapped on the list and send you should've done your own independent study. if that is what they're doing with hydrofracturing. what are the effects of hydrofracturing and what are the effects on the water table and on the air?

when they completed that review, the expectation is that, that will follow up with proposals for some kind of new federal level regulation of hydraulic fracturing. so the epa is doing this review and is expected that in the coming years it'll probably have a stronger role and then there will be more regulation. caller: the house has taken up epa regulations, try to delay them or streamline them. what is next? what is the next legislation coming down the pipeline? guest: next week. eric cantor had a memo in august laying out all the federal regulations but house wants to undo week by week this fall. they did one last week. they passed the one that blocks epa's ability to regulate mercury picks from coal plants to preventability

pollution from one coal-fired plant to cause harm or hazard in the next states over. so next week epa is also coming out with rules that would regulate pollution emitted by cement plants and pollution emitted by industrial boilers. these are the didactic boilers -- a gigantic oil is that power a big building like a factory or a hospital. next week the house will vote to block the epa from doing those rules. caller: coral davenport, for more of a report, go to national journal.com. that's all for washington journal. we will be back tomorrow with more of your calls, e-mails, and tweets. thanks for watching. h[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the u.s. house is coming in in just about an hour. here is how "national journal" previews what is likely to happen today. they say house leaders do not anticipate any glitches today in the routine parliamentary process for house approval, keeping the spending level for tuesday. reparations committee john culbertson is said to appear on the house floor shortly before the 11:00 a.m. start time of the pro forma session. we will have coverage for you at 11:00 here on c-span. coming up at midday, defense secretary leon panetta and director of national intelligence james clapper will participate in a ceremony participate in a ceremony