of congress are guilty of insider trading in the stock market. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: president obama travels to denver today to highlight consolidating debts into one loan. stay close to c-span.org to find out when we will air that speech. mitt romney is in florida today. herman cain's first campaign ad appeared yesterday. it highlighted the fact this morning that one man is smoking a cigarette in the advertisement. we are asking you to weigh in on it this morning. here is how you can do so. we have set aside in line for

herman cain supporters. 202-737-0001. all others, 202-737-0002. if you wish to send us an e- mail, journal@c-span.org. our twitter address is twitter.com/c-spanwj. it is also our question of the day on facebook. if you have not seen it yet, here it is. >> mark bloc here. since january, i have had the privilege of being the chief of staff of herman cain. tomorrow, we are one day closer to the white house. i really believe that herman cain will foot the united back in the united states of america.

if i did not believe that, i would not be here. america has never seen a candidate like herman cain. we need you to get involved. together, we can do this. we can take this country back. america, one voice, united we stand ♪ host: this is the blog from "the washington post."

host: "the guardian," newspaper this morning has this -- "the worst ad in history of politics. " if you go to the state -- the pages of "the weekly standard, closed but they have a link to the ad. host: that is just some of the reaction this morning as far as web blogs. if you want to give us a call, the numbers will be on the screen. herman cain supporters, 202-737- 0001. for all others, 202-737-0002.

tell us what to think about it. again, our first 45 minutes devoted to that. our first call is from ohio. mary, supporting others. go ahead. caller: i found the ad insulting, especially the smoking. however, on the radio last night i heard that the chief of staff, the man in the ad, has been thrown out of politics for suppressing the black vote. i was wondering if anyone would call in and comment on how true it was. host to why did you find the ad insulting? caller: the smoking part. it has been proven that smoking is bad for your health. it was like they were just sticking it in your eye. they were going to do whatever

they wanted. host: little rock, ark., good morning. dorothy, go ahead. caller: i am like the other caller. i find the smoking insulting. smoking is against your health. i just think it is a joke. matter-of-fact, i think it is representative of herman cain. i do not think he is a sincere candidate. host: if the ad sent a message, what was it? caller: that they are not serious. that they are kidding around. that is not serious. that big smile on herman cain's face, i just thought that it did not make sense. host: mclean, virginia. supporters of herman cain.

your next. caller: good morning. i have not made a final decision about herman cain, but he is a very impressive candidate. i think that there is a lot of fluff about his campaign manager smoking. on the other side of that coin, he is getting in love free air time. the problem with most of these political campaign people, they grab onto a superficial element. no one ever really explores the death of what any candidate is saying, which is a shame. everything is spun off. i do not know how many people have time to investigate the issue. the problem have with president obama is that he is disingenuous. most of his space is spent being ignorant.

host: what did you think about the style? especially because it is the first. caller: it is certainly unusual. you know, i guess, maybe, maybe there are voters that are smokers. maybe it will lock them up again. i do not find it all that offensive. as far as i know, smoking is legal. unfortunately, those that do smoke are kind of demonized. it is really intriguing that he is kind of not following all of the conventional paths. certainly, he is capable and able. i am hoping the best for his campaign. host: from the caucus section of "the new york times," it says that the former restaurant executive "is running it -- riding a wave of support in a

statistical dead heat with mitt romney." host: again, we want to get your thoughts. primarily on the advertisement released by the campaign this morning. the numbers are on your screen. our e-mail is journal@c- span.org. facebook is another way that you can weigh in this morning. new jersey, supporting others line. caller: thank you very much. i think that herman cain -- i think that -- shucks. host: you are on. caller: thank you. i think that this advertisement is the same as all of his other

remarks. nothing is well thought through. if you have to be apologizing, people have to realize that this man has no substance for understanding of what is going on today. i would like to make a complaint about c-span. i have been watching for over 30 years. i noticed that whenever the president speaks, you never see the audience, the size of the audience for him. when chris christie spoke at the reagan library in august, it was panning a few times. for rick perry, you panned across the audience two or three times. host: that is not always the case. in some cases, we cannot always control the camera coverage. go to our video library. most of the president's major addresses are there. you can give a sense of the audiences from the various

speeches. queens, new york. betty, go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i do not smoke. i used to. it is a silly advertisement. i do enough support herman cain, but i am a republican. also, president obama smokes. i do not know if he stopped, but he used to. it is a silly advertisement. host: why? caller: it does not make any sense. the lady that just called, asking about this gentleman suppressing the black vote, i happen to be biracial. this is conservatives against progressives. it has nothing to do with race. this for man, herman cain, has been chastised -- poor man, herman cain, has been chastised.

host: this e-mail -- host: gina, texas. herman cain supporters. sorry, mike. are you there? caller: i watched the commercial the first time. it was kind of strange. the second time, in didn't seem like it was blowing much smoke out of his mouth. maybe he is saying i do not blow smoke. host: what do you think about the style? even as a first introduction, as a campaign ad? caller: it was kind of odd, but maybe that was the point. people thinking to themselves that it is terrible, but it makes herman cain stick in your head. host: the fact that you hear from -- host: the fact that you

hear from his campaign manager, does that mean anything to you? caller: it is a tough one to figure out. host: facebook is also how you can reach out to us this morning. rick bartholomew reached out to us to make his opinion known. he says -- host: again, going to twitter, facebook, a big conversations from people watching this show. you can see the conversation going along as we invite those of you to phone in this morning. fayetteville, north carolina. we are giving your father, herman cain advertisement. caller: i do not like the

advertisement. i am a big supporter of herman cain. many of my friends are. i would much prefer to see his face talking to us and telling us why. i did not like the smiling. i thought it was to slide. just a bad performance overall. host: the smoking part? caller: again, it is part of the overall, amateur appearance of the ad. host: what you think about the attention it has been getting? caller: i guess it is good. is giving a lot of people ammunition -- it is giving a lot of people ammunition to reinforce the negative aspects of his campaign. host: of walnut, sylvia, for supporters of -- caller: [unintelligible] host: you are on. go ahead. caller: you asking about the ad? the smoking? it is crazy. it is not nice.

his stock -- smile is so squirmish. i cannot explain it. he also said about the electricity, give it to the illegals? this is not a president. the smoking? nope. no, no, no. i will tell you something, president obama is the president. this man will never make it and he is not going to win. host: there is polling from "the new york times" this morning. 46% approving of president obama as president. cuts to the economy, they give him 38% support for policy. the situation in iraq, a 67%

approval rating. one of the commentators that last night was john cain, cnn, who took to the airwaves, talking about the advertisement and the use of smoking. host: he said the "american needs to get a sense of humor." that is why he felt it was important to include it. yes, humor is a critical ingredient in life. smoking is a choice. but to celebrate it is to encourage it. it is the indisputable fact that smoking kills. host: again, one of the comments from the airing of a campaign ad for herman cain. for our next half hour, this is what we will talk about. not only on the advertisement itself, but the way it is done.

sacramento, california. line for supporting others. caller: thank you for taking my call. herman cain is reminiscent of alan keyes, who ran against obama in the senate. he was sent under the bus by the republican party. the same thing will happen to herman cain. thank you for taking my call. host: the president is in denver today, to announce a plan that deals directly with student loans. "the wall street journal," writes about it --

host: columbia, missouri. herman cain supporter. hello. caller: it shows how you guys are liberals, his friends, and august. the president of the united states smokes, it is ok for him, but we are not allowed. host: the advertisement itself? color-coded illustrates your hypocrisy. host: because? caller: no one complained about the president. host: jordan, michigan. cathy, good morning.

caller: i have to say, i agree that it has a sense of humor. i loved the advertisement. for the first time, we saw that there was a cigarette hanging off of the lives of a campaign manager. the reason that i like it, smoking is legal. our personal freedom of where we can go to smoke has been taken away. yet, smokers pay a lot in taxes. for me, it is just a choice in the united states. choices are taken away if other people being that you should not have it. i do not feel that we needed a seat belt law. if i get hurt in an accident, maybe insurance should not cover it.

i do not think that we need a lot. i think that smokers are the part of our society that pay a lot of taxes and are very limited on what they can do. host: aside from the smoking, if campaign ads are meant to send messages, what is the message that you take away from this first advertisement? caller: personally, what i take away from it is that we need to get america back in america's pocket. bring it back to what it was before. that is the message that i got out of it. host: the line that supports others. tampa, florida. rod, go ahead. caller: very funny. i had never seen an advertisement like that before. even his devilish, smug smile was funny. still, i would not support anyone like that. it felt but -- felt more like

humor. host: the take away that you get is that it is humorous? caller: is that herman cain overall is probably marketing his book a lot. i do not think that he has a chance to win the election he is probably making some loose change, i am thinking. caller: "-- host: "the financial times," talking about the youth vote this morning. this is the headline that they chose. "obama was magic for young voters."

host: that is according to a political analyst that teaches at the university of virginia. so, we will continue on with the idea of talking about the advertisement from herman cain. we will continue until 7:40 or so, if you want your chance to call in, we have set aside two lines this morning. supporters of hurricane, than all others. choose the one the best support you. before that, the deficit reduction committee is hosting a meeting today. doug allen north is here to tell us more about it.

could you talk a bit about the message that will be delivered today? caller: thank you for having me on. he has been asked to speak about the role of discretionary spending. it was from quite a while ago, this issue of leadership in the budget. it accounts for about 12% of government spending. he will be outlining some of that. most will be looking very carefully to see what he says about the deadline of the super committee. in the last hearing that he appeared in, he said he needed to see a deal by early november. the super committee has a deadline by november 23 to come up with $1.20 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years. he said that the cbo needs a couple of weeks to score that.

yesterday, we saw some not too surprising signs that they would take it to the last minute. midnight, november 22, waiting until then to get something done. staffers have been sharing details with cbo. we might see this early november deadline pushed down to the brink, late november. host: what is the estimation that discretionary spending will be a significant factor? caller: i think that the conventional wisdom all along is that it will be very small. the super-committee was set up by the deaths had deal in august. it had two parts. there was a cap on discretionary spending over 10 years. from this year to the end of the tenure budget. it's set up a super committee to

find another $1.20 trillion. then there is other mandatory spending. things like farm subsidies, for example. or federal worker pensions. entitlements, like medicare and medicaid. also, web renewal, which is something that democrats tried to push. they are focusing on areas that vice president biden and the house majority leader, eric cantor, were talking about in a separate round of talks early in the summer. it included several hundred billion dollars in cuts, including to the way inflation is calculated for the purposes of social security, medicare, and how government benefits. democrats want to see, at least, some kind of revenue closing. corporate loopholes for oil.

they keep talking about corporate jet owners, and so forth. caller: -- host: one of the stories they keep talking about is -- what happens to the future of the military? whether or not some kind of final product comes out. caller: i should have mentioned that at the top. there is a trigger hanging over the super committee. by the way, the super committee reporters are privileged. they can be filibustered, though it is a rare event. traders would kick in in 2013. deadline marked cuts under discretionary spending. leon panetta, the heads of the armed services committee, calling it clearly intolerable to gut the military.

john mccain said that he would leave a major effort to remove that trigger next year. which is interesting. i was talking to people on wall street earlier this week. they're worried about about the possible failure of the super committee, triggering a credit downgrade, and moves to remove the trigger. kind of back at square one, congress showed itself unable to remove the deficit. host: the questions about transparency, which initially, when the process started they claim that this would be transparent process. how do those within the committee defend their transparency? caller: i think that the reason these hearings are being held is exactly that -- to combat that

perception. they just announced, late last night, alan simpson and erskine bowles, of members of the president's commission that came up with a $4 trillion, much bigger package, which included tax reform and new revenues -- they are holding this the kind of combat this charge. what people said in other, similar deficit negotiations is that, just like trade negotiations, these kinds of things happen in private. let people do the comparisons freely. bees have been very secretive. hardly any leaks have come out. although, you can imagine, typical fault lines around the issues are like revenue. they are still talking about

major questions. a recommended, a major overhaul of the tax code. which baseline to use. drawing down in iraq and afghanistan. these are all decisions that would have to be made early on. host: eric, serving as a staff writer, talking about the deficit reduction committee and at today's public hearing. by the way, if you want to watch that hearing, it starts at 10:00. you can watch that live at 10:00 today on c-span 2. it will also be on c-span.org and c-span radio. thank you. caller: thank you a lot. host: we are still on the first campaign ad for herman cain for the next 10 minutes or so. bedford, virginia. thank you for waiting, first and

foremost. herman cain supporter. joseph, the morning. caller: i am not exactly a herman cain supporter, but at this point i would support edward newman over obama. you guys are a joke, man. obama gave a speech about students that would lose their college loans. six people going to die -- six people going to die -- the sixth people are going to die. he is a divider. you should be ashamed of yourself. host: we covered all, sir. james used twitter this morning. host: lafayette, louisiana. on the other line, good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call. please excuse me, but i am very upset over this commercial this morning. i am a cancer survivor. i had heard that herman cain is a cancer survivor also. to make light of the issues of cancer like this, by having his campaign manager smoking in this commercial, it is despicable. there is nothing funny about it be read nothing humorous about it. to the people that call in to say that the commercial was funny and say that you have the right to smoke in this country, yes, you have the right to kill yourself, but anyone who is a victim of cancer is not the one to find this funny. for him to have no sensitivity, regarding this issue, this man

cannot be serious. he cannot be serious. how can he be pro life if he is going to push cigarettes? giving a commercial like this, it gives the impression that it is ok to smoke and it is not a bad thing. lung cancer is nothing to make fun of. it is nothing to joke about. this person is despicable. he owes the american people an apology. host: this, this morning, from "usa today."

host: mcintosh, connecticut. supporter of herman cain. good morning. yet caller: by support herman cain. i am not a republican or democrat. i vote libertarian. host: are you there? caller: you have got to stop listening to the television. just go ahead with your thoughts. host: -- you have got to stop listening to the television. just go ahead with your thoughts. caller: the reason we are in big trouble, we have a president that is completely out of control. thomas jefferson said it best. government is evil. government is corrupt. that is why a militant

government works best. host: did you like the advertisement? caller: i do not really have a problem with it. is different. you know what? i do not care about the ads from pompous politicians. where have they gotten us? we have the evil party, the socialist democrats, and the stupid party, the republicans. caller: an e-mail this morning from a viewer in florida. -- host: an e-mail this morning from a viewer in florida. host: muskegon, michigan. good morning, herman cain supporter. caller: i like the advertisement. it emphasizes that he is an outsider. just like the other callers. as far as the style of it, i think that everyone in the beltway is expecting politicians to spend all of their money on these commercials.

this is very rough, very rock. -- raw. it lets us know that he is frugal with his money. i do not think that it is insulting. i do not drink, but what i see people drinking, it does not offend me. so, obama smokes. people die from cancer who have never smoked. of thought -- obama has taxed smoking, tanning, and increased taxes in many ways that the public does not know about. as far as the student loan thing goes, i do not lie rigid know why obama keeps doing this, but he keeps dragging up vote -- ideas that are already in place. i did that with mice to low years ago. host: from greensboro, n.c., --

host: tampa, florida. on the others line. caller: i am calling to say that i think that the advertisement is ridiculous. that the republicans are just using herman cain. just like they did with the

black man that was the head of the rnc. when they are finished, they will just throw him away. thank you. host: columbus, mississippi. supporters line, hello. caller: i am a world war ii veteran. i am 91 years old. a lot of senior citizens are mad about the last three years. there has been no increase in social security. prices kept going up. one of the other reasons, myself and a lot of others do not understand 9, 9, 9. furthermore, i would like to see mr. herman cain, with dennis kucinich, as vice president. host: so, your thoughts, and i

do not know if you have made them, on the campaign ad itself? caller: repeat that, please. host: of a campaign ad itself? caller: he is doing a great job. i like the way he talks, and everything. host: here is the headline, the story that came out of it from "the new york times." host: atlanta, georgia. go ahead. caller: herman cain in his manager are pandering to a certain type of voter. this is more like a reality

show commercial. i wish you would have shown the other herman cain advertisement. i saw it last night, on msnbc. these three guys, one of them was black, were all hitting each other like the three stooges. god help us. host: anthony natalie has this to say about the advertisement -- host: charlotte, n.c., good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: thank you. i support the commercial. i think it is perfect for the republican party. they need someone like him to run. it would definitely give obama the presidency for another four years. host: is the commercial perfect?

caller: it was great. as a matter of fact, it was the campaign manager? i can almost smell his breath on my television set, which is amazing to me. anyway, he should take sarah palin to run. that would be the perfect outfit for the t bagging republicans. host: here's a portion of the obama interview with jay leno yesterday. >> [unintelligible] [applause] once they narrowed down to one or two, i will -- narrow it down to one or two, i will start to pay attention. host: pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: everyone around here love that advertisement. it is not just smoking.

he said putting the united back in the united states. we should be united in respecting the rights of other people. we are sick and tired of hollywood, congress, michelle obama telling us what we can eat, where we should go. get out of our lives and let us run them a little bit. let them figure out how to keep the economy growing. that is all that we have to say. we love the advertisement. we are on the fence right now, but that was a message for middle america that most of us loved. they can take very least ideas and you know what. -- their elite ideas and you know what. [laughter] host: pam, good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of things. number one, every one is missing one very major point about this advertisement. at the bottom of the advertisement, it says president

herman cain. guess who is supporting him? the coke brothers -- koch brothers. host: how do you know that, for sure? caller: they are the main founders of herman cain. is public record, really. they tried to keep it not public record, but it is very well known that they are the ones behind herman cain. all of these people, i do not understand where this insurance is coming from. if you listen very closely to these people, like herman cain, and that phony baloney, mitt romney -- herman cain, mitt

romney, rick perry, they are the first ones that are going to say senior citizens, sorry, we cannot help you any more. you are on your own. do not look to the government anymore, sorry. medicare, medicaid. sorry, people. government will not help you. you people have really got to be paying attention. here is another one. ask him why congress has 86% disapproval rating. because republicans are not about to help the 99%. like my four grandchildren -- poor grandchildren, whom i am helping to support. host: this is salon.com this

morning. the headline is "the weird smoking ad." the office says -- host: again, there is more on salon.com. san francisco, supporting others, john. good morning. caller: good morning. the advertisement really upset me.

i know someone who died from lung cancer, from smoking. i do not want a president that would run an ad like that. it is very insensitive to family members. people they love. host: one more call from florida, a supporter of herman cain. caller: my name is john. how are you? i am a supporter of herman cain. i do not know how he is doing in the polls, but this is another typical reason why we should just not listen to these people. we are taking a part the smoking ad? we are not concentrating on the issues? what he has to offer? i am a white american. i support him. i have been listening to him on radio for years. the man is a true american.

the cancer smoker lady? we do not have to have the government' tell us that smoking is bad for us. anything that you put in your body is bad for you, other than air. the man has some good qualities. he is a true american. that is what we should concentrate on. i am quite. he is black. it has nothing to do with it. people are picking it apart. they have to try to find something else. we are picking apart a smoking ad? this is ridiculous. host of the house homeland security committee on terrorism -- host: the house homeland security committee on terrorism is holding a hearing today.

more information is available on our web site, c-span.org. later on in the program, rep cuellar will be by to talk about that issue, as well as others. next, the representative from georgia will be with us to talk about issues on the economy and politics. we will have that when we come right back. ♪ >> i do not want every story to

be a few hundred words. >> last month, jill abramson the first woman to hold the post of executive editor @ "the new york times." >> there is a certain lack of the rigid discipline -- certain lack of discipline. sometimes there are three lines making the same point, when you need only one to. i would like to see a variety of story ideas. >> sunday night, on c-span's "q&a." >> spend this weekend in

knoxville, tenn., with booktv and history tv. on c-span 2, the body farm, supporting acres of decomposing human remains. a real life "csi." also, a look at the author of "routes." a look at how paley fell in love with the city. on american history tv, c-span 3, directly -- sequoia created a system of writing for the cherokee language. in the development of the atomic bomb. -- and the development of the atomic bomb.

saturday, up 11:00 a.m., sunday, 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> midland -- middle and high school students, time to get your camera rolling for the studentcam competition. the theme is "the constitution and you." for complete details, goc to studentsa -- go to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is the chairman of the republican policy committee. welcome, sir. guest: great to be with you. host: for the third time, the president will be sending a message to congress. what is it? guest: that we hope that he begins to work with us.

something house republicans have done repeatedly, they have put bill after bill in the senate to create jobs. we hope that the president gives harry reid a call and says -- let's work together to solve these remarkable challenges. host: what are the economic ramifications of what the ?resident is supporting them o of guest: so far, all sorts of uncertainty in the market for small and large job creators. we find ourselves in troubling times right now. we have called the president back to washington to work together and solve these jobs. i do not think that the people are interested in an economy where the president is out there freelancing it.

host: he has targeted student loans. what has been the republican response? guest: there are remarkable challenges out there. especially for students. the best that we can do is create a vibrant job market, vibrant economy, so that they can pay back the loans. the solution is not to have the government inserted at every single turn. the solution is to, with our jobs creation plan, have people stepping up in the senate. host: when it calls for consolidation, is that good or bad? guest: you can see the writing on the piece of paper. there is a great speech, which everyone knows. we will work through that process. host: when it comes to financial issues, there are hearings today that will air with the super committee, such as doug elme

ndorf before the super committee. are you worried about that deadline? guest: because of the logistics that have to be done to get the bill ready for congress to consider, what we want to do is decrease spending at the federal level. we want to reinvigorate the economy and put our jobs plan in place. host: as far as the super committee work, what have you heard it in terms of aspects over the last few days? a drawdown in afghanistan? guest: we never supported that. that is the money being spent by the federal government. we believe that you can actually get $6 trillion in savings if you go about the senate in a methodical, logical, and

compassionate way. we believe that you have to fundamentally reform medicare and medicaid, saving those programs. instead, what the president has proposed, passing in the last congress, taking money out of the medicare system. host: a figure that is not $1.20 trillion, how will people react in terms of supporting what comes out of the super committee? guest: at this point, we are hoping that the select committee that was appointed will produce a work product that the house and senate can respond to positively. the problem with sequestration, which is where you get money if the committee does not get to $1.20 trillion, it is not an across-the-board cut. as a surgeon, i can tell you that it is better to reduce things with a scalpel, not a

machete. when you cut things across the board, you are reducing things that should not be reduced. host: what would be an example? guest: there are examples on security and on the side of non- security. the size of our forest in terms of the army. if you take a slice across the top of the budget, you actually get into individuals, personnel. that may not be wise. in the area of health care, medicare, if you just cut across medicare with a certain amount, you might reduce spending in an area that should be increased as opposed to decrease. host: if you want to ask our guest questions, for republicans, 202-737-0002. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205.

journal@c-span.org is the e- mail. twitter, twitter.com/c-spanwj. kathleen, democratic line. chicago, illinois. go ahead. caller: mr. price, i am a democrat. i think that everyone in this country should have a fair share. how can you sit there with a straight face and say that president obama should come back and work with you all, when this man has tried to work with you all for three solid years. america is not stupid. america is not dumb. we know what the american people want. the american people. people are taking off their blinders in seeing what the republicans stand for. it is only this president that i

hold party has literally stood against this man on everything. this man has not had a chance to get his policies out, like he should guest: -- should. guest: i hear the frustration and anger in your voice. people have great frustration about jobs and the economy over the manner in which their government is not working together. but america has always been a place where you can earn success and people want to be treated fairly. talking about the president working with us, look, for the previous two years i chaired the republican study committee. we came up with positive solution after positive solution. every single week we called with -- we call on the president to work with us and every single week, we were denied.

the president has a difficult job, no doubt about it. but he cannot fill out on the road in said that republicans will not work with us when he will lead even meet with us. you determine who you want to believe, but i can sincerely tell you that the president refused to meet with us at every single turn. host: danny, republican line. you are on. guest: i have been a longtime republican. -- caller: you have been -- i have been a longtime republican. how come the job creators are not creating jobs? 0.5% for the jobs plan, why is that so much in terms of creating jobs?

guest: job creators are simply americans trying to make ends meet. what we see in the market is all sorts of uncertainty. no one knows what their energy bill is going to be. no one knows what their tax bill is going to be. what we hear from those job creators is that they are falling back and waiting to see what happens. in addition, the federal government comes in and is picking out certain companies, rewarding them in ways that distort the market place. the solar panel company that got over $500 million from the government is a company that never should have gotten those resources. distorting the fairness of the economy and our ability to compete. job creators themselves are making all sorts of money at this point. they are finding it incredibly difficult to be able to invest

at this time. they do not know what the rules of the game are going to be. host: cbs put out a number of a 9% approval rating. what does that mean for you? guest: that we are not working together to address the challenges that we face. we need to recognize that the american people are very frustrated. we need to get folks pushing and pulling in the same direction. this will take an election to work itself out. in the meantime, what the american people want to see is their representative in washington, the house and the senate, working together to come up with a solution. again, harry reid and our jobs plan, in is very specific. we have specific reductions in regulations. specific reductions in taxes. providing solutions for small and large job creators across

this country. on every desk. host: republican the person responsibility for that, though? guest: all of us share responsibility. everyone is frustrated. and rightly so. what people see is good but in washington that is not helpful to solving problems, but they also see a president, and folks in washington, at an to demagogue issues. that is why i get frustrated when i hear the president on the road that say why don't focus work with us? we are ready to meet today, mr. president. host: lancaster, pennsylvania. caller: we are at a stalemate here. each party have their own

agenda and it doesn't seem to me that the government is working for the people and their best interest. it seems the people we elect into government, they have their own agendas, their own personal interests, and they push their statements during the election process to gain our favor so that they can manipulate the powers when they get into office. it is frustrating. i feel like our country is being held at hostage, and the hostage-takers are the government that us voters voted into government. guest: that is what the elections were about. many of them were elected to office because of that frustration and concern that you voiced. 38 of those 89 had never run for office before in their life, so

they will go up one morning, as many of you did over the past couple of years, and said, what is going on in this country? i do not recognize the solutions coming out of washington. i need to get involved. they have reinvigorated the congress on the house side, which is why we are working hard to positively solve the problem that we face. we would like a partner on the other side to do the same. host: the president specifically talk about congress, then this function, as he described it. >> we cannot wait for an increasingly dysfunctional congress to do its job where they will not act, i will. in recent weeks, we decided to stop waiting for congress to fix no time left behind and decided to give states the flexibility they need to help

our children meet higher standards. we took steps on our own to reduce the time it takes for small businesses to get paid when they have a contract with the federal government. and without any help from congress, we eliminated outdated regulations that will save hospitals and patients billions of dollars. the steps are not substitutes for the bold action we need to create jobs and growing the economy, but they will make a difference. so we are not going to work for congress. i have told my administration to keep working, looking for actions to save money. steps to save government money, make it more responsive, and help fuel the economy. we will be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis. guest: we cannot wait either, mr. president. we cannot wait for you to assist us in decreasing the regulations

that are present in the economy right now that make it impossible for small and large job creators across this land to create jobs. we cannot wait for you to assist us in making certain we were able to get the kind of energy resources from this country, so we are not reliant on foreign oil. we cannot wait for you to positively work with us to sell the challenges that we face. on one thing we can agree, we cannot wakit. host: joe from mississippi. democrat line. caller: [unintelligible] guest: we have 16 pieces of legislation and our jobs plan that we passed through the house, bills that would decrease

the tax burden on small and large job creators. bill that would decrease regulation, so again, and job creators can get to work and create jobs. legislation that would provide greater certainty in the area of energy. i have had the opportunity to speak with the fellow who started home depot. that company started with an idea he had. when we asked him whether he could start that company today, he said no, because of the rules and regulations and the reach of the federal government. it would be impossible for him to start a company like home depot today. but when you cannot dream big dreams, it tends down the kind of opportunity and dreams that your kids and grandchildren have, and makes it so that the

american dream is less likely to be achieved. we all want an america where dreams can be realized. with the american people are voicing their frustration about, from the left to the right, a sense of their government is decreasing their ability to achieve their dreams. host: an e-mail from a guest. guest: know, deficit cannot be fixed just with spending. the way that you decrease the deficit and grow -- decrease the debt, is to grow the economy. about one-third of the decrease -- increase in the deficit is a decrease in the growth of the economy. when the economy grows, you get more tax revenue to the government, which is why it is so important to put in place the kind of rules and programs in washington that allow the economy to arrive.

-- thrive. host: warsaw, wisconsin. steve, republican line. caller: we would like to see the bureaucracy cut, the department of energy, education, epa, not totally cut out, but reduced. we want their power reduced. in many cases, the bureaucracy is holding back the american dream. i will hang up and wait for your reply. guest: you are absolutely right. the size of the government has increased significantly and oftentimes not accomplishing the mission for which it was designed. the department of energy is a classic example. it was started in the 1970's. its sole purpose was to make certain we became rest -- less reliant on foreign oil. right now we are 70% for line

on foreign oil, so they have failed in their mission. any entity like that in the private-sector would have been long gone, but instead we reward the department of energy by increasing their budget. you are right. we need to decrease the bureaucracy in the federal not continue to increase. what you do when you do that is crowd out the private sector. host: louisville, ky. independent line. greg. caller: mr. price, i would like for you to understand why high- speed rail is not being allowed to be developed in this country. it is a massive device we could use to create jobs, from administration to construction,

to all other forms of employment. it is a clean source of transportation. is it because the airline industry's really have you guys on the heels from keep this from coming forward? guest: there may be able for high-speed rail in some areas where there are transit corridors with a lot of people moving back and forth. high-speed rail, in terms of its cost effectiveness is somewhat suspect in our nation because there is not a concentrated population. maybe in the northeast, certain areas where there is a concentrated population, it makes sense. infrastructure ought to be a priority. maintenance and building of roads, sewer system, in many places in the country, needs to be updated. the president has talked about the need for infrastructure improvement and expansion, and he is right.

where we disagree, he believes we should pay for that with borrowed money. we believe that should be in the context of the federal government. that is common ground where we can begin to work on and hopefully come up with a solution where the priority of federal tax dollars ought to be put. host: an effort on the house that talks about the president's jobs package withholding% of payments to contractors as a down payment to future contracts. guest: this is a proposal that we and the president have had. the president has supported a temporary repeal. we support a complete repeal. i believe we can find common ground. host: for those that do not understand, what is the context for this? guest: there was a law passed a number of years ago that said any business between a government entity and business would have a 3% withholding.

right now, the margins for many businesses are not even 3%. this is an important thing to do away with, stifling many areas of the economy. i think we will be able to get this law passed. we hope what the president will do is talk to senator reid and pass this, because the senate refused to act on this last week. host: why is the senate resistant? guest: the question is how you pay for it. we believe the women in this budget neutral is a more proper solution in the house, as opposed to the senate. host: why corp. on this issue and not others? guest: i cannot tell you why that is, but i would hope that we could use this as a colonel that will grow into greater operation. host: virginia. republican line.

caller: i am a republican, i voted for bush, mccain. i watched c-span. i am disabled, i watch a lot of c-span. i was involved in an accident that my insurance company would not pay for. what i have observed and learned is all the republicans and even democrats, you are all owned by corporations. i have seen your bills. they are giving tax breaks to the corporations and you either want to roll back epa regulations. i have asthma. i have drug insurance. they will not pay for the inhaler, except for one find on the one that does not work. -- $5.10 that does not work. if you republican get your way,

the clean air act, mercury, everything in the air is going to increase, people will have more asthma, and insurance companies will not pay. guest: great to hear from you. that is my home town. you may or may not know that i am an orthopedic surgeon. the last thing i want is for anyone to have increased challenges. i would suggest to you what the federal government doing -- is doing right now is it is making it more difficult to receive the care you want. the status quo in health care is wholly unacceptable. you are right. the system is not working, but the solution is not to put the government in charge. the solution is to put patients in charge. that is why we have the in powering patients first act, which would allow you to have health coverage you want, solve the injured challenges you noted, and resolve of these that

is rampant in this industry. host: a viewer asks, what are the top three pieces of legislation that congress is working on to increase employment? guest: claudia asked. our job packages include items to decrease regulation. there are regulations coming out of washington right now but are making it more difficult for small and large businesses to create jobs. decreasing the tax liability on businesses. they are strickling and they are in withholding on the kind of capital that they need to create jobs. and making certainty that there is jobs out there, so that they know what their costs will be. there is not a single piece of legislation that will create jobs. the government's role in all of this is to put in place a set of rules that are fair to the

system so that the economy can grow and thrive and that we can have the kind of competition that results in the kind of job creation we have known in the past. host: riverside, california. renee. democrat's line. caller: i want to ask the representative how he keeps that during the president about not compromising with him when the republicans have already signed this paper with grover norquist that they are not going to raise any taxes. that puts you at odds. for the last 30 years we have cut taxes. look where the country is right now. we do not have any revenue and you want to continue cutting taxes? that means the poor will be poorer, the rich will be richer. guest: i share that frustration about not being able to get economy rolling, and taxes are

one of the reasons. as you may or may not know, certainly, in terms of business taxes, we have the highest corporate taxes in the industrial world. our competition in the global economy, for anyone looking to create a john, expand their business, our competition in other countries says come here, not the u.s., because of their tax structure. we are isolated in this world. we cannot just throw up the fences and put in place policy that will not allow us to be competitive. one of the ways we can be competitive is to make it so the tax structure for businesses is such that people will want to come here, businesses the want to come here and expand. host: when it comes to tax policy looking at the presidential side, much has been made about rick perry's flat tax. "the wall street journal" this

morning says -- do you agree with that? guest: couple of things happen with a flat tax. one is certainty. there are a lot of businesses out there that do not know what will happen, so there are withholding. when you broaden the base and lower tax rates, you allow people to keep more of their money in the private economy, which would increase the vibrancy of the economy. i think a flat tax, which is what we passed in our budget -- house republicans -- that was sent over to the senate as well and it has been over 900 days since they have passed a budget. the flat tax makes sense. the alternative is a national retail sales tax. that makes some sense to me,

because that would inspire an integrated economy, but i do not think what we want is both a national income tax and national sales tax. host: what about the idea of opting in or out of the flat tax, if you wanted to keep standardized deductions? guest: i have not seen the numbers. it makes sense to me. i am all for individuals to be in which to select the kind of system they are in. the system we have for medicare allows individuals to opt in or out of the system as they see fit. it is this kind of thing that empowers individuals, as opposed to increasing government, which is what we believe in. host: here is rick perry. >> for every american, throwing out the current tax code, i

might add the cost of complying with that code, in order to pay a 20% flat tax on their income. the best representation of my plan is this postcard. this is the size of what we're talking about. taxpayers will be able to fill this out and file their taxes on that. guest: the simplicity that governor perry talks about there is exactly what the american people want to embrace. they know the tax code is incredibly complex, contradictory. you cannot figure out the roles of the game. the simplicity that he is proposing is attractive. host: louisville, ky. jim, republican line. caller: i am another dissatisfied republican calling. will hoping dr. price mos

please pay attention to us moderates. a couple of questions. first, the idea about the ceo of home depot saying he could of start up a new business because of the economy. it is the economy. it is not our taxes. because of presidentot obama. all the top economists that i have heard say that we need to cut spending in the long run and increase taxes. we need to borrow short term. many to bar and just to get us through this horrible period. apparently, you do not know how bad it is for low and middle class people. the last thing i would say is this. the media has bought into this idea that it is the senate and house that are all dysfunctional. i disagree. i think the democrats have gone

way past when they should do to compromise. it brings me to this comment. mitch mcconnell, a long time ago, said privately that he did not think the american people were really smart enough to make wise decisions. i am afraid of people do not pay attention in this next election and get rid of some heartless people, people who are not statesman, then maybe he is right. one last question. did you sign the no tax pledge? guest: yes, i did sign it. i believe increasing taxes, especially at this time, would be a further death knell to the economy. i trust in the american people. i believe they are wise and smart, and given all the information, they will make the right decision. that gives me hope for this country. the american people will rally round and say, we believe in

ourselves, we believe in the american dream. the, that he made about home depot, it is that the economy i was referring to, it is the regulations that would make it impossible for that business to start. i meet with businesses all across this country and hear their concerns about why they cannot reinvigorate their own business. especially in the area of medical manufacturing, devices. companies are held to an incredibly high standard, unlike anything else in the world, so they cannot bring new products online. our health care is being compromised because of the rules in place from washington. on the issue of borrowing, if we have not learned that we ought not to be borrowing the amount that we are now, i do not know when we will. we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. you cannot continue that. you know you cannot do that in your family or business, and no

government can either. we need to increase fiscal responsibility, balance the budget, and move toward paying off the debt. those things will reinvigorate the economy. host: the cbo says 5 percent set -- says the top 5% of americans saw their incomes increase by 20%. by comparison, 60% of americans in the middle income scale saw their income increased by just 4%. host: you can increase -- guest: or you can say to the top earners, you cannot do that, we are going to punish you for being successful. i believe the american people believe in an america where everyone has the opportunity to realize their dream. that is what is seen to be missing. that is what the american people look to washington and say,

don't you understand i have big dreams? don't you understand i want to be able to compete? current success is what america has always been about. the taft faith in america and allow individuals to realize big dreams. host: how does this address the concerns of those involved in the occupied wall street, movements around the world? guest: it has been demonstrated from the right and left end of the political spectrum. the system is that working. for those individuals who believe in america, free market, capitalism, entrepreneurialship common dreams, they are frustrated, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. they want to see a nation working. that is what we are striving for. host: atlantic city.

independent line. caller: i have a two-part question and a statement. my question is, as a republican, what would you rate the presidency of george bush in his eight years, how realistic closet for whoever was the next president to change the results of his presidency? my statement, i hear you talk a lot about dreams. the american people would buy into that if the system was working, but we have reached a point in our country -- the lowest point in a long time -- and no one is being held accountable. we want to hear you talk about accountability, and we want you to give the power back to the people.

guest: i agree with that to increase the vibrancy of the economy and allow people to realize their dreams. in terms of the previous president -- look, no president will do exactly 100% would you or i want. i think president bush did something that were good, but he also did some things that increase the size and scope of government that i was not in favor of. what i believe -- but most viewers hopefully believe -- if we are in challenging times, we need to get back to the principle that man is the greatest nation in the world. that is what creates so much frustration of their people -- out there. people do not see that we are doing better. we are stifling fundamentals and stifling creativity and opportunity. host: when it comes to issues, a

twittered your asks about welfare. guest: we incentivized getting folks back to work. over the last few years, that has been turned back. we have talked about it in committee. it would take a willing partner on the other side of the capital, as we have talked about, to appreciate that you made some significant reform in the system so that there are incentives in the system for people to work. host: florida. rick, democrat line. caller: thank you for c-span. i have a lot to say, but i will focus on a few things. first of all, all i hear from you all is reducing regulations and taxes. on the corporations. if you reduce all the regulations, people will be

going mad. second of all, taxes. reducing the tax burden on the rich. you are or to have everyone running around working for a dollar an hour. last and most important, you keep on saying the people. every time you look up, you are trying to do things to keep people from voting. why do you do that, if you believe in the people? guest: nobody is interested in blocking people from voting. in fact, one of the many comments i make in my speeches is to encourage and recruit others to engage in the system. our system only works if the most people possible can be involved in the process. i encourage every individual who is eligible to vote, to vote. from a texas standpoint, the

reason i believe we believe we ought to have low taxes, we believe when you can keep more of your money, that is what makes our system work more efficiently because you drive the economy, as opposed to the government. individual taxes are too high for the small businesses. the vast majority of small businesses pay taxes as individuals. that level of taxation is not competitive with the rest of the world and makes it so that small businesses cannot expand. in terms of regulation, we believe in smart regulations. right now, what we have is a regulatory scheme in washington that puts more and more rules and regulations on businesses that the summit and any safer or more productive, but less productive. therefore, the economy continues to get tamped down. we need to stimulate the

economy so that people can realize their dreams. host: pennsylvania. republican line. caller: i am interested to see how we can move forward, as a nation, as you were stating, to have a healthy outlook on the american dream. for example, the current crisis of the national deficit, the loss of jobs, as a nation, with the leadership there, how do we address these things while having a high priority on the infrastructure and education and creation of jobs? my second part of the question is, in 2012, for the current republican debate forum, how do

we try to emphasize having our campaign men and women focus on topics that are true to our country? guest: the overarching question of how do we pursue happiness. our founders talked about it. life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. if you think about it, the pursuit of happiness is individual. if we are going to have a society where you can pursue happiness, that means you have to be able to, your children have to be able to, your grandchildren the an opportunity to approach their american dream. the only way that works is if the society and government in place incentivizes their opportunity to go out there and earned that success and everyone believes is most fair, as opposed to having a country that learned helplessness, which is what many in this town seem to

want to occur. i am optimistic about the future, but let me follow up on what the gentleman said a few moments ago. it only works when folks engaged in the process. get out there and engage in positive ways. host: our guest is the republican policy committee chairman. representative price, thank you. in our last segment, "the atlantic" magazine will be our focus. the story is if there is insider trading going on within the halls of congress. henry cuellar, a hearing today to look at home and security officials. first, this update from c-span radio. >> seeking to shore up support among college graduates and students struggling with rising tuition costs, president obama today will use his executive authority to implement a plan to

allow millions of student loan recipients to lower their payments and consolidate their loans. his announcement, which takes place today in denver, comes on the same day that a new release is being released by the college board which shows an average in state tuition and fees at in state colleges rose 6 to $100 this fall, or 8.3% compared with a year ago. nationally, the cost of a full credit load has passed $8,000, an all-time high. mitt romney joins regina gov. bob mcdonnell on a swing through northern virginia today ahead of next month's elections. republicans hope to get control of the state senate. they also -- already control the governor's mansion. gov. mcdonnell, a possible vice presidential contender, has not made an endorsement in the presidential race. a prominent former goldman sachs member is expected to surrender to federal court is today to

face criminal charges stemming from an asset -- massive hedge fund insider case. italian premier silvio berlusconi has reached an agreement with his allies in parliament on european growth measures. the deal averts an immediate crisis and could give a boost to today's eu summon on the winding sovereign debt crisis. german chancellor merkel is calling on the private sector to make a contribution to reduce response debt-burdened. she did not specify how much private bondholders should take. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> spend the weekend in knoxville, tenn. and look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of the marble city. ? dr. william pass on a real- life csi. and a look at alex haley. how he fell in love with the city during a 1982 visit. and once he's been three, a visit to the sequoia birthplace museum. sequoia created a system of

writing for the cherokee language. and a visit to secret city. and is not still a true southern city? a historian on its future. watch throughout the weekend on "book tv" and "american history tv." >> although the hanlon proved false, dewey's defeat by truman was iconic, and he continues to impact political history. follow the career of thomas dewey, a dominant force in new york politics as a three-time governor, and influencing national politics. live from new york city, friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern. every weekend, let the c-span that merck's be yours or for

public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is politics and public events. c-span2 as "book tv." and "american history tv" on c- span 3. all of our programs are available any time at the c-span video library. the c-span that works. it is washington, your way. host: we are joined by texas congressman henry cuellar to discuss the homeland security hearing today entitled iranian terror operations on american soil. the title of the hearing makes it sound like there are more operations going on, rather than the one that was just foiled, to assassinate the saudi ambassador. guest: we just have to be careful. there was one situation, so that means there could be others. we need to be careful about what

happens. when we talk about homeland security, we have to get it right every time. the bad guys have to get it right one time, and that is why we need to be careful about what is going on. host: would have you heard about this foiled plot? are these aspirational plans, actual operations? what can you tell us about iranian plot going on inside the united states? guest: in this case, we have somebody from corpus christi, texas, who tried to recruit folks in the drug trade in mexico. a mexican drug dealer had actually happened to be an informant. we were able to get that information because the mexican government was able to work with us on the intelligence part of that. therefore, we were able to catch this one. are there other plots? that is something we will serve

the talk about at the meeting today, and we need to be ready for any particular situation. host: we are speaking to texas congressman henry cuellar. if you have any questions, give us a call. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. if you are outside the u.s., 202-628-0184 in previewing the hearing, one of the subcommittee chairman released a statement -- tell me about the u.s. response. you agree that it has been timid?

guest: we work on a lot of things in congress. i assume what he is talking about -- we will see what he said this afternoon. i assume he wanted to take a harder position and just diplomatic or economic sanctions. we have had economic sanctions against iran for many years. i assume he is talking about taking other steps. one of the things we have to do, we have to inform other nations to see what the u.s. could take. it is one of those things -- i will say this carefully. i think mike might be correct on this part come in the sense that we have to take the economic steps, the diplomatic -- as you know, we do not have many diplomatic relations with iran, but what are we talking about here? the only thing i can say,

everything should be on the table. that part i agree. host: is there still room for carrots and sticks? there are members on your side of the on that says engaging with the iranian government only serve to alienate the iranian people, who've you want to help. guest: that is what is so hard about this particular situation. we have a problem with the government, but the iranian people, most of them what to do with you and i want to do. we want a normal life, raise our family, get an education, go to work. it is the iranian government that has been very difficult, so how do you use the carrot and stick? if you use a harsher approach, what would that do to the iranian people? that is where secretary clinton has to be very careful, as she

discusses with the rest of the it ministration. host: we are speaking to henry cuellar from the laredo, texas area. i want to talk about information that came out earlier this month about a threat on the saudi arabian ambassador. it has been described as bizarre. the military arm of the iranian republican guard would use an iranian american to hire and mexican drug cartel member for a hit on u.s. soil against the saudi ambassador and possibly against the israeli embassy. from what you understand about how this works, is this out of the operational more for what the cuts force -- quds force is responsible for? guest: they do go around a circle on that one, to go in and

get an airing in american, then going to get a drug dealer to work with them, it is different. but again, you just never know what may have gone through their minds. if that is the case, if you want to talk about leaving no fingerprints, this might be one way. but again, -- host: the quds force, being a bit more aggressive than we have had in the past? guest: yes, in terms of an attack on american soil, i would definitely say it is brazen and we need to carefully look, we are going to do as retaliation. i do not think we should just step back and say that is it. we need to look at the retaliation part of it carefully. host: cape cod, massachusetts. rick is on the republican line.

caller: good morning. my question for your guest is why does the democratic party seem to be so timid on border security when there is a lot of evidence that shows on a daily basis, anything can cross the border at will. begin walking down the border so we know who is coming into the country and who is not? guest: thank you. border security is not a democratic or republican issue it is something that all of us, as americans, should look at carefully. since you brought up politics, let me respond the same way. the democrat majority put $600 million on border security last year, which is the largest infusion of cash for border security. we hired more border agents, ice agents, fbi agents. we are able to get new uav's,

and the predators. was the democrats that did more than any other majority. there was a vote today involving homeland security. republican members of the committee all voted no to add 1000 new border patrol to the border. i voted yes. i live on the border. i believe you are in massachusetts. i appreciate the northeast part of the united states, but i have lived on the border all my life. i was rick perry's first secretary of state also. i am very familiar with the border. i represent the border area. what i will tell you is, if people say that we need to do more, why is it that the republican members -- with all due respect -- why do they not vote to add 1000 border patrol agents last week? i think you ought to ask them that question. host: you have also been

interested in southbound border security. this is an article from "the christian science monitor." -- "the monitor." tell us a little bit about this effort you have been helping out with. guest: my friend, mike mccall, from texas have been working together on this. i want to say thank-you to him for that. we have to keep two things in mind. 80% of all the cocaine -- 90% of all the cocaine that comes to the u.s. comes from mexico. drug usage here amounts to $30 billion in cash that will go back to mexico. so the mexicans want to get their cash back, the mexican

drug dealers, and their arms. we want to create a program where we have state, federal, local folks working together on the northern side of the u.s. border, we work with the canadians, on the south, with mexicans, to work in a coordinated effort, to stop the drugs and money from going back. that is really what fuels the cartels. the drugs and money. host: we are speaking to henry cuellar, democrat from texas. back to the phones. dearborn, michigan. good morning. caller: my question to the congressman, i wonder if you have considered the possibility that this is a sting operation by a third party, other than the government? there are a few flags that were

raised in my mind. for one van, the two transfers of money that was sent. when i send money back home to my family in jordan, anything over $2,000, i have to sign in paper -- to the national security -- to send two $50,000 payments in one week. these are red flags that should be looked at immediately. also, for them to choose a used car salesmen to go to mexico to hire an assassin -- host: congressman, a red flag in your mind? guest: it is not the type of

plot that you were reading, but you never know. with all due respect, probably not the smartest people involved. from hindsight, we can look and ask why did they do this and not this? with all due respect, some of them are not the smartest folks involved. it does raise some questions. based on what i understand, this is what he said. we have to at least look at what the defendant said in this case. host: a column in "foreign policy magazine." i want to read you a passage and get your thoughts.

host: your thoughts? guest: that is something we need to be concerned about. if you look at the drug cartels, they are interested in one thing. they're interested in making money, then is it. they sell drugs, people, they traffic human beings, smuggle human beings, they do all of these bad things. what we're looking at in this particular situation is they concentrate on the profits. i have always said for years, if a terrorist group ever ties up with drug cartels, they already have an infrastructure that is already bringing in things to the u.s., so therefore that is something we should look at. the question is, will the

mexican drug cartels tied up with terrorists? if they do that, they certainly know it will bring a lot more attention from the u.s. than they are receiving right now. right now, they are still concentrated. you have some of the drug cartel folks that may want to because it is easy money to them. yes, there is that possibility. host: a question from twitter -- guest: if you look at what steps we could take, sanctions, you could make the argument that it hurts the american rejiggering people more than the government. sanctions -- iranian people more than the government. sanctions are good, but you have loopholes, and some might say that sanctions have not worked. host: next guest.

greg, good morning. caller: i would like to say we will probably never get a good solution to the problem in any way that is meaningful, simply because the democrats want illegal immigrants to come through for the votes. republicans on the immigrants to fill their factories. with those two interests, i doubt we will ever get any meaningful solution to this. as far as homeland security, it has become a jobs bill, a highway bill where congressmen can get money to their district. there is no meaningful threat assessment of assets, where homeland security goes. it is just the money. it is absolutely ridiculous.

host: your thoughts on those two different tracks? guest: let me see if i can make some observations. you said democrats wanted a legal so that they could come vote. in the state of florida, texas, all across the country, we definitely know if you are not a u.s. citizen, you will not vote. federal law takes care of that. i think he said republicans want them to work in their factories. again, we have to make sure that the people that come and work in those factories have the right paperwork. this is why i think if we have a comprehensive immigration reform -- and i have had republicans agree with me on this. comprehensive reform with three parts. border security, a guest worker plan, where people can come in, work, and go back to the country's.

at least we will know who is here legally. and then third, what do we do with the 12 million undocumented aliens who are already here? 40% of them did not cross the river. they came through a legal permit or visa and stay over time. that is what we need to tell those 40% of those people, who came in that way, their time is up and they need to move over. should we have a comprehensive approach? i think so, but this is not a democratic or republican issue. we need to work together to get to comprehensive immigration reform. host: you alluded to some deportation issues. u.s. deportations have reached historic levels, nearly 400,000 deported in the past fiscal year.

for are they doing a good job? is historical levels wary want to be? guest: as you can see, the chart i have here shows you the bush administration -- i do not want to get into democrat versus republican -- but in the past eight years, there has been a sharp deportation of illegal aliens. host: 216,000 in 2011. guest: the head of ice has been doing good work. keep in mind, they go to the 400,000-plus. that is all the money congress appropriated.

about $106 million when you are prepared everything together. if you want border patrol, which the other party voted no, you have to give them money. if you wanted to pour more money -- people, the need to put more money into it. -- deport more people, you need to put more money into it. words are one thing, but action is another. talking about border security is one thing. actually doing something about it and putting resources -- and it will be expensive -- but it is one of those cost-benefit analysis me to make. host: henry cuellar, former secretary of state of texas under rick perry. independent caller. eddie, good morning. caller: i understand terrorism from iran is very serious and real, but we should call the

mexican cartels what they are, they are terrorists. they killed thousands, hundreds of journalists, thousands of civilians, probably not far from your home office. maybe you could support legislation to legalize marijuana to loosen the grip of the cartel hold on the american dollar? guest: first of all, i do not support legalizing drugs. that is not my way of doing things. i have three brothers in law enforcement. one was in intelligence in dps, a texas force. i do not think legalizing drugs is the way to do it. do we have a problem in the u.s.? yes, we do. and we send back $30 billion a

year of drug money, that mean we have a large consumption in the united states. you are a constituent of mine in texas, and thank you for the question. on the mexican side, i think i was the first person to file legislation for a plan to help the mexicans. i have always said mexico's problem becomes our problems. the rio grande divides texas and mexico, but it really unites us. there is billion dollars of trade between the u.s. and mexico every year. a great partner, but we have to deal with the mexican drug cartels. host: back to the collar's first plan, a comment on twitter. some of your fellow members of

congress have been pushing to get the mexican drug cartel be labeled as terrorists, thus opening up more tools to be able to use against them. do you support the designation of mexican drug cartels as terrorists? guest: first of all, i think we have enough laws right now. i have talked to law enforcement people and asked, do you have the tools to do this? they say yes, without the designation. if we have the tools, that is important. the other thing -- you have to look at the history of the u.s. and mexico. if they are working with us, then left work with them on that. if you call them terrorists, and the mexican government will not work with us anymore. host: didn't the mexican president -- did he actually call it an act of terrorism? guest: the first thing i did was send that over -- article over

to michael mccall. apparently he had taken it back. he was emotional. i am not denying what the mexican drug cartels are doing. they are violent individuals. i havei am looking at how we wof the mexican government so we can best fight them. we're sending a lot agents over there. u.s. intelligence have been able to go after those individuals. i was criticized by some folks, but never initiative. host: how much has that been funded since you created? guest: about $1.4 billion. part of the problem what the u.s. had been providing had been delayed. i have always said if you have a fire -- but so you of a fire in mexico and i am going to send

you the fire department but it will take two or three years. in two or three years a lot things will happen. we're trying to get the state department to move faster in the aid they provide to mexico. host: james, a democrat caller. caller: i agree with the independent calller that said marijuana should be legalized. he has a few family members working for that, so he is holding up. that would put just about an end to this drug war and drug trafficking. no. 2, marijuana is the most useful plants on the face of this planet. sobeansgh anin and lentils. host: more thoughts on the legalization of marijuana or have you got your point out

there? guest: i appreciate the chemistry lesson of what marijuana is made up, but with all due respect to the individual, i do not think drugs should be legalized. i cannot see kids smoking marijuana and going off to school. i mention my brother because i am very pro-lifer enforcement. philosophically, i do not think that is the right approach. -- i mentioned that my brother because i am very pro-life enforcement. caller: first off, i ran. ran. iran is backed by russia. there is no way it would be allowed to be attacked. we would not want a confrontation with russia or iran. secondly iran, has a very strict

anti-drug policy in their country. i cannot imagine they would get someone in their government make arrangements with the drug cartel in mexico to do a hit on a saudi national. that is outrageous. it seems for one reason or another once one crisis is over, we automatically have a new one that develops. it is like the military apparatus has to continually keep busy, funneling more of our tax dollars into this campaign. host: are you convinced that this was a legitimate operation that was planned and called from iran? guest: i appreciate the phone call. i can appreciate the different opinions on this. i would certainly like to get everything on this and hear more information before we come up. i am basing this on what you and i have been hearing on that, but

again, this is something we are born to get a lot more information as time goes on. what ever the circumstances, i have this philosophy about border security, and this is homeland security. bad guys have to get it right one time. we have to get it right every single time. that is the premise that drives me on how we have to be very careful in search and investigate all of the information on any particular situation. host: going back to the merit situation. there is plans to replace it with a counterinsurgency strategy. was talking about the importance of that. would you support that? guest: i think what we need to do is to a combination. i have always said if you look of the drug cartels, you have to

use counterinsurgency measures to go after them. i have said that before. i think they call it a regular work there. and that part i think it is right, but we're for durable -- lasting effect on mexico, the initiative is concentrated on the federal government, building up the police force right now. if you look at it, the problems the mexicans have right now is on bill local level. that is where the local law enforcement area are compromised at the state level. we're now moving to state and local so we can start training police and make them professionals. number two, the judges, judiciary and prosecutors and prison system. if you look at a prosecutor here in the united states, they have a 95% chance of getting you. in mexico if the police sketches you in prosecutor goes after you, he has less than a 2% chance of prosecuting you.

the system has to be changed. one is changing the civil syststems there, and looking at how we go after the drug cartel. host: moving from the system in mexico to the system in the united states, we are on the 10th anniversary of the patriot act. there is an article that says "fbi heads to court more often to get personal usage information." is the use of the national

security letters something of concern to you? guest: the great debate we have is how you provide security and privacy? we have to provide the balance. i have always said if the law enforcement has time to go and get a judge's order, they should get a judge's order to get the private information. if they have to move on this real quickly because of the circumstances, then i think they can go ahead and do without it. i think most of the time they should have the sufficient time to go and ask a judge for permission to do that. host: back to the phones. richard from georgia. caller: i of a question and comment. first, you made the comment that it was about $30 million loss from the drug trade from the united states into mexico. however, i believe it was

deron who set ad arouerson cause $30 billion, and it was one of their primary sources of revenue. that is illegals working in the united states taking jobs and taking money out of the country. you could go to any small town in the country sending money out of country. second, a question real quick. fast and furious. it looks like thousands of weapons were sent by this the administration, probably eric , into theffice mexican drug trade. and some of these weapons have been found and fighting the mexican army, shooting down

helicopters, killing mexican and u.s. citizens and actually used against border patrol. host: several questions on fast and furious. a question from rachel on twitter. guest: first of all, $30 billion of u.s. dollars and consumption drugs go back to mexico. billion dollars, not million. i think what you were referring to with the mexican president is it is closer to $20 billion of mexicans that work here, and not all of them are illegal. mexicansthem are wo working over here. this is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. september dealing with fast and furious, ata has done a good

job. in this operation they broke protocol from what i understand. what they do is a controlled system. it will follow the money and drugs, in this case the guns, but they always know exactly where their record to be at. in this particular case they lost sight of the guns. gun walking. secondly, they did not tell the mexican government. not only my understanding did they go south, but some of them state in the west -- stayed in the u.s. they need to just us up. if they mess up, we should see who should be held accountable. -- they need to fess up. host: will someone go to jail over this? guest: i do not know.

should they be held accountable? my answer is yes. instead of holding everything back, tell us what happened, and we will take it from there. host: don from michigan. caller: i agreed with the calller from california and the last calller. awhile back when i heard our government talking about young men i knew something was going to happen. -- talking about yemen, i knew something was going to happen. there were lawyers there when he was getting on the plane. he was escorted by a man in a suit. was this a set up? i never heard nothing on the news. he went to court here induste in detroit.

i think it was a ploy so they can stop guns here or make the here. lot toughgun laws tougher guest: first of all, i am an nra supporter, and no one is try to get arms from anybody. in this case you have a law enforcement entity called the atf, and they had an operation where they lost control of the guns, and now the congress is trying to get information. they need to provide that information to us. once they provide the information, we will see who should be held accountable on that particular situation. host: again, talking to henry cuellar, he is on the subcommittee of counterterrorism and intelligence. they're holding up a meeting today on threats against america from iran. you could watch that on c-

span.org. i want to stick to mexico for a second of the report on deportations. do you expect those numbers to continue to go up in the coming years? guest: i think so, and especially as we put more resources into it. if you want to do more, you have to put more resources into it. the head of i.c.e. is doing the best he can. the men and women that work very hard for i.c.e. are doing the best they can to deport, but when you look at it, the deportations are as high we have the highest we have had in history. if they're here with a criminal record, they should be deported. host: calller from california. go ahead. caller: i have two questions.

one is why isn't d.c. looking more towards border security looking more at the illegal benefits coming here to get the benefits but no more american citizens won't be able to utilize? two, on the national security matter, do you believe all of the meddling of with middle eastern countries, with the government dictating who will be elected and what not, do you think that cause for a blow back for why the government would be so against western governments? guest: i will start off with the last question and move on to the first one. first of all, i think what the u.s. is doing in a very careful way is try to create more democracies in the middle east, and that is what we're seeing. the history between iran and the

united states goes back a long time. you can ask the president jimmy carter about our relationship with iran. it goes back a long time. i can understand how some of them might not like the u.s., and it is used as an excuse when they attack the west. i can understand that, but to try and promote democracy in the middle east, i think that is a good policy. under the other thing dealing with undocumented aliens and all of that, keep in mind, just like the prior person said, it all goes back to do we have any immigration reform law? if you look at 1986 you had a democratic congress and republican president that pass an amnesty law. i do not agree with president reagan and that we should have amnesty. my father was born in mexico.

he became a legal resident of the united states and a naturalized citizen. he followed a process. you have to have a process for folks that want to do that. the folks that want to come work over here -- listen, my father was a migrant worker in my mother was a migrant worker, and there are lots of folks out there -- if americans want to go do the job, go ahead and do the job. they cannot find a lot of americans to do that job, so therefore they look at people from other countries to come in and do the work. again, we have to have a sensible immigration reform to address some of the issues we have a. it will not go away. i am telling you, the immigration issue will not go away unless we do it the right way. host: detroit, mich., is next. sade is next.

you are on the air. go ahead. caller: first of all, i voted for democrats, and i think the approach of congressman is scaring the muslim voters, because you cannot throw any trouble on the muslims. i did the congressman is prejudice -- i think the congressman is prejudice in not calling the mexican cartel terrorists even with the mexican president calls them terrorists. guest: i was the first one that called for the u.s. involvement in mexico to fight the drug cartel. we have to find a smart way to

fight the drug cartel. so again, if people are born to get caught up in semantics, that is one thing. what i am interested in is the end result. i want to see the drug cartels eliminated period. host: i want to get your thoughts on texas redistricting. this is a republican-controlled process. 236 nt from 30 twot2 to seats. do you think this will be challenged in the courts coming up? guest: it has been challenged already. i am a plaintiff in court. i went up about eight or nine. on that. and i know a lot of the republicans, because i served with them. i did redistrict in texas in 1991. 2001 as secretary of state. now i am on the outside looking

at this. texas had over 4 million individuals -- we grew by over 4 million in the past 10 years. 70% of that was hispanics. african americans are the minorities. 90% of the growth we had in the past 10 years were minorities, mainly hispanics. host: yet there were no new minority districts added? guest: they actually did one. they eliminated democratic and made it hispanic. we were trying to reach out a bipartisan agreement where we would be a two and two. but since they control the house senate and state house, i said two and two. we should have more, and i am hoping the courts will create more minority districts. how could it be 10% of the minority got all four of them?

host: we will have to leave it there. think you for coming in to talk to us. of next, a look at whether members of congress are guilty of insider trading. >> here are some of the headlines -- nato has postponed a decision to postpone the bombing campaign in libya. as conflicts continue with interim government over how and when to wind down operations. last week the alliance announced preliminary plans to phase out the mission on october 31. nato's governing body was expected to formalize the decision today, but that has been brought off until friday. president obama is defending the u.s. role in bringing down muammar gaddafi. he said by bringing a broad international alliance against him, the u.s. saved american lives and money and achieved its goal. he made his remarks during an appearance on "the tonight show. >" "

companies ordered more heavy machinery and equipment in september. analysts calling that a positive sign for the sluggish economy. the commerce department says overall demand for durable goods fell 0.8%, largely due to a 25.5% drop in commercial aircraft orders. outside of transportation, orders rose 1.7% and business investment in core capital goods rose 2.4 percent signed, the biggest hike in six months. this is a sign companies are sticking with investment plans, despite slow growth and weak consumer spending. some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> from the texas book festival last weekend -- >> the president has his own strategy, one of the keynesian strategy. that has been the idea, but unfortunately the reality has

been very different. >> jefferson is are ready gleaming of his empire for liberty that will go all the way to the mississippi, may be up of missouri. >> so i had covered the military and cia in the years before and after 9/11, and as a reporter i have seen things grow up around me i was not sure what they were. people i had known for a long time disappeared into world that did not exist before or they have no titles for agencies that i never heard of. after 10 years of working in the realm, you say what is going on? >> i decided to call it the ripple affect, a chapter title, because i realize every time we used water, it sets off a ripple

effect, a series of consequences that most of us are aware of. >> watch the texas book festival online at the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is wednesday at 9:15. as we do it every time, it is time to kick a spotlight on a magazine. megan mcardle wrote the piece on whether congressman are guilty of insider trading, and does it matter? to start off with, our members are guilty -- are members of congress guilty of insider trading? guest: this turned out to be a complicated question. in the 1990's there was a professor that did a study that looked at what the disclosure forms that members of congress

had to file, and to attract those things with things that had happened to companies they own. for example, lloyd bentsen had conveniently bought and sold dairy companies before regulation affected what they were doing in terms of prices and so forth. there was a business professor in the south who saw this and made a splash in one of those of news shows. he was watching it and thought that is not right, you need to do this right. you need to look and see if congress outperforms the market. it took him forever. he had to get all these disclosure forms. this was back before the internet and not really available. he goes through and get the team together, including his wife, in dix and to -- puts a data set together. he looks to see if they

outperform the standard portfolio. the answer was they outperformed by 30%, which is huge. it does not sound like that much, but this is the 1990's, so we're talking about anyone who can breathe and hit the key on the keyboard can make 20% in the market. to out do that is an enormous thing. this year he followed up with a study on the house, and show they do not over performance well, 6%. that is still an enormous over performance compared to the rest of the market. host: how do we define insider trading? guest: this is interesting. a lot of people think it is a fraud on the market, but it is more complicated than that. for example, if you work for publicly-traded company, and you are aware of your new product line is not doing well and you trade on the information from

your definitely guilty of insider trading. this became a crime during the 1930's. before that people did not really think of it -- they expected everyone was corrupt. that is the family insider- trading. what is definitely not insider trading is if you are talking about this at another employee at a movie theater and as someone over here issue and they got in trade this, that is definitely legal. there was a man in the 1970's who when they print perspectives for murderers, they try too hard identity, but they have to prepare the prospectuses before that, and he went out and treated on them.

he got insider-trading, but the supreme court ruled this is not insider trading, because he did not have a fiduciary duty to hold this information private. however, a few years later, a fellow who was riding for "the wall street journal" was essentially leaking what was going to be in the column to traders who would trade on the information before it ran. he was also done that for insider trading, ended this case the role against him. what they said is he had misappropriated information that belong to his employer. so they said he had misappropriated information. that is very different from fraud on the market. one law professor i talk to pointed out this implies it is perfectly legal for "the wall street journal" to front run its own trade iades.

what it was undermined confidence if we knew they went out before and did anything and treated in the stock? no, of course not. the law is very complicated. how does this apply to congress? the problem with getting congressman for insider trading is who employs them? who would they be misappropriating information? morally they are employees of the united states people, and i agree. a law professor has argued this that they have a fiduciary duty, but it is not clear. it is not clear they would violate the rules we have surrounding insider-trading. host: our guest with us until 10:00 to talk about insider trading.

as a member of congress ever been found guilty of insider trading? guest: as far as i was able to ascertain, no one has ever gone after a congressman for insider trading. anecdotally, i tried to talk to people who prosecute these cases. i did not get a lot of interest in talking to a journalist about this. i take this to mean there's not a lot of interest in pursuing the issue, because not only is your boss and who wants to go after your boss for insider- trading, but also because it is inherently political. it is very difficult to decide who goods targeted by ethics investigations. it is not always true. there are really egregious cases that get on after the matter who is part of it, but the boundary cases often get prosecuted when your party loses control.

i do not think a lot of prosecutors want to dive into that. host: what kind of information would members of congress have if it were happening to make these decisions regarding stock? guest: all sorts of decisions. if you think about how many decisions they're making that would affect the company. think about the lloyd bentsen case. with that case, if you are a big dairy processor, knowing what of milkrolled what tprice will be, is a highway bill going to go through land of that is owned by a company that could sell it for lot of money, how are you going to regulate various products? congress' ha can and has almost put companies out of business by surrounding changes

of what they do. all of those things have enormous impact on companies. it would be relatively easy it there were no controls on it, and if you did not really have any compunction about it. it would be relatively easy by knowing what regulations were going through. host: megan mcardle our guest until 10:00. mark from florida. caller: good morning. and true professional you are. i want to make a point. i think a problem we have, in our history when the executive branch and legislative branch have run amok and corruption, which i think what has happened, and you will never get anyone in congress because they have friends, family that do investing for them and the kids run through different things, but in our history, the media and the newspapers used to be

the ones that have the power of another little check and balance to where they could inform the public of the culture of corruption in such. what we have now is i think the media is corrupt as well. if you look at big business media and who they are in cahoots with as well -- look at the martha stewart case. they busted her on telephone calls and this and that. the media cover that 24/7. host: caller, thanks. guest: there is a lot there. there is a lot the the fact is that congress is in charge of regulating itself, largely because of the dangers of having congressman subject to executive oversight or so forth. that is on to say there never

subject to the laws, they absolutely are. and having someone else watch them is problematic, so they watch themselves. doctors have this problem. journalists have this problem. groups that self-regulate, you have a lot of sympathy for other members of your group, and you do not want to lay your yourself with disclosure regulations when you know you are doing nothing wrong. host: delray beach, florida. keep on the democrat line -- keith of the democrats' line. caller: are talking to me? it is debbie. i have a question regarding the solar company would need tupelo's t with nancy pelosi's .

also, countrywide loans and whether congressperson get a sweetheart deal. and guest: these are three separate questions. the first question about her brother-in-law, it really in illustrates the limits of the spirit and even if you require their stocks, youodivest will have family that have stocks and will care more than those that do not have more direct stake in the stock. on lobbying, it is a complicated question, and a little bit outside of this scope of this article, which pertains directly to the question of is something that is a crime for everyone

else not a crime for congress people? more broadly, we can touch people who have a -- it is very common for people to try to escape the insider-trading by having their family members trade for them. it is actually a very common practice. it is harder than using to get away with it. consistently. we now have computer programs that hit the stands out if someone is looking. host: megan mcardle, i have a copy of a financial disclosure statement that is required by congress. if they have to fill these out, could you find the transit they're getting benefits from trade? guest: they do have to fill out financial disclosure forms. i did not want to imply the members of congress are not honest about the link these out, but if you look at a case of charlie rangel who had interest

he was not disclosing either on these forms or to the irs. this went on for years where he had tax incomes, rental houses in pr he was not disclosing. it's we are deals that were control for ght contrent apartments. -- sweetheart deals that are giving him rent control for apartments. interestingly people have done follow-ups and show they underperformed the market. it is still in contention whether or not this is happening, or whether the financial disclosure forms and publication of these studies have made people think twice about doing this. you do not know. what they said to me is there is not even the space to report short-selling. if you think about the regulations that could

adversely affect the company, short-selling in a lot of cases is obvious thing to do. you find out we just discontinued some big bomber that boeing is selling and you short the stock before it is sold, that is not even reported on these disclosures. host: amounts of income have to be reported, but not the amount of the spouse's income over $1,000. the cap on outside income was $24,000 in 2005. when it comes to assets worth more than $5,000 at the end of the calendar year. exchanges amounted to more than $1,000, and along with the date and amount of transaction. what else could be on the forms that is of interest? guest: short sells as a big one. more broadly the question of auditing is the real issue. these forms are only reported

retrospectively. you only get the data years after it has happened. then it is really old news. it is harder to get the energy to go into these cases. that was hypothetical by the way. i am not adding new charges to its ethics investigation. audit is the largest bank. frequency of reporting. insiders to trade in their own stock after reports these things much more closer to real time. it seems to me reasonable to at the very least require congress to do that, but i think when you think about not just the possibility for insider trading, but when you think about all of the conflict of interest, and all of us know no matter how hard you try to not think about conflicts of interest, it is difficult to divorce yourself entirely. maybe we should think about having congressman put their

assets into one trust. host: fort knox, ky. peter on the republican line. isler: very quickly, ma'am, there any way possible that your organization and yourself to do it investigating into the history of congressional conflict of interest since the vietnam war era. also, when it was a known time out on the street that many of your members of congress and their staff members had what was called stock holdings in defense contracts companies that were engaged in contractual operations in vietnam, and since then another source of information for these congressman is also that because they have connections with these lobbyists of these companies, the lobbyists -- who is to not

say they are bringing information to them about potential contracts that are coming up in war zones? unfortunately that would be known as war profiteering. to get to my question, will you and your organization conduct a series, which covers possible congressional connections with lobbyists of these corporations? guest: i think people do those sorts of studies. as i say, this really goes back to the core problem, which is unless we have them divest all of their assets, there is always going to be conflicts of interest, if it is not defense contracts, it could well be agribusiness or many other things that the congress affects

every day. host: is it is congress members that have to fill these types of forms? guest: the supreme court also does disclosures. i assume what he is referring to is clarence thomas. there been a lot of people suggesting he should recuse himself because his wife has been an active campaigner against health care. i think that is a little bit of a stretch in a bunch of ways. it is not really shocking that his wife is campaigning against health care. she was an activist before they got married. it is not clear -- she does not necessarily do worse if health care passes. if it stays live, it is not like she does worsen that way. she then gets to raise more money to campaign against it. there is not a financial

conflict of interest host. host: and still, texas. clay on the republican line. -- hunstville, texas. caller: it was my understanding that congress members in the market exceed 6% on average. is there a certain industry? guest: they do not look at that. there is some indication from some of the people that have done follow-up on this that it maybe a few big traders that did really well, and everyone else goes along making about what the rest of us do, which is not much right now. they do not look at individual industries. do youhey look at this outperform the rest of the market? host: for megan mcardle, little

rock, arkansas. democrats line. caller: i was just wondering, we're talking about insider trading in congress, and people are talking about the supreme court. i think it goes all the way to the white house. a few years ago when george bush was in office, a lot of people do not realize, but he met with the president of fannie mae with student loans, and they made an executive order. i am wondering by any chance did you investigate that? guest: the top executive branch officials who have financial sticks and this put their money in blind trusts. for example, there was a big issue with hank paulson, the secretary, and attaof the time he was president of

goldman sacks before he became treasury secretary -- angoldman sachs. at the time, people were saying he had to give up some parts of the deferred compensation and people were saying this is a huge sacrifice he has to make. it turned out because the market crash, he did well out of putting those assets and a blind trust. in general, this is not an issue with the president and secretary of the treasury. it is an issue occasionally with people lower down, with the fda official who was trading dowbasd on his own knowledge of drug approvals. those people are definitely subject to prosecution in the case if they are discovered. host: is it just top tier or the staff of these congressmen that it looked at as well as far as they're treating habits? gues-- trading habits?

guest: a lot of insider trading is not detected by this, but look at patterns. they look at what is happening in the markets. did they say patterns in trading, and once they see those, they will investigate. sometimes it is they got lucky. other times it happens over and over again. that is, as i understand it, how they caught the fda guy. there were abnormal patterns before every drug approval he knew about. host: there was an act passed that requires members of congress, a senior congressional staff, nominees for branch positions, president, vice president, supreme court justices to file annual reports disclosing personal finances. you mentioned representative or we slaughter -- lauri slaughter.

guest: this would make people file more frequently. it has gone nowhere. it has not even come up for a vote. it has been remarkably -- people have shown remarkably little interest in this. if it were me, and i were not doing insider-trading, yes, it is a pain to rectify a quarterly reports, but i have to file quarterly reports on my free- lance income, and it is not that onerous. they have not so far been interested. host: brian on the republican line from ohio. caller: good morning. my question is this, if i receive insider information -- let's say i have a buddy that is an executive at a corporation,

and he lets me know the previous quarter for the company, earnings and revenues are well below the street's expectations. i know i cannot act on that information immediately, but is there a period of time that i have to wait before i can dump the stock? is a month, a year? -- it a month, a year./ ? guest: unfortunately what you'd have to do is wait until after they have released their earnings. you cannot benefit from that information, because you know it came from someone who had an obligation not to disclose it. host: this is part of our regular spotlight series on magazines. theatlantic.com is where you can find the article she has written and other articles. what interests you about writing

this story? why did you write it? guest: for starters because i had seen the studies come out, and nothing happened. three libertarian blogs cover them, and that was about the extent. the issue just died. it strikes me not because i am particularly worried about fraud on the market, because in fact insider-trading, if you think about it, it is not obvious there is a crime. obviously the other people who buy things at a slightly lower price, but it is very hard to identify who you have hurt. that is not a problem with this. the problem with this is there is a suggestion that our top officials are enriching themselves by using the trust we of given them, the knowledge about future legislation, and they're using that to make money for themselves that the public

does not know about. that is a huge issue. trust in congress is now at record low levels. i it ultimately bought when i wrote this was that the reason this did not spark our reach is we are ready figured it was happening. that we trust congress so little that this does not even surprise us. that is truly corrosive. that is why i think congress should be acting to make themselves above for approach, because our public trust is really important, and you might say stock in congress is at an incredibly low level. -- that is why i think congress should be acting to make themselves above reproache. manyr: i have heard someo say so much on the laws of checks and balances, but 80

percent of the top people that are getting away with this corruption. you guys do your inquiries, and you touched normal people doing the conflicts, but it is about the people in charge of this country, and they're not just going to let people come in and inspect them. the people who are in charge right now are in the power of people who have not got caught. they are not just going to let people come in and open the doors. it will take a lot for even your organization or anybody. i respect what you're doing, but the government will not let someone come in and inspect their books. it is the same old story. just like you said, you hear the story about them getting caught, and it goes away. it is always going to be like that. just like my point right now. no one is going to hear my voice

ever again. it is the same old story over and over again. i know you are trying, but it is hard for us to sit here and hear his.the spiri an guest: this problem is justified. but i do not think that is a counsel of despair. but the fact is we have gone more disclosure. we have got more oversight of congress over time. that erodes when we're not paying attention. that erodes when people are not demanding legislators be accountable on this. i would say i think it is true they are not doing a good job of watching themselves, but i also think they're not doing a good job of watching themselves because we're not forcing them to do it. it can be done. there have been efforts in the past to force more disclosure and transparency on various levels of government, and that could happen again, but we have to get -- voters have to get

exercise of that position. host: 10 minutes before the house representatives come in. anthony on the democrats' line. : thank you.ller" power corrupts. this is why our elected officials will spend so much money for a job that pays so little and take so much of their time. it seems as if the rampant corruption is at every level of corruption, not just in congress. here on long island, i know the mayor was busted for insider trading. i think he got a 12 year sentence for it. the wife was his judge. his son is the spokesperson for the chief of police. the president handed out a pardon to a man who stole $30 program forom the hud for the poor.

this does conduct itself through means of corruption. there is no honesty any more in government. dick cheney started a war that benefited the company he was a professor of off a month prior him coming into the white house before he was vice president. i think make and has a handle on it, and i commend her efforts, and i hope she will carry on with informing the voters, because without an educated electorate, we are in trouble. -- i think megan can handle it. i do not think all congressmen are corrupt or all people going into office are looking to enrich themselves. i think more of it is the temptation is there in some people succumb to it. have you prevent people to succumbing to it? to make it really difficult. how voters that go out and

demand that congress take action when the information is exposed. host: when you were talking about financial disclosure, one person said the possibility is insider trading has gone harder. guest: now anyone who wants to, you could go to the web and get this database. it is on the web for free for anyone that wants to look at the forms. that means if people get interested, they can be watching the watchers. they can be the guardians here. there is more attention on disclosure. it is easier for people to freelance oversight as it were. it is also true the computer programs at the sec have gone better detecting this, so it is likely to come out. -- have gotten better detecting this, so it is likely to come out.

if you look at some of the trades in the study, they were much more innocent than they sounded when they were described to mother jones. for example, they said newt gingrich, he helped kill an amendment to a contract that would have hurt bowling, who eventually got the contract. was theiat the time he minority. he killed the amendment for other reasons. maybe there were a couple of bad apples, and the other left the senate or got scared because the disclosure forms are out there on the internet, and there is people looking at them. it is becoming news, and then maybe it is time to stop. host: rob on the republican line from maine. think all oft you you politicians are crooked? you all get money. [inaudible] guest: i tend to think that

people -- there is not as much variation in the goodness and badness of people as we usually think. it is not usually a question of equal people. it is a question of how you put -- have you put people into a situation where they are tempted and go astray? people are greedy and attempted to do things they know are not quite right. i do not think that they are all terrible or corrupt i think that the problem is we do not have an institution that looks like it is very good at preventing and revealing corruption. it takes a long time for the ethics investigations to happen. nothing much it seems to happen when they are done. who even remembers the last verdict of an ethic investigation? it seems like it is a humiliating experience that people go through, but there's not a real serious swift and

sure justice that is applied to the violations that other people routinely do not get away with. host: does the securities and exchange commission ever look at these activities within congress? guest: as far as i can tell, no. it was very difficult to get access to people in law enforcement that want to talk about congressional insider trading. i am sure it pops up on their screens periodically. what i do not know is whether people at the sec throw those into a bin and say we cannot do anything about that, it is a congressman. whether they do not pop up because congressman are under performing the market -- one of the studies indicated they were doing 3% worse than if it would of stuck it into an index fund or whether there is something else going on. host: two minutes until we go to

congress. john in san diego. caller: i agree the people have to demand more from their politicians, and that we have to get the corporations out of the government. henceforth, the supreme court ruling solidifies the movement that people feel that all of our politicians -- politicians for the most part are bought and paid for. we are rendered powerless against this monster. until we get corporations out from under in get campaign finance reform, we are not going to go anywhere. guest: i think it is a lot more difficult than it sounds. everyone wants to get the money

out of politics. everyone wants legislators but do not think about anything but the interest of the constituents, but the fact is you have a very large government that does a lot of things that affect corporations. those corporations are going to attempt to affect those outcomes. i do not see any way to stop it there is a great woody allen quote. he said i think my brain is the most important organ, but then again look at what oregon is telling me that. -- look at what organ is telling me that. i am the child of a lobbyist. people have this notion that it is all going and deposit a big check, and it is not like that. it is a lot of information. it is giving statistics from your industry insuring people the information. inherently your voice going to get the information that makes your industry look the best. host: megan