independent. i think most people on a scale of lenin to barry goldwater, 1 to 10, be a 5. it seems like the third way would be a moderate form of 10,u consider yourself? guest: thank you so much, david. we do consider ourselves immoderate progressives. that is where we focus our policies. i think you are right that most of the american people are in the middle. in the poll that i mentioned, we actually did exactly what you just did. on a 1 to 9 scale, where to put yourself, one being conservative and 9 being liberal. the obama voters who did not show what or switch to republicans in 2010 were right there in the middle.

for the switchers and particular, they were just to the right of center. but the real interesting thing is where they put the other party. we ask them, where the you think republicans fall on the line? they put republicans essentially at a center-right and they put democrats pretty significantly to the left. that meant that when you look at the distance between themselves and those parties, they saw double the distance between themselves and where they put democrats than they did between where they put themselves and where they put republicans. that was the big danger. because if you go into an election year with people in the middle thinking that they are double the distance away from democrats than republicans, then that is a problem for democrats. host: mark stone says president obama cannot run as a moderate in the election. he has a record -- kansas, howh in does it play out for the independent voter?

guest: i think president obama has largely had a moderate agenda. the health care bill, it was moderate, one that we supported. it created stability and security for health care for americans. but we are just in a very divisive time. and his policies have in some ways been caricatured as something that is very far to the left because there is some anger from the tea party. in order to win independents going forward, president obama needs to tap back into a positive vision of what the country is going because that is what people are looking for. independents are not people who see themselves as kind of downtrodden. they did not see themselves as being held down by anyone else and they are not anti-business. there is a careful line to walk because you need to make sure that you are articulating positive vision and not one that acts as if independents are victims of some kind of system they cannot control, because that is not how they see

themselves. host: independent. elizabeth, carlsbad, california. caller: great program. my granddaughter asked a question. she said, why do we have to say whether we are an independent, republican of or democrat. when boehner spoke to obama, it seemed like they were on good terms. and then when the republicans turned around and had everyone sign that pledge that they would not go along or else they would not get any money for their upcoming election, that seemed to change the whole picture. but it was an interesting question. i really could not answer why can't we just go out and vote for the president? why we always have to have a party and stay loyal to the party whether we agree with what they say. guest: the partisan voter registration has to do with the primary process, as we talked about. so, with our current primary process, especially with states with close primaries, people have to register so they can vote. if they did not register as one

of the two parties, it means they essentially have no say in deciding who the candidates will be that they will choose from. that is a problem. but going forward, i think we all need to try to figure out how to work together a little bit more. one of the things we did this past year in order to try to help their be at least a little more conversation across the party line was to suggest that the republicans and democrats sit together for the state of the union so the state of the union address was not a partisan cheerleading fast with one side standing up and cheering and the other side boeing, but they essentially pick one person from the other side and say i was it by you for this one night. i think that was very powerful. it happen. senator udall asked republicans to sit by him and then it spiraled. i think it was very powerful for the american people to seem that their government, their legislators, can sit together

and be pleasant, which is one of the big pieces that i think is missing sometimes from these debates. host: perrysville, indiana. steve, democrats' line. you are on with lanae erickson of 3rd way. caller: i am a democrat and always will be a democrat. i cannot understand why anybody would go to the republican party, because they are not for the poor and middle-class. there is no way. they get out there, and just like right now, they've got control of the house and they have actually got control of the senate, too, because they filibuster anything the democrats try to put out. you know, they are not doing anything for this country. they are not doing anything at all. host: what does it mean about

independent voters? caller: if they vote for the republicans, this time here, this country is going to be in such bad shape that, you know, we will never get out of it. guest: steve, i think you are right that what independents are looking for is getting something done. and who is going to really step up and deal with our country's really major problems we are facing. i think part of the problem with having many, many members of congress coming from districts that are drawn in order to give them 90% of the vote is that they then end up being very entrenched on one side or the other. they are thinking about making sure that they don't in any way across their party or the party orthodoxy that has been around since the 1960's. and we have seen it on things like the deficit. democrats on the dumbest --

deficit refuse to -- many democrats refuse to deal with the entitlement programs. and that is something we are going to have to fix going forward if we want to make a dent in our deficit. for republicans, there can be act -- absolutely no revenue raising. we know it is not plausible if we want to fix our deficit problem. and most people in the country think we should do some of both -- we should reform our entitlement programs, protect them, make sure they are sustainable, and that we should make sure we have the revenue to make investments in the future that we need to keep our economy going. it is folks -- if folks like president obama can tap into that, which i think he has done a fairly good job of in some of the speeches -- he offered a big deficit reduction package, which took on his own party asseverate -- ways. if they can talk about how to get something done and get past the gridlock and the lines drawn

in the sand, i think that will happen for the independents. host: georgia. michael on the idea -- line. caller: i do not believe in a such thing as independent. i will use of social security. democrats created social security and republicans never liked it. the one to get rid of it. why should a democrat work with them? guest: i think there is a lot of support on both sides of the aisle for many of the programs and infrastructure that we have in our country. and there is certainly a lot of support in america for those things. one of the things we found in our polling is that overwhelmingly people want their legislators to work together. so, that is something we have seen from independents, to democrats, axles slightly lower for republicans, saying they want legislators to work together, but it is something people overwhelmingly say.

in a the poll that i mentioned, we asked people to describe president obama in one word. the word that people most likely used was trying. people think he is trying to work for the others -- with the other side. so, having the other side refuse to work with him over and over again i think is not bode well for them next year. host: washington, d.c., to buy -- thank you for holding. caller: i really don't believe americans -- they really don't -- they take democracy for granted. and the reason i say that is because only 42% of the people voted in the last election. so, that tells me that 58% of the american people, they don't care. you know how it is? democrats, republicans, independents, they know they have the electric bought and

paid for. they know what. -- know it. the american people that the government they deserve. guest: i think you are right that it is kind of shocking to think about the voter turnout in our country and how low it is. i am from the state of minnesota where there is much higher voter turnout, and when i moved into massachusetts i was shocked by how few people actually went to the polls. but i think that you can understand why some of those independents might not show what concern cases where they did not feel like either party represents them. and again, they are in a primary system where they are not allowed to influence or even if they are allowed to vote, they did not have the biggest influence, over who it is the party chooses to represent them. jon huntsman maybe would appeal to a lot of independents, but he is going nowhere and the republican primary. the independents may be just

frustrated. they are looking for a home. they are swinging wildly back and forth because they are trying to ascertain who will represent them and every time they vote for one party, the party misinterprets that vote as a mandate for whatever they want to do, rather than remembering that independents were the ones who put them there in the first place and really attending to the concerns of the independent s. host: "the wall street journal" has polling on how the present one -- president would do against gingrich and romney. in ohio the president would lose against mr. gingrich and romney. pennsylvania, he would win against gingrich and against mr. romney. it talk a little bit about the independent voter, especially if the numbers are that close. guest: the very first numbers coming out showing the independent crossed tabs on gingrich versus obama head to head -- head-to-head came out yesterday. independents are not looking at

mr. gingrich as a serious person. they actually are much more pro- romney, when you look at the head to head. in one of the latest i saw, it was romney, 53, obama, 40, among independents. but for gingrich, when you look at a state like florida or pennsylvania, that is where it drops off then. that is what a lot of folks on the democratic side are clearing jiri -- cheering for new gingrich. host: charles, line for democrats. caller: good morning. i watched c-span every morning. i enjoy listening to what i hear. but i just don't understand why in the world the consent of there and keep saying president obama is the biggest problem they would have. we already knew about this deficit and this mess before he got there.

and now i see the republicans -- i understand similar things about them, too, but why keep not working with the man and trying to make things better for the country? we did not put them there for themselves, we put them there for us, to continue to fight -- and they continue to fight, which is very unfair to the american people. and i think -- they need to go. it does not make sense to the american people. we are the ones suffering. they did not have the problems we have. we are sitting here struggling with food, bills, stuff like this. they don't have to worry about it because they are already well off. guest: absolutely, charles. president obama did come in with huge problems to address an independents understand that, and that is why they give him credit for trying, as i said, to have specific solutions. i think one of the things people like most about president obama

when it voted for him in 2000 was the sense he was going to bring the country together -- in 2008. it was not a red or below america but the united states of america, from his 2004 convention speech. it is the thing that skyrocketed him to the front of the pack. i think it is the thing people are continuing to look for. but it is very difficult in his dealings with congress and in his dealings with the republican party because he faced this very extreme tea party movement that basically drove the republicans to not want to compromise on anything. it is understandable that they do not because the tea party does not want them to. their base is saying don't compromise and president obama is trying to compromise with someone not in the room. it is a very difficult situation, i think, going forward. and i think this pendulum might swing the other way. we are likely to see 2012 look somewhere between 2008 and 2010,

because people see the stubbornness and extremists with which the tea party and a republican party are governing and how essentially in 2010 there were tea party candidates that were picking off republican candidates. but now every republican candidate is a tea party candidate. look at the senate race in florida -- they are trying to out-tea party each other, and the same is true with the gop nomination for the presidency. i think in 2012 we will likely see the pendulum come back to the other way. but the focus has to be on the independents because they will make the decision. host: wayne, michigan. owen, on the democrats' line. caller: we have about a year until the election. i am wondering what point in the year do most people tend to register to vote -- would you expect most people to already be registered or will they be registering in the summer or late in the fall right before elections?

guest: that is a great question. i did not know the statistics of when people register. what we were looking at is the change in registration. we will continue to look at that every single month ago when forward because we suspect that it will be a trend that will continue to unfold through 2012. we will keep you updated on that. but i think we are likely to see this gap even growing the independents bidding even higher and democrats and republicans suffering. host: the report is called "s s day -- independents day." our last segment, america by the numbers, we will take a look at the instructor -- infrastructure system in the united states. we will take it up when we come right back.

>> part of the point of the book is to change the way we think about change and to make as much more aware than i think we are instinctively about the potential swat list of -- sadness of disintegration and collapse. to make us realize what happens to the soviet union and the financial system in 2007 and in 2008, and what is currently happening in the european union is the kind of thing that can happen to any complex system. it can set me mountain. >> this weekend on "after words" economist and historian niall ferguson on how western civilization has come to dominate the world and it's possible decline.

also, craig shirley like -- looks at the japanese attack on pearl harbor. saturday at 1:00 p.m. and again at 9:00. also, a journalist and former judge catherine crier on how partisan politics are hurting the country. her new book is on what americans must do to save the public. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. >> pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care, the most expensive single element, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, then there would be a giant sucking sound going south. >> ross perot spoke out about trade issues in the 1992 presidential debate. the billionaire businessman made two attempts at the presidency.

the first time getting over 19 million votes, more popular votes than any third-party candidate in american history. although he lost, he had a lasting influence on american politics. he is our final candidate in c- span's 14-week series "the contenders." to preview other video on ross perot and see all of the programs in the series, go to c- span.org/the contenders. "washington journal" continues. host: america by the numbers series. today we are looking at the nation's infrastructure. it to help us work through the numbers and to talk about what it means is patricia hu, the bureau of transportation and statistics, the director, and also john morsley of the association of state highway and transportation officials. welcome. can we start talking about the bureau of transportation statistics and what it does?

guest: it was created by the 1992 inter-modal service transportation act and it created it as a federal statistical agency. the responsibility is to provide data, statistics, and analysis to inform transportation decisions, to measure the performance of our transportation system to about a boy impact of transportation issued. host: on the federal level, this is what you handle. mr. horsley, from the state perspective, out how you look at the decisions made in washington, d.c.? guest: we represent all 50 state departments of transportation, the district of columbia, and puerto rico. all of the states want to know what is going on nationally in transportation. of transportation

statistics provide a wealth of data. they are our go-to agency. >host: how we define infrastructure in the united states? guest: it consists of six major modes. and they include the roadways and highways, airports and airways, rail, urban transit, waterways, and pipelines. host: out of all of those things, most of our folks would deal with rose and highways, but why are the other elements important to look at as well? guest: we tried to move people and goods and transportation -- transportation infrastructure is there to move people and goods. they are a connected network to help efficiently move people and goods. host: when you look at statistics, the federal government, according to

statistics, deals with 4 million miles of road, 116,000 miles of rail line, 12,000 miles of navigable inland talk about 4 million miles of roads and what it means in terms of what the government does on how the roads are maintained? guest: the 4 million roadways and close to the answers -- interstate all the way to your local roads. the state government, local government, and federal government, they share the cost of maintaining and operating those 4 million roadways. it carries about a quarter of a billion vehicles in the country, and also provides transportation infrastructure to those who do not own a vehicle in the country. host: from the major highways to the small county road, that is what is covered? guest: correct.

host: mr. john horsley, of the maintain such a wide swath of roads and types of road? guest: the 4 million miles of roads, most of those or almost all are owned by state, city, and county governments. the state's own about 20%. for example, all the interstate highway system that carries 24% of the nation's traffic is owned, managed, and operated by the states. so, it is very important to the economy and every day families. when you want to go to see grandma at christmas time you will use the interstate. host: how much is paid for by state and how much paid for by the federal government? guest: about 45% of the capital investment comes from the federal level and 55% from the state and local. host: what this capital investment involved? guest: when you replace a bridge, put on a series rebuild of a highway facility, that is a

capital investment. when you move snow and grass, that is maintenance. host: when you look at statistics, when it comes to roads, what goes into compiling the information? how do you keep track? guest: we have different states and local governments, plus the federal agencies, that provide statistics to the federal government and we compile it on an annual basis. this is how are statistics and data becomes available to us. sometimes there are data gaps and we try to use estimations. host: we are talking about the nation's infrastructure system. if you want to join us in this discussion, here is how you can do so this morning. we divided the lines regionally --

highlight this fact -- the transportation infrastructure system, according to your of the nation, provides mobility to 50 million americans who do not own a car -- 15 million americans who do not own a car. guest: it is important in our transportation infrastructure to provide mobility options to the 15 million americans who do not own a car. typically it would be using public transit, walking and biking, inter-city bus and rail service. host: how good they look into making sure folks have a way to get around if they did not have a car? guest: one of the fastest- growing demands for transportation in the rural parts of the country is for older people who want to live in their home, who want to retire in their home, but they somehow cannot drive anymore.

so, they are coming to states, cities, and counties for rural van service to get to the doctor, the pharmacy, get to church. it is a demand we are having difficulty meeting. but it is out there. host: when it comes to the road system -- would talk about personal transport -- but the road system, at least a transportation system, moves about 16 billion tons of goods and services. talk about the roads and how much they are responsible moving goods across the states? guest: about 70% of the tonnage in the u.s. is moved by truck. a huge volume of goods are moved by truck. and the last mile is almost always by truck. you did not get very many goods delivered by barge or rail to your doorstep. so trucks play an important role, so it means roads. host: is most of the transport done by the interstate highway

system, or are other roads depended on as well? guest: largely based on the interstate highway systems, but like john says, the last mile is always the in the local streets and things like that. it is always carried by trucks. host: again, the numbers will be on your screen to talk about the in destructor -- infrastructure system. sanford, maine. sure 1, good morning. you are on. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thank you. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i am retired civil engineer and i lived in new england all of my life, and i have seen the road in our state now, where some of them are not any better than town roads.

they are breaking up, they are patching them, and it is not going to work. we need a major investment in our roads and infrastructure system immediately, including the roads and all of our bridges. we need to push something through congress to get it done somehow. we cannot live without an adequate infrastructure. host: one of the facts you highlight in your information is the demands -- demand that the road to meet. guest: the blueline represents -- is represented by the number of roadway miles between 1990 and 2010. we indexed that number to 1990 has won, so it will show you how it has changed over the years. if you look at the red line, it shows you how much the amount of driving is taking place in our eye was system. you see an increase of almost

40%. for the higher demand and the level of capacity will impose a significant -- wear and tear on the high was system. host: it means for states, mr. john horsley? guest: the civil engineer put his finger on it. we are not keeping up with the need to rebuild and keep our highways in good condition. every community, whether you are in maine or anyplace else, depends on the condition of the highways to meet their family needs, to meet the economy's needs. congress right now is working on a bill to sustain the program at current levels. we are supporting that. the senate has passed a bill out of committee. we are waiting for the house. host: one of the other factoids -- and the state highway miles are 1% of the total road miles but carry 24% of the total travel.

guest: this is where the demand is heavily located, the 1% of the roadway system, and interstate highway. this again shows the importance of the interstate highway as well as the into -- importance of the roadway system as well. host: just urban areas, major cities? -- urban and rual areas as well. interstate was designated -- limited access, allows at least 50 miles an hour traffic, it has to have two lanes traffic in either direction, and the shoulder has to be paged. this is a special designation of a special type of highway constructed to a standard, special standard. host: maryland. good morning. you are on. caller: i would like to say that president obama's stimulus program included money for

shovel ready projects. what most of the states did was use the money to pay down their debt. that is why the highways, roads, and infrastructure is still in bad shape. in the jobs act, there is more money for infrastructure and everything. and of course, the republicans are holding that up. just holding of jobs. people could be at work already. and our roads would be better and everything. it is just terrible way our congress and senators are acting these days. host: stimulus funds and what have they done question my guest: i am glad you brought that up. $27 billion out of the total program went to fixing highways. the states put that to work over three years and rebuilt 34,000 miles of highways in this country and repaired or replaced

1300 bridges. so, it did an enormous amount of good. but when you look at the broader scale of what was needed, we need to be spending maybe $100 billion a year to really keep up with what is needed. host: how do you get money for that? guest: we are working with the house and senate and present. the president wants to actually increase investment in high winds right now but the rub -- neither he nor congress wants to raise taxes. we are working on just keeping the current cash flow going, which is crucial, but that will be a struggle. host: these are statistics looking at higher demand and level roadway capacity. can you explain what these lines mean? guest: there are two lines. when it's in red and one is in blue. the height of the line shows the average number of hours the drivers are delayed on high

waves per person. if you look at 1990, the red line are the delays in the medium-sized cities, 1-3 million people. the blue line is ingestion trends in the larger areas. on average, 1990, about 40 hours of delays or experience by drivers in large urban areas. this trend reached about 60 hours in 2006. it just to show in large areas, we experience greater congestion and medium-sized city. host: fort worth, texas. thank you for holding on. robert. you are gone. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a bicycle commuter. what can like-minded people like myself who commute to work, and we do things -- we go to the

store -- what can we do to create a sense of, i guess, a sense of emergency to political leaders, saying that we need to have more bicycle commuter lanes? it seems like the texas department of transportation is very willing to drop millions of dollars on road construction projects to try to ease congestion in the dallas-ford worth area, but it just gets worse and worse. it seems like you can expand roadways many times over but it does not seem to work. bicycle commuting is a more effective way to get around. one does not get caught in traffic jams. what can we do to create a sense of emergency that this is a real mess is everything to do? guest: robert, the bicycle

program has largely been funded by the enhancement program in the highway program over the last 10 years. a huge number of bike lanes have been built by cities and counties through that program. but it looks like it will be an uphill battle for you. the senate bill, and i think the house as well, will make it instead of a mandatory program, make it discretionary. so your challenge in fort worth will be to convince the state to continue to invest and bicycle lanes. it will be their choice. the difficulty we are all facing, is there is not enough money to go around. and the states face the trade off whether to build transit highways or bicycle lanes. i think you will go to work and see if you can convince your local officials. host: the topic of alternative transportation, how does public transportation factor in with what we are talking about today? guest: it will hold its own.

i think there is a recognition that public transportation has got to be funded. we see both the house and senate and the president as well sustaining current levels of investment in transit. it needs to grow. that is the frustrating thing. guest: the infrastructure that is currently there. a lot of the bus lanes are getting older. the same for the rail lines. we have our work cut out. host: on average, transit rail, locomotive, coaches and cars are 18 years old, transit buses are 6 years old or older, one in every 4 transit stations is an excellent or good condition and a majority of the underground tunnels are in excellent or good condition. guest: i think this chart shows part of the transit infrastructure requires maintenance and attention. some areas are doing fairly reasonable. i do want to follow up with one

point -- we do see a 33% riders should increase between 1995 and 2009, and this shows the passenger trips handled by the public transit. every time one person takes a trip, we, as a one-person trip. and increase we observe could be attributable to a number of reasons. one is, put there are increased levels of services, longer operating hours, wider networks, and such. and we also see some increase when the gasoline prices increase. host: the cost of operating a car, how does a factor? guest: some suggest with recession there are fewer households earning fewer vehicles. when they own fewer vehicles they tend to transfer their mobility into public transit.

host: we are talking about the infrastructure of the united states with patricia hu, from the bureau of transportation statistics, and john horsley, american association of state highway and transportation officials. memphis, tennessee. hello to a.j. are you there? one more time. let's go to houston, texas. john, good morning. caller: decades ago, the congress passed the prevailing wage act at the insistence of their big union friends, and this drives up the labor cost of highway construction dramatically. and it also prevents small businesses, non-union small businesses -- from participating in the project. we in texas have the contractors from all over the united states, we could be hiring more

open people, we are an open shop state and many of the smaller construction companies are non- union. guest: as far as i am aware, the prevailing wage rates that are required to not discriminate between union or non-union contractors and does not force contractors to use the union wages. but a certain rate is established for a region and those rates have to be paid. that is the working man a decent wage. and we are very pleased right now with the competitive bids that states are receiving from contractors. so, we are getting value for the taxpayer right now out of the bids coming from contract as of texas and elsewhere. host: bridges. you have a statistic, looking at structural soundness of the bridges. what does this information tell us? guest: this chart shows you the number of bridges by age of the bridge and the condition of the bridge.

basically the bridge inspectors inspect the bridges every two years, and they inspect certain elements based on a certain set of criteria. a major components such as the deck, superstructure, substructure, also the carrying capacity. this is a chart that shows you that obviously the younger the bridge, the less likely they are to be deficient. there are about 20,000 bridges in the country that are 100 years and older and half of the bridge are structurally deficient. and i would like to point out that structurally deficient does not mean the bridges are unsafe to travel. it basically means the bridge meets the requirements for maintenance and repairs and order to maintain in service. host: how many bridges over all in the united states? guest: 600 -- 600,000. [laughter] host: for the person having to be on the front line and

inspecting, what does it mean for the states and those on the front lines? guest: a typical state has to maintain 10-15,000 bridges, so we have a busy cadre of the bridge inspectors. also the resources available to keep the bridges and the condition that have to be in -- they have to be safe or they will shut them down. it is a struggle because we simply have not got the capital needed to maintain them in a condition we know is needed. host: does the money to upkeep come from the same source, the gas tax? guest: 90% of federal funds comes from the gas tax and about 50% of the state funds come from highway-related fees. it is the same source and both the state and federal governments are struggling to figure out how to fund this is central service. host: pennsylvania. tom, go ahead. caller: we have developed a

culture here in the united states that relies so heavily on our roadways, and they are unsustainable both economically and from an environmental point of view and also from an energy point of view. is there a sense of urgency that we really need to get away from suburban sprawl and ex-urban sprawl and the people on to mass transit? this is a serious problem and i want to know if there is a sense of urgency. guest: it. -- i would not say there it is a sense of urgency. there are enlightened communities like philadelphia -- i was in a discussion last night from a gentleman -- with the gentleman from salt lake city, who see the need to end sprawl and concentrate development and shift more trips to transit. my association, all 50 states want to see transit riders

should double in the next 20 years because we think that is an essential component. but you really can't make that happen unless, as you point out, land use changes and we concentrate development closer in rather than further out. we have some education to do at the grass roots before there is that sense of urgency. host: vivian adding this this morning when it comes to her personal situation with a vehicle -- mississippi, stanley. caller: i am a little concerned about the legislation that doubles the hourly wage of workers on these servicing jobs versus the private sector. i feel like the government has no need to artificially intervene with the market and let the market be the market. we would get many more miles of roads paved and more bridges fixed it is legislation would be

repealed and i wonder why there is not a move to do so. guest: every year there are some who tried to repeal the davis- bacon law. the unions and others pitch in and fight back. right now we do not see any prospect in the congress of changing that labor protection. host: the president has several times made a pitch for a national infrastructure bank. what would it do concerning what we are talking about when it comes to roads and bridges, etc.? guest: the national construction bank is a way to augment funding over time, capitalize investment, but somewhere 15-100 billion, it would be a real shot in the arm if they could get it through congress. i think he is proposing $50 billion in investment, and senator kerry and senator kay bailey -- kate bailey hutcheson from texas have co-sponsored the legislation. so far it has not been able to

pass in the senate. host: how would it be funded? guest: that is one of the mysteries out there, how it would be capitalized. if it works, we would take the assistance and we like the president's imagination, but right now we are not clear on how it would be funded. host: why did you say if it works? or the funding mechanism? guest: if the funding mechanism works and if you could get it through the congress. in the house, what they prefer is the state infrastructure banks. we have 34 states with state infrastructure banks. right now we think that is the more likely successful outcome that is on the horizon. guest: i hope that -- this is an area i think john is more knowledgeable than i am and i have nothing else to add. host: as far as the holidays are concerned, more people will be traveling by airline. looking at air passenger travel.

what does this chart say? host: increases over time in air passenger and freight. this is looking back two decades. in air passengers, we see 60% increase. in the freight, we see, let's say, 135% increase. and you see a dip in 2002 due to the recession. and another decrease in 2007. we have yet to fully recover in terms of aviation travel. host: aside from underline that the airport, what does it mean as far as air travel is concerned? guest: we save the -- seee the cost of the delay, this is a number based on 2011 statistics. we divide the delays in the major factors.

airlines and carriers that include cleaning of the aircraft, the crew is late, accounts for about 20%. airport and air control systems, another 31%. that includes the congested roadways, computer failures and things like that. you notice that 38% is due to the aircraft arriving late through the gate. the previous flight did not reach your gates, so that contributes to 38% of the delay. part of the 30% are due to the weather conditions. if your flight was late arriving, it could be. so, our estimate is about 40% is weather-related. host: 0.2% related to security. what does that mean? guest: passenger security clearance at tsa. those are the security delays.

host: new castle, pennsylvania. shirley, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of things here. our debt went from $7 trillion to 15 trillion in the last 2.5 years. it is hard to believe the roads and bridges that we have to travel lawn, when all about money is gone, where did it go? number two, driver's licenses to -- license plates and our turnpike tolls, where does all that money go? and our lottery. you know people spend millions and millions every day on lottery tickets? and they keep saying it is for senior citizens. i want to tell you, we are senior citizens and we have not even had a cost of living increase in the last two years since obama went into office.

host: to her second punt on toll bridges and the like, how do they factor into an infrastructure system? guest: about 5% of overall capital that flows into the highway system comes from tolls. and you would be pleased to know that every dime that is charged on a toll gets plowed back into the facility you paid for. every dime of highway fees that you pay at the gas tank or vehicle registration fees, that is dedicated strictly to transportation. and most of the capital investment in highway and bridges transit facilities comes from user fees which are plowed right back into those purposes. the taxpayers are getting their dollars worth, their value out of the fees they pay for transportation. but we all have challenges. host: toll roads and the like,

are they strictly from the state or public-private partnership? >> most of the toll facilities are owned by state authorities or regional authorities. a few ordering very promising hope for more public and private ventures, but even those cases they are done on their long term concession to the state government. the indiana toll way, for example, a long term concession for the state of indiana and that the and the 75 years the facility will belong back to the state. host: does your organization keep track of the public and private efforts? charles, good morning. caller: we used to have the chain gangs. with all of the people in state prisons and federal prisons, why

aren't they used as labor on highways? i don't mean major cities. i know there would be some issues. but why isn't there labor used to -- they are a burden on society. we keep putting pressure on the working people and they are in there with free medical, free dental, free health, and we have senior citizens who cannot even buy their medicines. >> charles, many counties and cities continue to use labor from the jails to clean up, do the litter control, along the highway roadsides. but the spill it takes in this day and age to build a highway, maintain a high way, takes skills, trained personnel, that you usually do not get from a jail population. there are some things you can do with the jail population, and

counties all over the country are doing that, but the skilled work force needed to do the modern work of the modern highway system does not allow that. >> in 2010, of women to statistics, the top 10 airports accounted for about one-third of all passenger travel. atlanta, chicago, los angeles, denver, new york, and houston, san francisco, las vegas, phoenix. what does it mean to us? yuko it shows you the change within the last two decades from 1990 until 2010 in the top 10 airports. there are two things i would like to point out. if you look at the atlanta passenger departures, 43 million passengers in one year. if you compare it to the no. 1 in 1990, chicago, it had 26 million. it is almost a double. basically the message here is

the number one airport today is handling almost 50% more passengers than the number one airport in 1990. if you look at the chart, the top four airports in 2010 surpassed the passenger flow for the number one airports in 1990. it shows the aircraft -- air- traffic have increased significantly, handling significantly more passengers than 20 years ago. host: as the airline industry fall into your purview? guest: many states own and operate their airports and all states manage to the general aviation, the private service for just a business people and the hobby aircraft fires. states are involved in the airports. host: the number of people, even with the cost of flying sometimes, you still see these numbers as high. guest: but you do see las vegas

joins the top 10 airports because of southwest airlines. they are increasing their traffic. host: new york, john. good morning. caller: good morning. we need high-speed rail. we need some way to take pressure off of our highways -- hello? host: you are on. caller: we need to take the pressure off of the highways with these big tractor- trailer's. i live in upstate new york near the canadian border and there are cars and trucks, across the border, a steady stream. not like it was when i was a kid. yet, they did not pay any more -- a person coming into the country, they do not pay for the roads and bridges. maybe they buy a little gasoline. but we need to increase the cost on transportation for goods on these tractor-trailers'. other than that, get high-speed rail up, get rail service for

goods instead of -- more so for goods, instead of having tractor-trailers' hauling it. guest: charles, the good news is at the american trucking association which represents all of the tractor-trailer rigs told congress they are willing to pay higher diesel taxes to pay their fair chair -- fair share of what it takes to maintain the roads and bridges. congress has not taken them up on it. kind of frustrating. and we agree absolutely that we need more high-speed rail. the president has made a start and there are great improvements taking place in the northeast corridor, up in new york, but a lot more needs to be done. host: looking at this chart, showing between 2007 and two -- 2009. a lot of the freight movement is by truck. guest: indicated by the chart. john referred to it earlier,

that a majority of the freight is moved by truck in our country. host: about 12 million tons? guest: about 12 million tons of freight is moved by truck and the value decreased less than -- between 2007 and 2009, it was reduced by 13%. host: columbia, tennessee. danielle. caller: mr. john horsley discussed the van service for senior servant -- senior citizens in the rual areas. guest: yes. caller: ok. in the city i live and there is a van service that operates out of our senior center. and it is open to the public. however, it is by appointment. and they do have a program, i guess at a job access program i guess for low income community

members, where they have to submit documentation proving their income and then the transportation service to pick them up and take them to and from their jobs. however, i guess i wanted to know who can a person contact on ways to expand this transportation service to fully meet the demands of the community members? guest: well, the van service is usually provided by counties and cities in your area, but funding flows from the federal level to the state, and then from the state down to the communities. so, i think your first starting point is to talk to your city and county officials, your city manager or york county executive, to see which of them are providing that service through your senior center. but then your state legislators are the ones who ultimately will have to sustain the funding for

services like that in tennessee. host: we are out of time, but tell us a little bit about what the future is as far as infrastructure as you see it, especially with all the data you compiled. what is most concerning the as you look in the next five years? guest: john highlighted earlier, our infrastructure is aging. we are having increasing demand on our infrastructure. it is critically important to find ways to maintain the service level of our transportation infrastructure. host: would you say funding would be the number-one issue? guest: funding for highways and transit expires march 31 of next year, so congress needs to take action by that time to sustain assistance. host: patricia hu is the director of the bureau of transportation statistics, and john horsley, association for state highway and transportation officials. tonight at 8:00, our contender''

series, the last. tonight we will focus on ross perot. you can see and find out more at c-span.org/thecontenders. another edition of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> here is a look at is what a head today. coming up next, a discussion on president obama's tristan at the consumer financial protection bureau. there rejected his nomination

yesterday in the senate. live, the u.s. house in april for recession. at noon, washington monthly hosting a forum looking at challenges to the obama presidency. later, the white house briefing with spokesperson jay carney. >> $1 per hour for labor, more health care, no environmental control, no pollution control, no retirement, and you do not care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound. >> ross perot speaking out about trade issues during the 1992 presidential debate. he made two attempts for the presidency. the first time, 19 million votes, the most for any third- party candidate. even though he lost, he has had a lasting impact on american

politics. he is the last of the 14 in "the contenders." c-span.org/thecontenders. >> to read my military career, i prided myself and not being afraid of what i thought. the worst thing you can do is to let a senior leader had down the road -- wrong road. maybe we are to take another look at this? maybe we should look at it from this perspective. we have an obligation and a duty to be good stewards of the resources that the public interests us with. sometimes you have to be courageous. >> on her life and career as the highest ranking female african-

american in the history of the u.s. army. sunday, 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> a look to the rejection yesterday of obama as a nominee for the consumer finance protection bureau. host: who is richard cordray? guest: he is the president's nominee to head up the new consumer and financial protection bureau. why he is in the paper today is because the senate just voted whether or not to proceed with the confirmation of his nomination. the senate actually blocked it. host: who led the charge? guest: senate republicans were

almost united in their opposition. only one republican senator, scott brown, actually voted for, but he has announced that previously. this is the latest round in a long-running fight between democrats and republicans about which be the purpose of the cfpb. it is a long-running battle. host: what is the cfpb? guest: it was created by dodd- frank and it is supposed to be a one-stop shop for all consumer protection laws. before was created, there were spread out over a number of different regulators including the federal reserve and other banking regulators. there was a thaw by members of congress that there needed to be a single place where consumer protection laws to be focused and a single agency could be charged with responsibility, and

so it was created and it will be a chunk of that law. host: what is it about mr. hasray's background that them concerned? guest: rather they were focused more on the bureau as a whole, and the crux of the opposition is that they were saying they were not opposed to him, per se, but the structure of the bureau as is. they announced back in may before he was nominated, before anyone was nominated, they said they would blocked any director until there were be several structural changes to make it more accountable. host: what are those changes? guest: they want to replace the director position and instead want to put in place a multiple member board of directors. we see that with a few other

regulators, but several are run by boards like this. they argue would make it more accountable because you would need have some sort of consensus opposed to a single leader. they want congress to have control of the budget. they want by natcher regulators have a greater ability to veto things -- they wabnt the other regulators to have greater abilities. if you look at the way democrats have responded to the requests, they seem to be pretty and accessible. this seems to be no movement in what they are asking for and the white house has shown little to no interest in actually reworking the cfpb.

host: as far as the make up, there is a chart on the cfpb that shows the work of the director and then it shows the chief operating officer, research, and supervision enforcement, general counsel, and external affairs. supervision and enforcement, is that the one that has most of every one outside of washington concerned? guest: that is a key concern. the have the ability to go in and regulate and make sure they are complying with various consumer protection laws which has been a point of contention. the cfpb is now beefing those up and they're beginning to pay visits to banks, large and small, to see how they're doing when it comes to actually enforcing and meeting the requirements of the consumer protection laws. it is certainly something we are hearing a lot, concerns about

how the regulation may come through and if it is too heavy- handed. host: our guest will be with us until 8:30 a.m. to talk about turning down the president's nominee and the bureau itself. if you would like to ask questions on either topic, here are the phone numbers. journal@cspan.org and #cspanwj. does the work to go on even though it does not have a director? guest: a portion of it, at least. but they took a number of regulatory powers from others in the combined it in house. without a director, they actually have the ability to begin work on those laws and enforcing them. they're getting underway, but

the key aspect you have heard is that without a director, the cfpb cannot work on some other new powers. a key aspect, which has been brought up several times, is that they cannot begin enforcing consumer finance protection laws on non-bank institutions like payday lenders, student loans, places bring you have heard a lot of complaints especially since the fallout of the crisis. host: the areas that led to the creation of this. guest: without a director in place, the cfpb cannot start regulating. host: are some of the people they're shoring up to work but not doing anything because they do not have a director to do it? guest: they're still pretty busy. they only got officially up and running in july. they're getting a lot of the infrastructure in place and

there are large chunk of the employees that are busy at work doing the work they can do without a director, but there is a group that really cannot begin utilizing some of those powers until they get someone like mr. cordray in place. caller: host: -- host: they rejected elizabeth warren and the current candidate. will they accept anyone? is anyone person off of the table? guest: it has never been a single nominee, it has really been more about having a broader issue with the bureau. they think it makes it unaccountable landover powerful and it needs to have more checks put in place on it. -- they think it makes it an accountable and over-powerful. they do not want a single director but a board, a budget,

greater oversight over how dysfunctions. they are having a much broader conversation about who they think should be the new director. host: is there a model about something that is run by a board? does it work? typically a's chairman at the top that serves as the face of the bureau, but there needs to be voting. the sec is run by several members. the cftc is another financial regulators run by a board. the federal reserve is run by a board. we often sometimes see a single person we identify as running the agency, there are actually several members. at the same time, there are regulators that are run by a single director. host: loss in vegas, nev., europe first. -- las vegas. caller: good morning, pedro.

the reason why the republicans do not know what this man to be clear is because it goes back to the ronald reagan days. ever since then, this country has gone downhill since the because there was no in regulating the rules and procedures that people were supposed to follow, of the way up today. the republican party has always managed to have their way. they have done this president all kinds of ways to get what they want. now we need to be protected by the nomination of this man being clear. that is the reason the country is in the shape that it is now, because the shape of the republican party constantly wanting to have their way and they do not give a darn about the everyday hardworking

american. guest: while we are talking about them as a single pirro, -- bureau, this has been the latest round in a long fight against democrats and republicans. what areas we should be focused on. democrats look at the financial crisis and say there was a shortfall in regulation. on the other side of the coin, republicans say we have what we need to move past it and we do not think the bureau of the way it is structured right now there may be a better way to go about doing it. host: can the president make an appointment for the director over christmas break? guest: that is an interesting question. the real question here is whether or not republicans are going to allow the senate to go into recess. we have seen in recent months republicans holding pro-forma sessions. they would have very light

sessions that would keep the congress from going into recess which is put in place to block the appointment from being put in place. the president indicated it might be an option for them. at the time being, it is an open question. host: of the president's yesterday -- the president talked yesterday about his reaction to the senate blocking his nomination. >> there is no reason why the minister cordray should not be nominated and confirmed by the senate and should not be doing his job right away in order to carry out his mandate and his mission. i just want to send a message to the senate. we are not going to give up on this. we are not going to allow politics as usual on capitol hill to stand in the way of

consumers being protected by unscrupulous financial operators. we are going to keep pushing on this issue. host: suggesting he is staying with him at this point. guest: no indication that they are going to go back to the drawing board to find someone who is more palatable. republicans say you can put forward any nominee one, but less there are changes, they are not interested in considering any of them. their response to fund the financial industry to the bureau -- originally, they were in opposition to it when it was being drafted. they have offered cautious support for some of the initiatives taken on. there are still concerns what it might mean for them when it is up and running completely. right now, given the early

initiatives, they have been supportive because there are things on making documents more transparent and other things. caller: i would just like to get a perspective on how so many of us are frustrated with the government today. i listened to some of the c-span hearings. one of the republican senators asked him ", and the employees -- how many people will be in your department?" his answer was 700. if you have a super advisory function, how many of the other departments, individuals and other departments conducting the same sort of protection, you will be replacing? his answer was something like "i really have no idea and why

is that important? " i think that is reflective of things like fast and furious, the tax code. the government is so big and so bureaucratic. they just keep loading and loading and unloading. guest: it is at about 750 employees. when you start a brand new bureau, there will be significant hiring ramping up. we are getting back to the issue of how large of a role the government should be playing in regulating financial products. democrats say consumer financial oversight came up short before the financial crisis. as was pointed out by the caller, there is a question of how many people, and what sort of resources should be devoted. host: stephen, wisconsin, you

are next. fred, independent line. caller: i just wanted to say that i would think both democrats and republicans should be for consumer protection. they are working for the people, i thought. it just seems like they do not want consumers to be protected. they must be working for the corporations. host: one of the arguments is when dodd-frank passed, it was on a bipartisan vote. guest: that is been one of the main arguments from democrats. they say the weak -- they said

we approved dodd-frank that laid out how it should be structured and now all the sudden republicans are saying we do not want it to be structured that way. the majority made a decision and now the minority is deciding they do not like the decision and they are going to change it. the dodd-frank was a very tough vote. the vote yesterday was fairly close. it comes down to republican gains in the recent election. host: what was senator brown's argument for supporting him? guest: his argument was the fundamental issue. he believes consumers should be protected and they should get the opportunity to begin their work. if it is worth noting he is running in a tough reelection campaign against a woman who is largely credited with coming up

with the idea. host: roy, republican of line, good morning. caller: part of what president obama said in his conference yesterday was the reason why he needs this nominee. if it is because others were not doing their job. that pretty much says it is right there. if the sec, the gao, these different agencies are not doing their job, let's just get another agency in there. they will not be doing their job either. they will be under-funded. it just goes on and on and on. i think the sec, the government accounting office, ought to be held for criminal charges for not representing the public. host: we will leave it there. guest: this is an argument that you hear a lot especially since the financial crisis. the argument from a lot of republicans is we do not need a slew of new regulations. we need regulators that are

adept at pursuant the laws that we have on the books. that is been a point of leverage for republicans to argue we have a number of laws on the books that were not in forced. host: to the point about what the bureau does, if an average person were to ask you of evidence of their work, what would you tell them? guest: right now, not very much. much of what is coming out is in the early stages. one thing you may see it is when it comes to financial documents. they are working on simplifying financial documents. fenwick to products will be easy to compare right next to each other so you -- financial products will be easy to compare right next to each other. they are in the process of trying to come up with a template document that they can use for financial products.

once the cfpb gets up and running, it will be an area where people can be aware of financial documents. host: is there a disclosure law as to how clear they've revealed it to the person asking for a loan? guest: they have the ability to lay out these documents and say we want to make sure you are disclosing this, this, and this without a slew of paperwork. the onus is on the consumer to read all of that and catch every little wrinkle in the document. they want to be able to create documents where everyone is filling out the same templates. host: john is a democrat from san francisco joining us.

good morning. caller: good morning. there seems to be apparently a problem with the senate in general. i can't understand why every bill that is brought in front of the senate is filibustered or they say they are going to filibuster it. nothing can get passed. you almost have to have 65 democrats in order to get anything passed through the senate anymore. host: this issue is why we need to get rid of the filibuster. guest: clearly, the filibuster

is the issue here. the nomination was approved by the majority of the senators that they needed to clear 60 in order to block a procedural filibuster on. democrats point out most of the senators want this man confirmed but because of procedural rules, he is not able to van it. -- he is not able to advance. the democrats will probably be back in the minority as well. host: sue, go ahead. caller: it is quite interesting to me that dodd-frank were the two main characters in freddie mae and fannie mac which were the debacle. fannie mae and freddie mac were not honest.

and they gave money to people who could not afford it. whose problem was that? now, this regulatory bill is written by dodd and frank. interesting, isn't it? guest: that is another common criticism that we hear a lot when we are trying to allocate blame for the financial crisis. fannie mae and freddie mac got themselves exposed over a number of risky loans. now, we have moved beyond the five enterprises and a lot of the school or taking of what has happened. now we are getting to the point of trying to figure out what the landscape should look like after the crisis, what lessons have been learned, and where we

want the government to go to avoid happening again. host: columbus, ohio, chris is on our independent line. caller: hi. i am from ohio, columbus, and i am a huge supporter of richard cordray. i wanted to get back to the partisanship that happens in washington so often. if it gets in the way of wonderful things that need to happen, necessary things that need to have been all the time. here we have another example of the republicans and democrats. yes, there needs to be checks and balances, essential to our consumer protection, as this is the part in talks about. but i think partisanship gets

in the way of so many things happening that really do need to have been. when we talk about we have one nation under god, indivisible, we are a very divided country. guest: if you are looking for evidence of partisanship in congress, you do not have to look much further than the cfpb. senators came out before a nomination and said we are not interested in confirming and the director. meanwhile, you have democrats that show no interest whatsoever in making changes that the republicans were asking for. we saw this vote go forward. he failed to garner the 60 votes to advance. there is really no clear path

forward for what might happen to that bureau given the fact that neither party wants to come forward and try to find a compromise. host: one of the arms deals with consumer education and engagement like fun into education, consumer engagement, service members. guest: one of the key areas is the idea that they want to educate consumers to make sure they understand what the products they are signing up for and what they might mean for them. there are folks that are singled out for specific abuse of financial products. older americans is one of the key area . they are targeted by predatory lenders and people trying to sell them for a major products. host: how much of the mortgage industry with this cover? guest: it would cover the

entire mortgage industry. the cfpb are charged with checking and making sure that anyone who sells financial products are meeting the laws that are being required of them. as it stands right now, when it is fully up and running, they basically have the ability to check in on any financial products sold to the average american. host: manassas, va., you are on with peter schroeder from "the hill." caller: if you look at what is happening today in congress, we need to go to the fundamental building blocks. we look at the forefathers who

established these three different bodies that govern this country. there was the assumption that anybody coming into this body will be a morally sound. the country first will be the prime objective to serve whether it is a president, senator, for congressman, or anybody else. that everybody will be following that particular criteria. that is one thing that our country has lost right now. the erosion of moral ethics has gotten to a point where it does not really matter for individuals what happens to others as long as their personal goals are met. host: thank you. guest: id is no secret that the public opinion of congress is not high at this point. the white house suddenly

embarked on a public pressure campaign to try to get cordray nominated, there is the believe they can tap into that frustration to get him nominated. there is opposition to that that is preventing that from happening. this dissatisfaction is manifesting itself. host: you heard from president obama on the candidate earlier. here is mitch mcconnell talking about what he is looking for. >> all today's vote is about is accountability and transparency. if it is a debate of whether we think americans need more oversight over washington or less spending we made our position clear seven months ago. we said we would not support a nominee for this bureau until three common-sense conditions are met that would bring some

transparency and accountability to the cfpb. that letter now has 45 signatures. the president chose to dismiss these concerns. now he is suddenly making a push to confirm his nomination because it fits into some picture he wants to paint about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in washington. they are using the senate floor to stage a little political theater. they are setting up a vote they know will fail so they can act shocked later. this is what passes for leadership at the white house right now. the president has made his choice, and we have made hours. -- have made ours. until a president addresses

these legitimate concerns, we cannot and will not support a nominee. host: can you expand on his theory of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? guest: the white house and democrats have tried diligently to paint this as a mainstream versus -- main street versus wall street issue. they really tried to make this stark comparison between the two. so that has been a fundamental struggle. we are trying to figure out who comes out on top. host: columbus, ohio, thank you for waiting. caller: i am a supporter of richard cordray also. i have been a part of his program in ohio here. i would really hope that some republicans would get off their

butts and get behind him and assist in his nomination. host: tell us what he did and some of the influences of his jobs there in ohio and what you saw as far as what consumer issues are concerned. caller: he was the attorney general and he had the save the dream program. by any senior citizen, retired on a fixed income and purchased a home. i was subject to predatory lenders. knowing that i should not have been in subprime, i was trying to work my way out of my problem.

he developed the program. i got assistant. and i got on the road to being straight and living a happy life after that. its got to the point where, after the assistance, get a fixed rate loan. that is the key to the housing problem right now. giving people fixed rate loans, putting them on adjustable rates, and then robbing them. guest: we have heard from a couple of callers who speak highly of him. as far as nominations are concerned, he is in a unique position because republicans are not coming out saying we do not like this election. they are basically ignoring him and saying we are not at the point of talking about a director because we are not happy with the way the bureau is structured. he has a reputation for being a pretty strong advocate for consumers back when he was the

attorney general pursuing litigation against some of the mortgage servicers that have been pointed to with a lot of problems in the fall of the financial crisis. republicans did not say we do not like him. they said we do not like the bureau. host: florida, daniel, good morning. caller: mr. schroeder is a fairly knowledgeable man. the voters fail to reelect him. that needs to get out in the open. first of all, and mitch mcconnell, thank you for playing his speech because the three fundamentals is accountability. you cannot put a candidate that is an unelected aircraft --

bureau craft without the appropriations of congress deciding how to spend this money and watching how it is spent. there is no way this man should be approved just because he is a nice guy. i will refer your guest to indymac bank in california. they were closed down in march 2009. this is what this unelected bureaucrat will be in charge of, bank reopenings and restructurings. indymac got changed over. john paulson, george soros, $1.2 billion in 2010 off of indymac and one west bank. guest: as the budget is currently structured, it does not pull money from the general fund. it gets a percentage of the operating expenses of the

federal reserve. right now, it gets about 10% of the federal reserve's operating expenses which is going to ratchet up in the next couple of years to about $600 million by 2012. what proponents say is we need to keep it away from the appropriators because we need to keep bank regulators free from the process so they are not swayed one way or the other. if we do not have a say in how they spend their money, how are we going to exert oversight? host: "the financial times" has a story today, saying -- guest: exactly.

that is the fundamental concern. we are still trying to figure out exactly what we are doing after that. there is a wide number of regulations that regulators are trying to put in place. the overall marketing concern, and it is not something that will be relatively apparent, is how significant of the role of those new regulations are going to play on everyday business. proponents say if you are meeting all of the rules and meeting your obligation, it will not be a problem for you. the critics say it has the potential of having a dominant role in your day to day business. host: would it affect oversight with companies like mf global especially with jon corzine appearing before congress? guest: i did not know if mf

global would fall under those? they are more focused on a person who walks into a bank and says i need a mortgage or a student loan for a business loan. that is where they are going to exert their influence so consumers are aware of the terms of the products they are signing up for. host: they would not have the ability to -- if a bank is too big to fail. guest: that would be more under the jurisdiction of already established regulators. host: anna on our independent line. new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have been in real-estate since 1986. i was only 23 years old. i saw what was going on in my office. i remember the brokers coming

in and talking to our clients. talking them into taking out these loans with very little money down. the sales pitch was do not worry about it because of the appreciation is a 30%. if you were to buy a house -- this financing stands all the way back to the reagan policies when he the regulated interest rates. i think a lot of the blame goes to the federal reserve which allow this to happen and created and continues to lower rates. everybody should take part in the plan, especially the banks

on wall street. i just wanted to add that as anyone forgotten that in 2004 the interest rates started creeping up? between the end of 2004 and august 2006, interest rates went up consecutively 17 times. everyone in the business knew that the federal reserve was doing this. we were being told that they were doing it to slow spending. guest: that is one of the fundamental issues here. what you hear a lot from advocates is the point at this issue that the financial crisis was caused by one bad mortgage at a time. homeowner signing up for mortgages that they would not be able to afford down the line. what proponents of the cfpb say if it was in place to the lead out of the financial crisis, they are content that the financial crisis could have been averted because there would be someone they're preventing

these people signing up for products that they did not know they were getting. host: go ahead. republican line from louisiana. caller: thank you, c-span. the problem to me is not -- the democrats think that deregulation is causing this problem. i am a tea party activist within the republican party. the government has a critical role in regulating the free market. they create laws against fraud, abuse, and theft. if we enforce those laws, that regulate them.

they are not asking for regulations. they are asking for dictating. guest: we touched on this earlier but we are always coming back to this fundamental issue when talking about the cfpb, about how big of a role the government should be playing. then you have other people saying financial institutions are trying to hide the terms of these products because they do not want you to know about the potential pitfalls. we are having this fundamental debate about how much responsibility we should place in the role of consumers and how much we should expect the

government to step in and protect those consumers. given how long this fight has gone on, it shows the fundamental divide. given the current landscape, it is fairly likely given that no party seems to be giving an inch when it comes to the cfpb. host: peter schroeder with "the hill," first time a guest on our show, we hope you come back. >> again, the senate blocked the vote of mr. cordray. at 4:30 p.m., ticking of two ambassador sessions. the senate will be live on c- span2. the house will be holding a pro forma session in 15 minutes. no but said business will be covered. live coverage will be here on c- span. "washington monthly" will hold a meeting on the challenges of the obama presidency. that will be live at noon eastern here on c-span. in order to get as to the top of the hour, here is a look now at

the nation's newspapers and it yours calling -- and viewers calling in. look at it later on today, you can see it on our c-span.org website, holder refuses to fire aides is the headline they've chosen. host: in the following pages. "washington times," it goes as follows --

host: that's the facts 69 casmse the politics from it from the hearing coming out. give you a little bit of context as you're calling in this morning, want to play you a couple of pieces of tape from yesterday's hearings. to give you a sense of the exchange that took place, this first one is attorney general holder talking about the fast and furious program and also talking about what he sees is the use of criticisms of the program and the department for political gain. >> we work to identify where errors occurred and to ensure that these mistakes never happen again. we must lose sight of the critical challenge that this flawed operation has highlighted, and that is the battle to stop the flow of guns to mexico. of the nearly 94,000 guns that have been recovered and traced in mexico in the last five

years, more than 64,000 were sourced to the united states. during this time, the trafficking of firearms across our southwest border has contributed to approximately 40,000 deaths in mexico. now, the reforms that we have undertaken do not make any of the losses of life more bearable for grieving families. these tragedies do, however, portray in very stark terms the exceptionally difficult challenges that law enforcement agencies confront every day in working to disrupt illegal firearms transfer. operation fast and furious appears to have been a deeply flawed effort to respond to these very challenges. as we work to avoid future losses and further mistakes, it is unfortunate that some have used inflammatory and inappropriate rhetoric about one particular tragedy that occurred near the southwest border in an effort to score political points. host: that was attorney general eric holder from yesterday. now to give you perspective of some of the questions, we want

to play you a bit from representative james sensenbrenner, the republican from wisconsin, speaking with the attorney general. they were raising the idea of impeach -- i'll use his words, or at least what was said, impeachment as an option if the mess from fast and furious, as he saw it, wasn't cleaned up quickly. >> we don't get to the bottom of this, and that requires your assist offense on that, there's only one alternative that congress has, and it's called impeachment, where our subpoena powers are -- i've done more impeachment than anybody else in the history of the country. it is an expensive and messy affair, and i don't want to go this far. host: your thoughts on the fact of fast and furious going forward. the numbers on your screen, 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-737-0001 for her democrats.

also, you have email, facebook, and twitter at your disposal if you want to post a comment as well. let's go to ourselves fir call, baltimore, maryland, marcus, democrats line. good morning. caller: on this subject, pretty much it started with bush. i'm very sure what the republicans are going to say, that obama's mess, the real issue is the war on drugs. 40,000 or 50,000 people died in mexico along the border in this failed war. some synthetic drugs? my brother just joined the baltimore city police force, and i'm scared for his life, because he could be chasing a kid who has, i don't know, a dime bag or two dime bags of weed on him, and the kid could

put his life and other people's life in danger. host: do you anything from the program impacting how the government handles the war on drugs? caller: yes, i do see the impact. what they're trying to do is cut down on the gun smuggling. it's just inevitable. there's no regulation of guns. if anyone tries to claim guns, it's really bad. host: beverly hills, california, republican line. go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. basically much of the general's testimony, when you're in the bus, any business or industry, safety causes to have much

safety equals minimal damage, minimal injury. to have no regulation on operations such as this equals mistakes, pedro, which turns into bigger mistakes, pedro, which turns into violations and death in this case. you know, it's the attorney general that regulations and basically to have somebody's finger on the pullings, to have somebody who is going to make sure that mistakes don't happen , this is basic in these operations. host: what those things in mind, what he wants the long-term impact, in your view? caller: once again, pedro, it's all, unfortunately, a small steppingstone. host: that's beverly hills,

california. you can weigh in on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. greg smith and others have weighed in this morning, saying -- greg smith saying more than 200 people are dead, eric holder is responsible, he knew about fast and furious. c.e.o.'s of corporations are held responsible for things beneath them. eric holder needs to go. new orleans, reginald, independent line. go ahead. caller: hi. i watched some of the hearing for about a year myself, but a lot of that that we see concerning fast and furious, it's been going on for years, not just within the last five years. in fact, if somebody else also -- the attorney general of the united states had knowledge of that particular operation other than attorney general eric holder.

host: so, what's the point? caller: i think the impact of it is the united states needs to control their laws regarding guns and crack down on it here in the united states, and it won't get to mexico. host: off of twitter, jack says this this morning, he says that senator issa is using fast and furious as a political expediency. darrell issa weighing in on the fast and furious pages. he is the chairman of the house co-oversight and government reform. here's a bit of what he had to say --

host: again, your thoughts on the impact of fast and furious, a hearing yesterday. many of you saying this morning thaw caught a little bit of it. you can catch it again on c-span.org and tune in to our website for more details about that. long island, new york, thanks for holding. anthony, democrats line. caller: yes, i'm calling in reference to representative issa and his basically lynching and grilling of d.o.j. leader holder. this is about transparency. if this is about international transparency and the uses of weapons on our borders, trading the weapons to agents that support us and will it be drug trafficking or any other type of international assault upon our land, there's only so much

transparency that the justice department is going to be able to expose, but this representative issa, with his approach to it, they're willing to have him, representative holder,expose information that the public is not supposed to even getting wind of, in order to just put his reputation, put his job, put everything about the department of justice out into the general public where we don't really want to know. host: we're talking about the fact of fast and furious. philadelphia, pennsylvania, keith on our republican line. you're next. caller: hi, yeah, this is a classic example of why the federal government messes everything up or how they mess everything up, and they should

-- instead of regulating people, regulate themselves, which i'm sure, if ron paul becomes president, and he should, he'll fix that. but the war on drugs is causing the violence, you know, trying to stop that is creating more violence, and, you know, war on guns and gun control, you know, that's just fueling it even further. so, you know, it's not the people, it's the government, and they need to check themselves and stop wasting all this money. it's a universal problem throughout the whole federal government. host: in the "new york times," this article --

>> 74 families said no. >> that has not changed because of this, i guess, revelation. >> none of those 274 families, i think what you're asking, has come forward and ask us if they want to change -- that they now want to be notified, they want to be told f. they do, we'll certainly be forth right, tell them everything we know about the dispositions of their loved one. host: and just for context, that was about the family members asking not to be notified, the air force saying they would be forthcoming. you can see that whole exchange on our c-span video library, if you wish. if you go to c-span.org, click on the video library link. it will be there for you to see, as well as other information that we've had over

the past few weeks as well. danville, georgia. thanks for holding. dave, independent line, we're talking about the fact of fast and furious. caller: yes, i was wondering if the families of the deceased agents could personally sue for wrongful death. they might throw it out, but at least it would make a big splash, you know, sue the president. i mean, this is nothing more than chicago-style -- it's the way they run things in chicago, you know? i mean, lie, lie, lie. cbs uncovered some email, this was their plan, put the guns down there, blame american citizens, and then the justice department, the a.t.f. will be able to crack down on u.s. citizens, and the problem is not that, the problem is the government, you know, trying to do this subterfuge to get guns away from people. on the bright side, since obama

was elected, i'd say probably another five, 10, 15 million guns have been sold in the u.s., so it's going to be really tough for them to, you know, pry them away from people. host: kansas city, austin, democrats line. caller: hi, yes. my comments are pretty brief. representative issa was a pretty good representation of the conduct of congress and how it wasn't the conversation of gun control at all, and he was attacking holder, which, sure, he's responsible, but you look at the decisions that were made in that operation, they were much lower level it seems at this point. to say holder should be impeached, as some of the other representatives had indicated, i think that was far-fetched at best. but my comments basically, i wasn't very satisfied with the way >> you can see "washington journal" every morning here on c-span. we are now going to the house

for a pro forma session. tional captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order and the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms,

washington, d.c., december 9, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable steven c. latourette to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of this assembly as they set upon the work of these hours of these days. help them to make wise decisions in a good manner and to carry their responsibilities steadily with high hopes for a better few you to for our great nation -- future for our great nation. deepen their faith, widen their sympathies, heighten their aspirations and give them the strength to do what ought to be done for this country. give them the wisdom and perseverance to work together constructively, to address the

pressing issues facing our nation. may your blessing, o god, be with them and with us this day and every day to come and may all we do be done for your great r honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceeding anoun announces to the house his approval thereof. the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. without objection, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour debate.

>> congressional staff will be writing legislative language to keep the government funded through next september. negotiators agree to more than $900 billion in spending. temporary spending authority runs out on december 16. house republicans will present a plan next week to extend the payroll tax cut and long-term unemployment. the senate will begin the week with a couple of state department nominations before targeting spending and a tax cut extension. the senate as usual will be on c-span2. coming up, the washington monthly hosted a discussion. a journalist recently wrote about the subject, live at noon eastern here on c-span.

>> pay you a dollar an hour for your labor, no health care, have no environmental control, no pollution controls, and no retirement. you do not care about anything but making money. >> ross perot spoke out during the 1992 presidential debate. the first attempt, getting over 19 million votes. more popular than any other third candidate in history. he is our final candidate in c- span's 14-week series, "the contenders." to view other video and see all the programs from our series, go to c-span.org/thecontenders. which part of the u.s. constitution is important to

you? that is our question in this year's student cam competition. make a documentary and telos the part of the constitution that is important to you and y. make sure to include more than one point of view and c-span programming. there is $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. the defense department deputy chief of staff for manpower and personnel and services held a briefing yesterday on the handling of the remains of service members. the air force admitted that it they cremated body parts of service members were dumped in a virginia landfill. body fragments then to the dover air bourse mortuaries were cremated, incinerated, and buried with medical waste.

this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. i will make a brief statement and then i will take questions. the mission of the air force mortuary affairs operations is to provide dignity, honor and respect to our fallen heroes as well as to provide care and service and support to their families. the professionals who perform this mission on a daily basis take this as a solemn obligation and their responsibility to america's fallen. we're here today to address the disposition of subsequently identified portions of remains of our fallen heroes. because of the nature of the conflict today and the widespread use of improvised explosive devices, the remains of many of our fallen are fragmented. we strive to return these fallen to their families as intact as possible. if the armed forces medical examiner determines that the remains are incomplete, the person authorized to direct

disposition of the remains, usually a family member, must sign the disposition of remains election statement. the family determines how the services proceed if additional portions of remains are identified. upon receipt of the information, the services ensure that the remains of the fallen are handled in accordance with the family's desires. throughout the entire process, we treat the fallen with dignity, honor and respect while carrying out the instructions of the family. prior to 2008, in cases where the family elected not to receive notification or to take possession of subsequently identified portions of remains, the mortuary affected appropriate disposition in lines in industry standards. these subsequently identified portions of remains were taken to a local funeral home for cremation. they were under escort at the funeral home and returned under escort, and then the cremated remains were released to a

private contractor for incineration. the military escort was present and witnessed this event. in 2008, the director of the port mortuary reviewed these processes and recommended to the central joint mortuary affairs board that the services implement a retirement-at-sea option that was more fitting for subsequently identified portions of remains where the family chose not to be identified or to take possession. our obligation is to treat our fallen with reverence, dignity and honor and provide the best possible support to their families. that's the solemn mission at the mortuary and the solemn mission of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen who work there. we regret any additional grief to the families that past practices may have caused. we are proud of the dover mortuary and the employees in their unfailing dedication. it is their commitment to the mission that resulted in the changes to these processes in 2008. i'll be happy to take your

questions at this time. yes, ma'am. >> you say you regret additional grief to the family members. are you reconsidering notifying the 270-plus families that their loved ones' remains were placed in a landfill? >> these families made a very tough decision not to be notified of subsequently identified portions of their remains. to go back now and notify them would be going against their wishes. we have opened up a hotline, we have opened up an e-mail account, and any family that contacts us, we are more than happy to address any question they have and answer their questions in the fullest, because our obligation is to that family and try to relieve any anxiety, any concerns, any distress that we may have caused. >> so all of the 274 families, every one of them asked not to be notified if there were additional remains found? >> exactly. every one of them asked, if subsequently identified portions -- and we're talking portions. in most cases we are talking small pieces of soft tissue or bone fragments. in each case, those families said if you subsequently

identify portions of our loved one, we do not want to be notified. >> charlie kai, cnn. getting back to what you just said. weren't the families under the impression that there would be a dignified disposal of the remains? and possibly might some families not think -- that being bundled with medical waste and buried in a commercial landfill did not comply with that? >> at the time of the -- before 2008, we -- let me start over, excuse me. i misspoke. prior to 2008, we took the unidentified portions under military escort, in a dignified manner, to a local funeral home and they were cremated. the cremated remains were then, with a military escort, turned over to a contractor for incineration, as was the industry standard. if there was any residual matter, it was handled in

accordance with the processes at the time. in 2008, our own inspection, not driven by any outside force, took a look at the process and said we can do better than that. here's a better way to provide dignity and honor to these families and to our fallen heroes. and we developed the retirement at sea process, using a sea- salt urn, for our loved ones. >> prior to 2008, though -- are you hearing from some families that they do not feel that the disposal of their loved one's remains was what they wished or what they understood? >> we've had nine calls to the hotline since we started -- since we started articles about the mortuary at dover. we obviously know of one or two cases where people have concerned recently, but we have only had one call since the most recent revelation of the practices prior to 2008 to the hotline. >> [inaudible] >> they were asking of the disposition of their loved one

and what year they were there. i don't have the -- i didn't talk to the person, so i really can't tell you exactly what they were after. but i do know we answered their question immediately on the spot. yes, sir. >> how confident are you that the number is limited to 274? do you think that number is -- is that final number that -- >> we're very confident in that number starting in -- with the tracking system that we have for the mortuary dating back to 2003. we are comfortable with that number between 2003 and 2008. >> so you don't think there's any possibility one or more cases will turn up? >> between those periods of time, no. prior to 2003, before we had the official tracking system, if you will, for the mortuary, we are -- we can't track those cases as well. but from 2003 to 2008, that's the number. we're very confident with that number. yes, sir. >> i'm sorry, i'm a little confused. you say the process prior to 2008 was to cremate the remains, release them to a private contractor for incineration. >> yes, sir. it was a two-step process in

accordance with industry standards at the time. >> ok. but what has been reported is that they weren't -- i mean, they've already been incinerated. i don't know if i'm using the right terms here, but they're been cremated and that -- were taken to a landfill. >> that's not accurate. >> what is accurate? >> they were cremated. the cremated remains were then incinerated. if there was any residual material from the incineration, then it was taken and disposed of according to industry standards. >> so cremated, and then what happens to the cremated remains? >> the cremated remains prior to 2008 were then incinerated. >> so you can -- i'm sorry. i'm a little -- >> yes. >> i'm not an expert in this. you can incinerate cremated remains, and they disappear, presumably. >> you know, we're into the science now of how much that reduces the cremated remains. but certainly, the cremated remains, the intent of the incineration is to reduce them as far as possible. >> but there was still some residual material that you --

and that was taken and put into a landfill? >> and that was turned over to the contractor. >> and put in a landfill? >> the contractor -- we did not direct the contractor to put any residual material in the contractor -- in the landfill, excuse me. that was not part of the contract. but they were disposing of them according -- >> you were aware -- [inaudible] i'm sorry. you were aware that it was being put in a landfill? >> that was the common practice at the time. who was assigned there that knew, you know, that they were going to a landfill, i can't really speak to. but that was the common industry practice at the time. but in 2008, that process was improved significantly. >> but, general, you keep talking about the common industry practice. everyone we've talked to -- funeral home operators, trade associations -- they all talk about, when dealing with cremated human ashes, they would never incinerate them, and certainly never then take those remains to a landfill. why do you keep saying -- what industry standards are you talking about, when dealing with cremated human remains from dead humans? >> the contract we had with the

company was to dispose of -- to make final disposition of this material. they were in the business of how they were going to dispose of that material. the point here to focus on, though, was in 2008, when the air force realized what was happening, the air force stepped in and said, there is a better way to do this. we can have a better process. and we developed a burial at sea process, in partnership with the navy -- it's really the retirement at sea process, is the proper term -- in conjunction with the navy. and we internally, through our continual internal processes to make improvements to better serve -- to better honor our fallen, changed the way we did our processes. >> i understand, but can you point to any other incidents in the industry in which -- i mean, you said this was in accordance with industry standards. can you point to any other example in the country where somebody died, their remains

were cremated, and then somebody took them to an incinerator and then a landfill? because we can't find any other example of this. >> how you dispose of medical waste -- at the time, how you disposed of medical waste at the time, i believe that was being done in concert with industry standards. >> but this wasn't medical waste. >> the military disposition, whether it was medical waste -- i mean, these are terms commonly referred to, once you've gone through the cremation process and the individuals, the families, chose not to have the small portions of unidentified portions of remains returned to the family. >> but you understand the families' concerns, and they've been quite vocal, especially on the internet, that their loved ones remains are, as you just deemed them, medical waste? >> absolutely, i can understand

their concerns, and our concern is we don't want to do anything to increase the angst or reopen a wound of a family that said, you know, we have come to closure. we have the remains of our loved one. we have buried our loved one or interred them, according to their family traditions, and we don't want to do anything to open that wound. can we understand their concerns? you bet we can. we all serve in the military. we have friends that serve in the military. no one understands that better than we do. >> and can you say how many or even roughly -- ballpark -- how many have been retired at sea since 2008? how many remains? >> we've had 14 instances of retirement at sea. i can't give you the exact number of -- that's gone into right now. i can get that number right afterwards. >> [inaudible] -- state for the record where these incinerated remains ended up and did the air force know that's where they were ending up? >> i think when air force

leadership -- the mortuary leadership at dover discovered where the final disposition was, they took action immediately. >> so they didn't know anything until 2008? that stuff was just being turned over to the contractor, and they didn't have the slightest idea where it was going? >> i can't say what every person in the air force knew. i can say when the leadership of the air force, the leadership of the mortuary at dover, identified this process and said, you know, we can do better at this, they took steps to improve the process to better serve and better honor the families. >> -- saying they could do better, was the disposition in landfills deemed to be disrespectful? >> it is certainly not the way we would have done it looking back. that's why in 2008 when we saw that practice, we changed that practice. yes, sir.

>> yes, the 274 instances that our colleague exposed this morning is a greater number than had been discussed before. did the air force know of this number, and it didn't come out? or is your education part of this reportorial process as well? >> not at all. when we were asked the question the first time, it took us a while to gather the information, to get the right number so that we would be giving an accurate number. it wasn't that we knew the number. we were trying to make sure we had the accurate number because certainly we want to be forthright and accurate in giving you the information. and it took a significant amount of effort to get that number and to make sure that number was correct. >> [inaudible] >> kevin baron with the national journal. if the air force leadership found out about this in '08, knew it was a wrong thing, instituted all these studies, made these changes, why did the public not care about it also in 2008? why has it taken three years now and -- you know, craig's reporting to get this out to the open? >> as i said, the families had told the air force that they did not want to be notified if

any subsequent portions of the remains were identified. in keeping with the families' wishes, we did not go back to the family and identify them, because they have closure. to open up that wound would be cruel. >> so to protect the families, nobody -- >> yes, that's why we didn't go back to the families in 2008, and we haven't today, because these families have told us -- they have made the tough decision. it is not an easy decision to -- when somebody comes to you and says, you know, what do you want us to do if we identify any subsequent portions of your loved one? once they struggle with that and they make that very tough decision, we want to honor that decision. >> what i think his question is, is why was the decision not to come forward if this is -- why didn't the air force think this is a matter of public interest and then to say, you know -- and then 2011, three years later, say, oh well, you know, we knew at the time it was wrong? >> we believe the process was being carried out prior to 2008 in accordance with industry standards.

yes, ma'am. >> but you just said that you knew what the industry standards were beforehand. so if they were being followed out according to industry standards, then you knew before 2008 what was happening with the leftover incinerated remains, right? >> i'm not sure i'm following your question. in 2008, when the new leadership of the mortuary was examining their procedures internally, they said, you know what? we can come up with a better process than this, and they developed the much better process that they have today. >> right. but earlier you said that it's industry standard, if there were any other leftover remains, that it would be mixed with medical waste or put into a landfill. so if that was industry standard and you knew it was operating to industry standard then -- >> why would we change? >> no, then you would have known before 2008, right? >> yeah, i'm not sure i'm following where you're trying to go with the question. ok. >> i have another question then. >> ok. >> what did the air force tell the families would happen with the leftover remains if there

were unidentified remains later? >> they told the families they would be appropriately -- they would have appropriate disposition. yes, ma'am. >> was there like a form or something they filled out? it seems like there's always a form in the military. and what was the language when it -- when they signed this consent, or whatever the term is, not to be notified about additional remains? what was the language that -- >> there is a form. i don't have a copy of the form or exact language here, but we can get you a copy of the form. yes, sir. >> general, so some families opted to receive remains, correct? >> yes, sir. >> when we're talking about these -- and in that case, they would be presented to the families and the families would be responsible for taking care of them according to their traditions or whatever. >> yes. every time we would go back to the family and return their remains to them. >> ok. and these 274 families said no. >> said, we do not want to be

notified. >> at all. >> at all. >> and that has not changed because of this, i guess, revelation. >> none of those 274 families -- i think what you're asking -- have come forward and asked us to -- that they want to change their -- that they now want to be notified, they want to be told. if they do, we will certainly be forthright. we will tell them everything we know about the dispositions of their loved one. >> but you said you had nine calls. >> does this go back to 2003? >> there were nine calls that started a week ago. since this most recent discussion there's been one additional call. >> i'm sorry, but 10 total? so there's 10 families who have said i was unaware that this was the setup? >> no. >> ok, what do they say? >> a few weeks ago we stood up a 24-hour hotline for people who had concerns about operations of the dover mortuary based on accounts in the press of the overarching issue. just recently, when the most recent issue came to light -- there has, since that time, been one additional phone call

to the hotline. it was answered today very quickly and we don't have any follow up that was required from that phone call. i didn't take the call, so i can't tell you the exact details of it. >> maybe i'm being dense, but are these people who are calling people who signed the form and -- >> the hotline is open to anybody who calls, anybody who calls. the calls have mainly been from family members whose loved one came through dover and they had a question about, you know, when they came through dover, what happened with their family members, and they were answered very quickly. >> so they might or might not be among these 274 - >> exactly. >> do you know if any of them are? >> the one call we've had since this most recent issue came to light, i don't know if they were one of those 274. i know that we had one call today, they said it was a very simple question, they answered it quickly and there were no follow-up issues. >> the previous nine you don't -- >> the previous nine i would assume were not. i would assume they were responding to other stories about the mortuary. >> what is the hotline number?

>> i have the hotline the number for you. the hotline number is 1-855- 637-2583. or they can send an e-mail to dover.pm@pentagon.af.mil. >> are you going to go back prior to 2003? >> since we didn't have a system of record prior to 2003, it is very difficult to reconstruct those records. many of those records reside with the services, have been turned over to the services, so there's not a central repository of those records. and the information in those records is not as accurate -- i don't mean the information's not accurate. it may not have information that would tell us everything we need to know to delineate the question you're asking. >> do you know when this process of incinerating and having it taken away as medical waste and having it end up in a landfill began? >> i really can't go back and tell you how far that process began. i can tell you that our records indicate that we have

documented records from 2003 forward that are very accurate, and that's what we pulled. >> there's no institutional memory that knows whether it was done before 2003? >> you're asking if we go back and identify records. institutional memory wouldn't identify by name. >> does anybody know -- i mean, the people at dover, many of them worked there for a long time. >> they have. >> does anybody know -- >> and we've asked the folks at dover. some say they remember that the process was going on. they can't remember how far back. others say they didn't realize that was the process. we certainly asked everyone who works at dover. >> charlie keyes again of cnn. why did the defense department tell congressman holt that the exact number of these dispositions of remains could not be determined back in november? because i think that's part of the issue, isn't it, that there

has been these various stages of releases of information that do, as a matter of fact, reopen some wounds among the families and others. >> there have been many questions asked about the issue with varying capture dates, if you will, some dating back as far as the vietnam war. the further we get back, the less accuracy we have in the electronic record, so the more difficult that we have reconstructing the history before that. >> but i think congressman holt is asking about this particular period at dover that's been focused on in recent weeks following the washington post's stories, and he was told that it would be impossible to get those numbers. >> when we first looked at going back and trying to reconstruct the history, we thought it would be more difficult than it was. we were able to go in, spend well over a hundred hours to get the numbers we're talking about today, to pull out this data. and our goal is not to make this a science project of asking the right question. our goal is to provide the right information so that we

are servicing our families in the best way, because that is the mission of the mortuary at dover. it is today, and it was many years ago, and it will be tomorrow. yes, sir. >> why didn't you get back to congressman holt and tell him that you'd made these new discoveries after a hundred hours of research? >> sir, i think this -- i can't address what information was passed to the congressman. i'll have to answer if that was -- when that was passed on to him. i know that we -- as soon as we got this information, this information is being passed out to the appropriate officials who are asking for it. yes, sir. >> sir, richard sisk from war report online. >> richard. >> to be clear, cremated then incinerated remains to the private contractor -- from the private contractor, it's in a landfill. somebody in the air force knows that the final destination is a landfill, but the leadership does not know. is that what you're trying to convey here? >> i'm trying to say in 2003 the leadership of the air force

-- excuse me, the leadership of the port mortuary at dover examined their processes and realized what was happening and said, we can do better than this. and they established the procedures we have today with the retirement-at-sea option, which is a much better option for dealing with the fallen heroes we have in today's conflict. >> before the leadership realizes that something can be done better, someone in the air force does know that it's going to a landfill. >> i can't go back and recreate who at dover knew that things were going to the landfill, since i wasn't assigned there back then. and it's difficult to really pinpoint a date of, you know, when this thing started because people have moved. people have come and gone. we have certainly asked the questions. >> sir, from mr. whitlock's reporting, it seems as though the landfill was unaware that these remains were being accepted, were being disposed of in their place. shouldn't that have been done? shouldn't someone have made the

landfill itself aware? >> i can't speak to knowledge of what the landfill company or what the private contractor knew and didn't know. you know, i just don't have that knowledge. i'm sorry. yes, ma'am. >> -- with the air force times. i just thought i'd ask -- you were talking about your current process. how are you ensuring that families know for certain how the remains -- any additional remains are being handled? do you give them something that's explicit? because it seems like in these other incidents people had no idea what happened after they signed off on the paperwork. but now when they sign off on the paperwork, how do they know exactly how their family member's remains are handled? >> we explain the process to them when they're at the mortuary, through the service representatives. the mortuary has service representatives from all of the services who deal with their fallen and the families of their fallen. and they explain the processes and they explain the options and help the family come to the decision of which options they want to choose in various situations. yes, sir. >> just one more.

in the reporting that kind of made note that the timeline of when this was -- all came to light for leadership, around '08, was around when the media ban on dover arrivals also was lifted. in anything you of your research or looking back, did that have anything to do with making leadership able to be aware of what was going on? >> no, there was really -- everything i've read, everything i've talked to, there is no connection between those two incidents whatsoever. yes, ma'am. >> amy mccullough, air force magazine. just to make sure that i understand the process now, so they're cremated, they're still incinerated. and then the burial at sea, does that happen every time that there's a left over remains? because you're talking about very, very small -- >> let's not use the word "left over." the subsequently identified portions of the remains are today cremated. they're placed in sea salt urns. and then we coordinate with the navy on an appropriate time for the navy to take them out and retire them at sea. >> do you know when the first

one -- after the 2008 policy became into affect, do you know when the first one went to sea? >> the first one was 2011, the first time that we had a retirement-at-sea option. >> why the delay between 2008 and 2011? >> in 2008, they approached the joint mortuary board and made the proposal. the board said, yes, we agree with that. in that period of time, they developed the processes, they worked with the navy, they procured the sea-salt urns for this appropriate ceremony, and then it was carried out for the first time in 2011. >> but general, this is like a burial at sea that -- from a navy warship? >> the burial at sea is a much more formal ceremony. it's a solemn ceremony conducted by the navy, and it's referred to as a retirement at sea, as opposed to a burial at sea, which is, i think, much more akin to a funeral service. >> but it's off of a naval warship. >> yes. warship a -- the navy is a specific term to the navy, and i don't want to address

what type ship it was with the navy. but it was a normal ship on a normal mission with the navy. >> and what happened to the remains between 2003 in that first -- i'm sorry, 2008 and the first retirement at sea in 2011? in that three-year time frame, what happened to all those remains? >> it's less than that. it's about a two-year process. they were collected. they were held until the appropriate time, and 14 sea- salt urns were taken to sea on the same day. >> so there were only 14? does each individual remain get its own sea-salt urn or -- >> i think that speaks to what we're addressing here. we're talking about small portions of unidentified remains that are subsequently -- excuse me, small portions of subsequently identified remains that later, you know, only took up 14 sea-salt urns. we're talking what is most commonly small pieces of soft tissue and fragments of bone. >> so there's really been one -- 14 sea-salt urns have gone

on one time. so there's been one ship going out for the retirement -- >> yes. >> -- since 2008? >> yes. yes, sir. >> what happens to remains that aren't identified, like, you know, portions of remains that aren't identified? >> we treat them the same way, with the sea-salt urn process, and they're retired at sea also. >> and my other question was, you said before to david's question that it was unclear how far back the process was in place to dispose of the remains that way. are we talking decades or - >> you know, i really don't think so, but you're asking for a very definitive question -- >> no. >> -- as we said, the process for dealing with remains has changed over the years. it has made significant strides with the conduct of dna and things like that. so i can't tell you how far back, before 2003, this process

went. i can tell you that in 2003 we had very accurate records. we have great faith in those records. yes, sir. >> luis martinez with abc news. can i just clarify? you said since 2008, there have only been 14 instances where there have been burials at sea or 14 urns -- >> 14 urns were retired at sea. >> how long as the process does that take? in other words, do you wait until a ship is available? do you keep the urns there until you gather enough for them to be -- i mean, dropped into the ocean? >> you work the process with the navy to, when they have a ship going out that, you know -- so they can accomplish the mission at the same time that they're doing their normal duties. >> but they are commingled? this is not an individual -- each urn is not the remains of an individual, but they are several individuals. is that correct? >> i can't tell you that, to be

honest with you. so i'll have to get you that answer. i don't want to misspeak on that one. >> the reason i ask is because there are instances at arlington where you will find graves of commingled remains,e'a plane crash, and there are portions of the remains that can -- not been able to identify it down to the proper individual. and so all -- they have, like, a group burial. >> right. and we also do that -- that is also one of the methods that happens at the mortuary at dover. >> with these remains, is it only -- if a family member chooses not to waive or to give their consent to this, are those remains then commingled for -- let's say, for burial at arlington? >> a group burial decision is made usually when it is difficult to differentiate the remains, when there's been a crash and the remains have been tainted by fuel or something else that makes dna testing, you know, not practical because you can't get the result. and in those cases, if the families consent, then that's

usually the practice for a group burial. >> they consent first to a group burial, not for the destruction or -- not for the disposition? >> right, the family gets -- you know, we are there to serve the family. and so the family gets to make the call on how they're disposed of. >> yes, sir. >> if a family were to call the hotline, what information are you prepared to give them at this point? is it simply to describe what you've described for us? are you prepared to tell them where the subsequently identified remains ended up? are you prepared to apologize? >> we're prepared -- absolutely, we're prepared to apologize. it causes us great pain to think that we have brought suffering to a family. you know, my father wore the uniform. i wear the uniform. my son wears the uniform. we know more than anyone else the pain that a conflict causes when you lose a loved one. if we have done anything to add to that pain, you bet we're willing to apologize. >> listen, are you also willing

to tell -- >> tell them everything we know. >> ok. >> and that's the purpose of the hotline -- so absolutely everything we know. >> how is the hotline and the e-mail publicized? >> we've put it out in press releases, we've put it out basically in all the standard ways that we can publicize things today. it's been on the internet. it's been widely circulated. yes, sir. >> do you have any stats on how many calls you've received? >> i talked about that before you came in. we've had nine calls to the hotline since the first information appeared about arlington a few weeks ago. i mean, excuse me, about dover a few weeks ago. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. >> this sunday for 24 hours, the japanese attack on american military forces at pearl harbor including the 70th anniversary commemorative ceremony at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. eastern. live a call-in programs at noon, 2:00, and 4:00. throughout the day, first- person accounts from servicemen and civilians. a tour of the visitors center and archival footage of the attack and its aftermath. sunday on "american history tv." >> coming up shortly, the center for american progress posted a discussion.

speakers include a journalist who recently wrote an article on the topic. live coverage gets underway at noon eastern. until then, a look at the role that independents will play in the upcoming 2012 election. host: joining us now, lanae erickson with third way. what is third way? guest: we advocate for a center-led politics both in policy and politics. we work on a variety of issues from national security to culture issues to economic issues and energy. host: the organization just put out a law on independent voters. what led to the examination of this? guest: we wanted to find out what was the electorate going to look like in 2012 compared to 2008? it is a vastly different

electorate that we saw in 2008 which will be trouble for democrats because we looked at the battleground states and we ask the secretary of state's what the change in registration was. the democratic share of the electorate is down in every single one of them. host: is there any cause to why that is happening? guest: where they are going is to independent registration. there was also a decrease in republicans but not as stark as democrats. democrats lost about 825,000 voters in those eight states, and republicans lost about 375,000 voters. we think independence are really going to be key to victory for either side.

host: when you contact the states -- is it only eight states that have partisan voting? guest: we also look at exit polls in the four battleground states that do not have a partisan voter registration. the same trend. there. -- same trend carried there. if we could find out how many democrats had registered, we would probably see a similar shift. host: you say democrats have concerns over these numbers. where are these numbers going for who they are looking at for 2012? guest: the question is about focus and whether we can make this into a base election, a turnout election, or whether there will need to be a focus for persuading voters for next year. independents are going to be that key. host: if they look at what is

being offered with this president or the republican side, what are the chances that a third-party campaign might emerge? guest: it is very hard for a third-party candidate to win in our current system. i am not really sure how that would play in terms of taking votes from one side or the other. i do know that independents are rented and not owned in our system. 2008, democrats won them by 8 points. they have had these huge, wild shifts because they are looking for somewhere to go. that means a 27-point shift in two years. what we did it is a look at how president obama would do with either his 2008 performance levels or the amount of

independents that democrats won in 2010. if he performs at the level that democrats did in 2010 or anywhere near that, they are going to be in big trouble. there are five swing states that are off the table already and the rest of them tighten up. it would be a very, very long election night. host: the role of independents is our topic with our guest, lanae erickson, from the third way. for those who have labeled herself as an independent, here is the number to call -- for those who have labeled themselves as an independent, here is the number to call -- for all others --

you can also send us an e-mail or you can also send us something off of twitter as well. what is an independent? guest: we used self-prescribed independents. in some states, there are unaffiliated voters. we put independents in this. host: what drives an independent in how they vote? guest: we have done a lot of research at the center. we recently did a poll on swappers and switchers, obama voters in 2008 that either dropped off or switched to republican in 2010. those folks were driven by the concerns over the deficit and the economy but also of a general sense that they are worried america is not going to

be on top for the next century or if we are going to be able to win the gold medal in the 21st century in the race for the economy. they are worried that countries like india and china are going to overtake us and they have a deep pessimism for our country's future. that was the biggest thing that drove them. host: registered independent voters from 2008 until 2011. -- 1996 until 2011. new hampshire, 118,000. what does that mean as we go into the primary season? guest: this is going to be focused on republicans obviously. republicans do not need centrist voters as much because they do not have -- because they have a bigger base. 40% of the country say they are

conservative. they need some independents but not as many as democrats do. it will mean something in the primaries but likely those voters will not have a big role in selecting the nominee. going into 2012, the question will be is the republican primary going to drive these candidates so far to the right that the independents will be turned off? host: the first call comes from jacksonville, fla., passed on our independent line. -- pat on the independent line. caller: when you registered as an independent, you are closed out of the primaries. whatever your voice is, it is closed. as an independent, one of the things that bothers me in florida is this supposedly call of voter suppression. i would cite in mississippi,

they just had that on the ballot. that was overwhelmingly backed by all of the people in mississippi. i think black voters gave its 98% approval. it concerns may. when we lose the ability of the vote, when i do not believe that the results that came in that morning are for real like what is happening in russia, as an independent, that concerns me. the political parties are using the election as something to benefit their party's. guest: pat, that is a great question and i think you are right about the primary process in that it keeps out independent voters in some states. that is something that we also think is a really good idea because it is a problem when about a third of the elected are independents and they have

no role in choosing who their choice is come election year. in florida in particular, our study was very stark. democrats lost about 5% of their voters in florida, which was about 225,000 voters that have left since 2008. they gained four points in independents. and lost aobut two points in republicans as well. we are seeing a big shift in florida that will make a large difference next year. host: florida specifically. 1.5 million increase in independent voters. guest: florida is one of the places that this is really going to matter. host: independents could vote for republicans as well. guest: right now, they are really disgusted with both parties.

if you look at approval ratings, they are lower than the general population. independents are even less happy than the general population. 70% disapproval of republicans. they are looking for a third option or they are looking for one of the parties to step up and say i am going to represent this middle section of the electorate that is not being represented. host: atlanta, georgia, is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for the lady. she keeps talking about how the republicans -- excuse the, i have a cold. most people did not go out and vote in that 2010 election. thank you. guest: she is right. looking at 2010 turnout levels i do not think gives you a very

good understanding of what will happen in 2012 because we know that midterm elections are very different with turnout than presidential elections. we did not rely on those turnout levels when making these predictions. we looked at registration numbers and assumed that if big chunks of democrats are fleeing registration and going to independents, that says something about where they will be going next year. we think that means that independences are going to play a bigger role next year. certainly the obama team is going to be focused on the turnout of democrats and keeping those numbers up, but president obama cannot really win any more democrats as he did in 20008. he already won 90% of them in 2008.

he is going to need to pick up that gulf of . s -- gulf of independents. caller: good morning. do you think the other two parties will allow an independent party to come up? everyone i speak to want an independent. do you think the other two parties will allow it? if so, who do you think that candidate might be? i like gary johnson from new mexico. he is more of a progressive democrat than a republican. they are trying to tell us who the nominee is going to be, and i do not like any of them. i'd like gary johnson. they should give him a chance. i like him. everybody i speak to here in

jersey cannot stand the idiot in trenton. guest: thank you so much. i will leave it to other people to identify who a third-party candidate might be. i think it is very hard for a third-party candidate to run and be successful in our current system. independents are likely going to be choosing between president obama and the gop nominee. that will be the state of the election. there might be a third party candidate that gems in, but -- jumps in, but given the electoral college, it is very hard for them to get a victory. the question is just whether independents are going to come back to president obama. they do like him personally. they have a 50% personal approval rating of the president. they want to like him. i really think they are up for

grabs. if the president is speaking to them and making sure he is addressing them and not just the base, that is a victory for him. host: columbus, ohio. line. our democrats' caller: thank you for taking my call. you used the word "moderate" which i do not hear anyone wanting to talk about. the independents sound like they are either republican or democrat. i am just wondering -- i am a progressive. i voted for obama. newt saying he is a socialist. what can people do? is there a market for a moderate-type person to be running? what can the president do to

assert that he is more moderate? thank you. guest: let me first address your question about whether independents are real independents. many say they are just calling them independents but they are really just democrats or republicans. one thing we are working on is a look at the electorate data over time. when you look at that, you realize that independents are much more likely to switch back and forth in their votes between parties. weak democrats are much more likely to continue to vote with the party, and the same is true for republicans. independents are actually voting differently than those identifying themselves either way.

in terms of whether there is a market for a moderate candidate, i think president obama did a great job in 2008 making himself a moderate candidate and talking about bringing a red america and blue america together. that did extremely well for him. i think there is the potential for him to do it again next year especially if the gop continues to push themselves to the right. about 45% of them disapproved of the tea party, and the rest of them say they have no opinion. the more there is this in transients in washington driven by tea party stubbornness the more we are going to lose these independents because they do not have time for that drawing the line and putting your foot down and not listening to the other side.

host: you say that independents could comprise one-third of the vote. guest: if you look at the data and the registration numbers, it looks like we will be at a third for the electorate next year which is huge. the last time we had numbers like this was in 1976. that was a time when there was a lot of dissatisfaction. people were fleeing the republican party and the democratic party. here, it could be that occupy wall street and the tea party are doing similar things. host: alabama on our republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. understanding that when harry reid and it's the policy were -- nancy pelosi were pushing through health care and they

were not listening to the american people, i do not think it is republicans that are blocking. they have put forth a bill after bill and we saw that in the election in 2010, great support for them. we want them to hold that line of conservative because the government is tobig. -- is so big. about 125 million working taxpayer americans divided into $14.30 trillion debt, $114,000 a head per taxpayer. which party do you think is going to help us with our debt load in the next election? guest: that is a great question and i think you are right that independents were frustrated in 2010. that is why we saw a wild swing from where they were in 2008. when both parties get these voters, they think they have a mandate.

they do not see it as being rented, not owned. they think they own that group. now we see folks coming back and leaving the republican party. republican registration is also down. there is a lot of frustration towards both sides and plenty of blame to go around for why we are not getting anything done in washington. guest: in certain states they do, and in certain they do not. there is a super-majority plurality in four or five of the states that we look at. in pennsylvania, there is still a huge amount of democrats in than there are independents, but a lot of them are more moderate.

they may be worried about the same things, but they are more likely to be in the democratic column than some of the others. host: sheila, on the democratic line. caller: of once a month in the white house that will adhere to alan jackson's song. where were you when the world stopped turning? i only voted for obama because it did not want a loose cannon, john mccain, running the white house, but i found the perfect one on the "morning joe" show. i listened to him by accident. he is just what we need in the white house. he is very knowledgeable on every subject on how to achieve peace in the middle east to have

to bring the country back to economic success. he to be a combination of fdr, eisenhower, and pope john xxiii. i turn it off every time they talk about republican candidates. even chris matthews, my favorite show, outside of c-span, of course, and he is all about perry. i'm bored. i've been bored. why is this continuing? why can we have this like four months before the election? guest: election season has really extended. it may be trying the american people's patience. we have seen so many debates with the interpublic and primary candidates and it would be a historical level of debates. i think that is running a big

risk for republicans because the more they expose the extreme candidates, many of home probably have no chance of being their nominee, but the more they expose them to the rest of america who may be was not paying attention to michele bachmann before but now is on prime-time tv every other week, the more they run the risk of making them look incredibly extreme as a party. the more the associate themselves with the tea party, mitt romney has said the tea party in the republican party are the same thing. that is a real danger but independent to do not see the tea party as a positive movement. host: here are the likely 2012 battle states. colorado, florida, nevada, pennsylvania. you mentioned some of what you have seen, but one other state

would you like to highlight? >> we will leave "washington journal" at this point. you can see it in its entirety online. "washington monthly" hosts jonathan alter and faiz shakir of center for american progress. they're discussing whether or not president obama's administration has been damaged by solyndra. they're talking about how stores like this may affect the 2012 election. live coverage on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> anyone who has lived in this town for a while knows what it feels like. it has been slim pickings in recent years. the dartmouth political scientist, and one of the few who has actually studied the

subject of political scandal wrote a paper in the spring of this year saying that you measure scandal by whether reporters at "the washington post" used the word "scandal" on a front-page stories, then barack obama would have gone the longest of any president in recent memory without a scandal. he is now one month further along than any president. the previous president was george w. bush. other things have happened, so president obama has now gone longer with birther questions, uproars over policy czars, but even solyndra has fizzled without the mainstream press

word."king "the s i was talking to my friend, jonathan alter, about this and some series. at the end of it, he had a long and brilliant piece of theories on the scandal machine in washington and how barack obama seems to have avoided getting caught in the gears. that became the cover story on the latest issue of "washington monthly." and that is what we are here to talk about. in fairness, really big scandals tend to be in the second term. think of watergate, iran contra, lewinsky. was presidents have been dogged by scandals in their reelection campaigns. carter had bert lance. ronald reagan had the james watt in 1983, the epa super fund

scandals that led to the conviction of lying in congress by one of his epa people. right before the election, george h. w. bush lost his chief of staff in a moderate scandal and was still being dogged by iran contra questions. clinton had half a doze n from white water to illegal chinese fund-raisers and so forth. george w. bush hit a record. before his reelection campaign, he had the valerie plane outing, secretary tom wight and enron, the energy task force, the

coalition for provisional authority losing hundreds of billions in cash. the national guard a wall scandal -- awol scandal about his duty. when you think of that, though there is still time for barack obama to be hit, he will be going into this reelection as the first president without a scandal if that fast and furious does not take off for something. all of these won reelection are sizable enough margin that it is really hard to argue that the scandal had much of a difference, but this election, which prognosticators are likely

to say will be very close, if someone like newt gingrich is his opponent and barack obama winds up still on skid by the scandal, -- unscathed, it could be something that matters. we think it is an important subject and we are glad to hear. let me introduce the panel. jonathan alter, began to read the editor -- a contributing editor for "washington monthly," "bloomberg view," and an author of "the promise: president obama year 1," "between the lines, views inside american politics."

that is a collection of his columns from "newsweek." faiz shakir is from center for american progress and works for thinkprogress.org. he was a legislative aide to senator bob gramm. it is a communications aide at the white house and is a co author of howard deans prescription for real health care reform and has appeared on numerous programs. without further ado,, to turn the focus over to jon. give us a synopsis of what you found when you delved into the question of why has barack obama avoided the scandal machine. >> thank you, paul. thank you to the center of american progress and "washington monthly," which is where i got my start in journalism.

he is from working on his column right now, but anyone out there in c-span-land, you want to check out the "washington monthly." it helps to understand how government really works. i undertook this as a way of puzzling through a question that does not have a definitive answer. i do not think we can say there is any one simple reason why obama has not been afflicted by a bad scandal. scandal is in the eye of the beholder. after i wrote that piece, got a lot of letters from angry republicans about solyndra and fast and furious. they have not reached critical mass. you do not have people, like when i was in th 7th grade,

watching the watergate hearings. that is not happening with issa's hearings on fast and f urious. it is not there yet as a grade a scandal. the question is why. i have, with the academic scott, a multicultural approach. -- what the academics call, a multi-causal approach. it is a pattern of theory. generally it has to move into territory. speech,e checkers we all thought nixon was sketchy. there were these criminals around him and a hint of scandal, it took awhile for watergate to ignite.

it fell in fertile soil. we had a perception of ronald reagan as being a little bit out of it. he was not terribly attentive to the details. when it turned out that there was an office shop being run without any congressional white house and all come it fit what we thought we knew about reagan. the same thing has been true about other presidents. when the sex scandal came along, we already had the jennifer powers thing in the campaign, so we know that there was a pretty good chance that the allegations about clinton would be true. with barack obama, there was no pattern of behavior that a scandal would easily fit into. to give you an example, it came

out about his mother that he had not been telling the whole story about her cancer. during the campaign, he used his mother's experience with cancer as a reason for why we should have health care reform. she was denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. not true. she had some problems with her insurance company over a disability claim that relator for being disabled by her cancer, but the basic treatment was covered. when that came out, it really did not become a big deal. why? there was no pattern for behavior. he did not have a reputation for telling tall tales. he got away with it. the second theory, the news climate theory, if there is a lot of other big news, it is much harder for a scandal to get

traction. one reason clinton kept getting hit with scandal was that we were in the middle of peace and prosperity. a scandal was a luxury. when you're trying to fight off a depression and americans are really suffering in there is really is going on everyday at home and abroad, the arabs during, killing -- the arab spring, kililnling bin laden, it's a zero sum game. other news a lot of scandals, there's less of a chance to make an impact. the third one is the ethical tone theory, the town that obama set from the time he came in, no lobbyists in government, signed a very strong executive at orders @.

he was very intolerant of any kind of ethical issues. there were a number of people have have been from under the boss -- who have been thrown under the bus because obama did not want it to turn into anything. it found out there was a woman with a lien on her property.it was a silly thing. this is completely and substantive. they did not care. timothy geithner survived his past problems, so there were exceptions. the deputy secretary of defense was hired even though he had been a lobbyist, but by and large it tried to really set unethical town -- set an ethical

tone. the flip side of having a squeaky clean administration is that you will get a more cautious less innovative, less creative cabinet. it was the usual suspects from washington who got jobs because they're very careful to know what you had to do to not get caught up. when you have the family man theory, the biggest ones are always the sex scandals. they denied very quickly. obama with an intern? not really likely. the first lady would kill him and covered up, look fabulous of

the funeral, and no one would be none the wiser. this is not something that will be a part of this administration, as far as we can tell. over the type of oversight theory. if i were prioritizing, this would be my number one. oversight, which is an incredibly important function, it is now turbocharged and politicized, so darrell issa hearings will awlalways be seen as partisan. the only way you will get the fuel for a real scandal of his is -- is if it is seen as bipartisan. fox, media matters.

the mainstream more neutral press, it is when they pick it up that they get credibility as a scandal. that will not happen if you have oversight about getting the president than getting the truth. then you will not have eigha cab driver pulling over to listen. this is working to tamper down on scandal coverage. the mark them as political attacks. distracted reporter theory. lot of people like me are too busy doing other things to do a lot of the hard digging necessary for some of these scandals. i am not an investigative reporter.

i would be writing columns, not investigative pieces, but there callinger michael's, my that now works for nbc, but there are not many great reporters who dedicate their career to investigative reporting. are not nearly as many as you think. i do think that the idea that when investigative reporting takes place, being seen as politicized as one of the real keys here. disinterested reporting is moving off stage, unfortunately. returning to what we had in

europe or at the dawn of the american public, basically a party press system. c-span is one of the great exceptions where many news organizations are now seen the as being affiliated with one side or the other and that has a way of discrediting your scandal reporting. finally, there is the obama paradox. you can run a clean your administration, but it may be less effective. if you were johnson, nixon, you're not as worried about process and keeping everything so clean then being more focused on results. few are obama, you want to make sure you have as ethical and administration as possible. there will be a certain price that he will pay for it, you're swashbuckling big personalities

-- fewer personalities driving the process. a lot of the times, they come with baggage. hopefully that will give people some food for thought during our q&a. >> thanks, jon. i had not thought of it, but famously the late richard holbrooke, who defined swashbuckling, driver of policies, at infamously? did not get alonge -- infamously did not get along. is widely thought that he just did not like his style. and it undercut him the days before his death. >> he was my colleague at "newsweek" for quite a long time. this was one of the last piece is that i didn't for them about how they tried to fire him,

holbrooke, because they did not treat him right. ant.as a a great public servic holbrooke himself was not corrupt, but those big personalities a lot of the time are born to run into more trouble and there are not a lot of them. >> faiz, you have had a bird's- eye view of the daily ticktock of attempted scandal from the bush years to the obama years. tell me how you have seen the machinery of scandal involved and whether you think there's something happening bubbling up in the committees that might come in the next six-eight

months, come back and be on the front page of the papers for obama. what was it like in the bush years versus now? >> thank you for the question. first of all, i want to promise this by saying that jonathen hit on a kernel of truth here, that the right has mischaracterized it frequently. this conversation is probably confusing to many conservatives because they understand president obama to be a scandal as president. i just went digging through because i know there are a few commentators on the right who have authored books specifically devoted to this. "culture of corruption, obama of and his team of cronies." "an indictment of president obama."

"gang intergovernment, obama and the new washington thugocracy." "where is the birth certificate, the case that obama is not fit to be president." is not for lack of effort that they have not been trying to manufacture and a picture of him as a scandal-prone president. it is not something that are progressive out lies -- allies have thought about. you are correct, and the theory is that president obama has had a largely clean presidency which leads me to my second point. it's like the bar has changed. we are so avarice in looking for the scandal because of our great

witness to scandals in the bush should ministration. i thought i would try to go through and a list some of the ones that popped in my mind. morel probably remember than i even remember, but pre- war iraq intelligence. one of the first thing that pops into my haed abouead about a scl is a cover up. it suggests that bad deeds were done. because you know that they are done, you therefore have to cover it up. a cover-up is an important aspect, i think, of scandals. pre-war iraq intelligence is one of the biggest moral sends it -- moral sins. the firing of u.s. attorneys. the wire tapping scandals to

visit ashcroft at his deathbed. waterboarding torture documents. pre-9/11 daily briefing. the colonization of the agency's leading to the firing or resignation of the gsa head. jack abramoff in the department of the interior which led to some departures there. there is actually a scandal about cheney having alcohol when he shot someone. he had.ned later that ther the council on environmental quality doctored climate report to soften climate change. these are the ones that i could think of, and i am sure there

are more. then you add in the incompetency is, halliburton, hurricane katrina, the financial collapse. it is important to separate them because the and competencies' of government are ever present in that is what we're talking about in the obama years. when you look at solyndra and fast and furious, the two leading scandals of the obama administration, what i observed are two things. there is some measure of incompetency, misjudgment that has been made in the governmental bureaucracy. average partisans are trying to apportion some kind of blame to obama himself in a way to political tarnishes the image. from my perspective, both of them started within the bush

years, but the solyndra loan guarantee program began in 2007 in the bush years. and fast and furious, that began, again, in the bush years. this is not to blame him, but suggested as far more nuanced than what went on there and it is not just a matter, like i listed, a matter of actual misdeeds done and then covered up to track of this state what actually occurred. -- to obviscate what actualyl happened. >> that is interesting. part of how these things play out is who runs congress, right? for the first two years of , thek obama's presidency

committees that typically look into these things, government oversight committees, they were the hands of a friendly democrats. you had nobody are to leave -- actualyl doing it. there has been 10 months where issa, upton, and others have had subpoena power. give us time, right? they're beginning to get to the bottom of things. in fairness, they do not know all of the facts on solyndra. we do not know the full conversation between the white house and some of the people that invested in solyndra. with fast and furious, there is more coming out.

could it not be argued that the investigations have only just begun? >> in terms of both, i think one of the issues is how much global of internal correspondence about these matters will be released to the public? attorney-general eric holder testified yesterday on fast and furious and one of the issues was how much his department would be releasing about the gunrunning operation that went awry. there will be an effort by republicans in the house judiciary committee, chairman issa, and others to continue to stoke this to paint tarnish on administration that has been largely squeaky clean.

one other point i want to make about fast and furious as people do not know how it eroded. one of the important details about how this occurred is that there was a conservative blogger and he was someone who advocates for protecting second amendment rights even if you have to engage in violent action. he is not necessarily someone you want to affiliate with, but he has been at the forefront of releasing documents and started the controversy of the atf agent that not gone down. he was really at the core of trying to push to republican party in the republican members of congress to seize on this. the nra joined in on this once they saw there was an appetite for it.

you have to remember where the origins lie and how they came about and explain why they even are being talked about. >> the other reason that fast and furious is being talked about is because there is a pretty shocking story behind it. there was a border agent killed with guns that were allowed into mexico because the government, through this, they were trying to track down purchases and allow them to be sold to people who were then going to transfer them to drug traffickers, which is pretty appalling. i do think it fits into the incompetence basket rather than scandal, but it is a big piece of incompetence. >> at according to the attorney general, he is not trying to deny it, he has been very clear in saying that this was a mis

calculated terrible effort that went awry, and something they would not want to do. >> the u.s. attorney in arizona has already resigned over this, and there were probably be more resignations by the time we're done with it. they're trying to get the assistant attorney general in the criminal division, trying to get his scalp now. they might. i'm not sure that they would necessarily be wrong in that. this is a legitimate area of inquiry. i think people who are on the more progressive side of the debate do not want to get into their own politicized corner where they say anything they are looking into on our side is illegitimate. it is a legitimate area, but one always ends up happening is that the people who are prosecuting the case politically overreach

so now they're trying to make it seem as if the atf and the justice department were doing this in order to hurt second amendment rights and somehow discredited them. >> the operating theory on the conservative side with that the obama administration intentionally allow these guns to go across the border and create this problem so that they could then, therefore, regulate the second amendment. >> which is completely preposterous. it is the sort of thing that discredits the more legitimate areas of the inquiry in the gross incompetence that lays behind continuing in this bush era program. >> absolutely right. you mentioned the conservative blogger. this is what has really changed, to me. going back to some of your theories, i was in the clinton

administration. i was there all through the lewinsky chapter. it was a presumption on the right that the press was liberal and supports democrats. if you were in the clinton administration coming you did not feel that. you felt the press was going after every possible scandal with hammers and tongs. there were wanting a subpoena for the christmas card records of the white house. we brought the country to a standstill over an affair. that really shifted, i think. what seems to me that what was driving the pushing and scandals that really were not scandals verses not allowing scandals that really work to be focused on. what was pushing these pseudo-

scandals -- and this is just my pet theory, was that you have a polarized conservative big media, big in the sense of millions of followers in talk radio, christian broadcasting, that were sucking of the investigation and reporters and committees on the hill, and they were blasting dad out and creating a drumroll of a potential scandal that the right-wing media then, at some point, felt compelled to cover, but nothing on left. what changed, to me, was the creation of liberal media, if not as big then certainly as

active and potent on the liberal side. what you have now is if read state, news max, drudge, hannity, someone makes the charge that barack obama has missed used -- misused the czars. that was the main charge that the right have for months and months against obama, that he was appointing people as policy "czars" and it was unconstitutional because they were not accountable. outlets like thinkprogress, and evening hours of msn b.c., there were looking at the numbers. richard nixon had as many as

barack obama at this point in his administration. there was a burst. some of these of bubbles within the blogosphere so that the mainstream media could hang back and say they would let those two battle that out. this was back and at the end of and there were really big questions about ethical abuses and criminality and then they would jump in with their investigative team to go at it. >> absolutely right. the only time that the white house would get concerned about the right wing charges was a face of the mainstream media would be picking it up and there were questions about van jones or whenever the fox story of the day was. then they would cut their losses, fight back, take a different direction. they did let the new liberal

media do some of their defense work. pretty much every night there is some kind of silly new thing going. yesterday, several republican candidates called obama "and accuser -- "an appeaser." to which he replied, "ask osama bin laden if i am an appeaser." they will have the rachel maddow's of the world the first line of defense. the other thing that changed after clinton was that times just got more serious. the reason that bush had the record of going the most months scandal free it is because of 9/11. suddenly, obsessing over scandals seemed beside the point. there were many months when there was not a lot of scrutiny.

i think that obama has benefited from that, as well. reporters have had better things to do. >> can i express frustration from the progressive media side of this? people during the bush years worked very hard to focus on the facts and things that were actually wrong that needed more attention and struggled, quite frankly, to get attention for these items that i think deserve the attention and we are now in an age where the right is winning because they are at least have a conversation about meritless arguments. the fact you have a birth certificate controversy exists in our public debate for as long as it did demonstrates that, first of all, there is no level of accountability that these people continue to push for more and more accountability.

fox news is playing a very prominent role, but also burgeoning websites on the right that have been pushing things that are completely meritless so it makes our job it easier to push back on them. they do need it the bonking and it is easy to do so, but it is exasperated to continue to watch some of these rhetorical bombs continue to get attention and distracting the president from things that he should be doing. >> let me agree with you on that, and maybe disagree in another. i agree in that your right. there have been any number of unbelievable red herrings that have kind of caused a movement of charges that fizzled.

for months, fox news and others were charging that the administration was giving waivers on health care to companies, unions, and so forth, insurance companies who were a part of the weak democratic coalition, health care waivers from the affordable care act, obamacare. >> they tried to call a monstrous scandal. >> was part of obama as gangster government. the republicans managed to convict the accounting office to look into it. the government accountability office, rather, and they did a monthlong investigation coming back saying there was no evidence that these waivers were given for any other reason than those stated by the administration. that was one that did not rise

to the level of public consciousness. you watched fox news, you know about it. i bet not one in 1000 of americans who did not read or watch those things did not know. >> by the administration has not had more problems as something that i did not mention. after the stimulus was passed, they put into place a series of devices to monitor the spending of $787 billion and the implementation of the health- care bill so that it was not corrupt. they have a guy running the oversight of the recovery act who is a very tough inspector general. they got inspector general's across the government to are very tough. of the amazing thing about that

$787 billion is there's no evidence of any of it being stolen. you could say it was spent on the wrong things or not leading in the stimulus as a matter of economic policy. some people will say that it works since we now have evidence that the economy would be in much worse shape if it were not for the stimulus but that is a policy thing. no one can say the money was stolen, as opposed to what happened during the recession when you had these monstrous government programs. there was no oversight and a lot of the money was just completely wasted or went into someone's pocket. partially because of this recovery.ogv web site -- recovery .gov website, i found out how much stimulus money was being spent in my town. you could go into that level of detail because of the

technology. it has been relatively scandal- free. >> i think that is a great point. there are a number of these things where there have been efforts by the conservative medium to find this. we did a story on this for "washington monthly" where there was some regional conservative journalistic websites that had done very good investigative work, but they attempted to show from dealings in the spending of the stimulus money. we actually look at one of their charges where they said money was spent, thousands of dollars, in nebraska and on the rehab of a government building that never happened and they hired one person. we actually called the contractors. the contractor, yes, but he subcontracted the work and hired

lots of people. that was one phone call it could have made, but they were happy to have that look like a scandal. my friends on the right who do investigative journalism need to hone their skills a little bit more. >> when people were assessing out vice-president biden's record, keeping this claim is something that he did accomplish. >> there may be some regional ones that are doing good, but it is still a shame that the leading conservative websites that follow very closely continue to play into the manufacturing space. in my mind, one of the first is big government and was responsible for intentionally smearing sherrod at the

department of agriculture. it was only after we discovered the full video and explain the content that we saw the damage that was down to one employee and is again showed the power of what i was talking about, the power of the right. i think there should and could be an effort by conservative journalists, by progressives, to actually help uncover incompetency is within government that may ultimately be scandals. if i were picking want to get me into trouble, i think one of the areas that i thought was particularly relevant was the keystone pipeline controversy that was going to be authorized, for a while. we thought that the state department was. authorize it and we knew that there were people who were lobbying the state department who have been high level contributors and members of the hillary clinton campaign and

there was a concern there of a conflict of interest. he punted saying they would not make a decision on it and have concerns about the movement. the move the decision on such a thing to after the election. i thought that was a move were people who were looking for a story could have found one, but there was not the kind of digging into policies that there were suggesting they could have uncovered. milsack through sherrod over the quickly -- cliff too quickly. why was he responding so fast before they realized that what she had said in that speech was fine? one explanation was that the naacp had bought what she said was wrong. she was speaking at an naacp

event. >> because he had prevented -- presented that story. >> the deeper reason is because they are so scandal adverse and so interested in not getting a chance to inflate, but they wanted to get it out of the news cycle as quickly as possible. they have been willing to throw people under the bus. >> van jones was clearly another example. the faa director got arrested for drunk driving. some are merit based and some are merit-less. >> there have been a few others where maybe they would have turned down to do something that was really problematic, but the administration did not want to wait to find out. they shot first and ask questions later. >> think about the difference in presidential styles.

you mentioned the army secretary under bill clinton. he had a job in the white house. he was the one you're proved air force one making a flyover of manhattan for a photo op that it was so close to buildings that it scared half of manhattan. was it boneheaded? yes, but was a firing offense? i do not know. >> they asked the white house counsel's office to look into a. >> was not a spatter stain? >> but it to think about -- a snap thing? >> think about george w. bush and enron. "washington monthly" wrote a profile about tom white and he

was surprised he had not been fired. bush was so willing to keep people and hang on to them, very loyal to people who are obviously ones who should have gone. you have quite a range of presidential styles. the thing now is going to ask you and maybe does agree with you on is your right that there has been one manufactured scandal after another, and some of them have not broken into the public, and others like the birth certificate having go maybe that is frustrating and exasperatingly for those of us in the press to have to cover rent -- cover it and keep showing there's nothing there. is there not also an element of the boy who cried wolf? the president is hit with a scandal. i went through the birther

thing, the czar thing, that the public keeps hearing these kinds of scandals that do not pan out, they would be resistant to believing the next one. >> i would hope so. this whole conversation has made thinking about why we love scandals. i put them into two baskets. one is journalists -- mainstream journalists -- have a degree of cynicism about the subjects that they cover, politicians and government. they have a built-in high degree of cynicism so that when something bad happens they are looking for, potentially, the worst possible outcome or motives behind it. sometimes that may be a useful endeavor and you could uncover some bad motives, but a lot of the times, you see you're just talking about simple

incompetence and no motive. the other basket is audience. people do this because it feeds coverage. people do like to watch this kind of thing, and to some degree be to blame ourselves as the audience here in america for the fact that journalists are not chasing the story is that they think people will tune in to come to watch, and read. you sound and that very optimistic note of people saying that they are sick and tired about hearing the scandals. >> it depends on what the scandal is about. there are definitely scandal fatigue when it comes to things that are complicated and boring and do not really relate your daily life. if they are things that are entertaining, like a sex scandal, there will always be an appetite for that.

if there things that really relate to fundamental things, national security of, your paycheck, or something that really hits home, especially in these economic times, then you will have the appetite. the problem for reporters is that, as charlie peters has said, the real scandal is what is legal. it is much harder to get that story on the air because people who are not paying close attention will say, "where is the crime here?" we have a system of legalized bribery where guys on the hill are owned by the banks and contribute to their campaigns. they do not kill the nomination -- they killed the nomination of richard cordray. why?

because they are in the pocket of banks. that is a much bigger scandal than a lot of the ones we have been talking about. why does that happen? what is it not get more coverage? because they are not doing anything illegal. part of it is the vocabulary we have prescribing that what is scandalous is too tied to lawbreaking. >> can i ask a question? do you think one of the reasons president obama has avoided scandal is a personal qualities like discipline in his life and other things that are personal to him, but what's degree you think ideology, being progressive, or of a left tilt ushers in a government of people who are devoted to a mission of believing that government should work for people nurses a conservative government in which people believe we are only doing bad here, let's pull back the

levers and let businesses run free and let people run free and do whatever they want? how much do you think there may be an ideological motives for some of the fact that there is a divergence in scandals? >> i think there's something to that. if you -- are remember one time i wanted to meet richard nixon and i arranged for him to come to "newsweek." this was in 1988 and we had a pretty long session with him. i asked him, "how you think ronald reagan will be remembered?" he said, "it depends if you are liberal or conservative. if you are a liberal, you go into journalism, history, government. if you're conservative, you go

into business." it was simplistic, but there was some truth to it. if you're going into government basically just so you can make a big score as a lobbyist when you leave government, you know? you're going to be a little more corrupt, if not in a legally narrow definition, but your spirit will be more corrupted than if you're going into government to do some good. now, there are plenty of progress sense who want to as they say, come to do good, and they state to do well. they become a lobbyist easily come not go through the revolving door, pulled the same shenanigans, so it is not as if -- >> fannie mae and freddie mac being a classic example. ron blagojevich who just got 14

years. >> human nature is human nature. there is something to what your cyan, but i would not push it too far. >> let's open this up to the audience. you have ever heard us throughout our theories. i'm sure some of you think we are all full of it. you think barack obama is the most corrupt president in history and the liberal press just has yet admitted it. do we have a microphone? billy, right? if you can get this lady right here in the fourth row. you can state your name and affiliation, if you have one. >> i want to ask about the in verse of the teflon theory with the president that nothing that he does well sticks with him either. [laughter] you look at the automobile industry and osama bin laden and libya, why is that?

[applause] >> nothing sticks to him. rose petals don't stick to him. i think it is because they have not found the right vocabulary. when i was researching my first book, "the promise" on obama's first year, that was what was behind health care that they had not found the right vocabulary. we expected obama to ace communications and struggle in executive leadership, getting things done. the big surprise has been it has been the reverse of that. he has struggled to communicate effectively the frame issues in a wave that linger in the mind with the right kind of metaphors and sharp words.

his paragraphs are better than his sentences and words. i wrote a column about that and it was just posted this morning on bloomberg. he struggled in the communications part and yet he has gotten a tremendous amount done. he has had more legislative success than any president since lbj. there is this strange -- sometimes presidents and a different than you expect. he is getting on his game a little more now and finding his voice more now but it has taken him a long time to put things like the automobile success and the other successes in a narrative context that people can really understand. i think he suffered terribly by not having a slogan. when teddy roosevelt went and gave that speech in kansas in 1910, he ushered in his slogan "the new nationalism."

he had a square deal and fdr had the new deal. obama has no frame for people. i don't know it is because they don't like slogans. my own theory is that his speech on race with reverend wright was so successful without sound bites and since that time, they said maybe they don't need them. it gets misinterpreted when you don't have a good sound bites. the only thing to fear is fear itself was a sign -- sound bite. these guys don't quite get that. what happens with a speech this week as it was reported as a populist speech. it was not a populist priest. it was not about william jennings bryan. it was about the a roosevelt was a progressive. go after don't presidents.

we have had many progress of presidents but no populist presidents. language is really important even though he did the right thing in putting himself in that teddy roosevelt tradition, there were not able to quite find the right language to make this extremely important speech and put a stamp on his presidency so that more stuck to him. to comment ont the communications as much as the fact that they are dealing with serious problems in the country and when they are succeeding, they are not succeeding in being able to overturn the entire problem. it is difficult to communicate that we passed financial regulations while the banks are booming. it is hard to say we are turning the economy around when unemployment is at 8.6% grade it is hard to say we passed health reform when you see americans still continuing to struggle for basic health care.

the fact that you have a basic level injustices continuing in the midst of progressive change occurring is the challenge. it is hard for them to talk to a progressive audience in a way that is positive about the things they are doing when people look around and say there are so many serious difficulties. that is the challenge for them and i would urge them to continue to share and be honest about this problem that we have gotten things done but the challenge is monumental and it requires a little more time and patience. we are moving in the right direction. >> that is such a critical point. i blame someone any liberals for part of this problem. -- some whiny liberals for part of this problem. when i was writing about fdr, when the social security act of 1935 went through, it was in many ways a bad piece of legislation. it was racist and carved out any

occupations that african- americans held and excluded them from coverage in social security. a lot of new deal liberals were very unhappy about -- on how much roosevelt compromise. he let southerners in congress take the lead in the draft on the legislation. does this sound familiar? for people who were so upset that there was not a public auction, they missed the point that this is the first president since teddy roosevelt, the bull moose party in 1912, that was the first time they tried to get universal coverage. as president actually achieved it, and the discrimination against the sick people and all kinds of other things in this bill and you have liberals who said i did not get a public auction, i am not happy. the public auction was not even mentioned in the 2008 campaign. it does not even come up for that whole year. you had people who feel it was a

failure somehow because the bill was not to their specifications. i say this as a single pair man myself. there's a lack of sophistication in parts of a left. i don't want to use too broad a brush about how to change actually happens. and whether it is the civil rights movement, social security, the health care bill -- it is a process and you have to start somewhere and on both regulating wall street and health care and a number of other places, this administration has been much more successful than liberals give them credit for. >> well said -- this gentleman in the second row? he will give you a microphone. >> my name is larry o'brien. when charles peters left the

office of the valuation after seven years as the only head of that office, i became the second half of that office. >> how about that? welcome. >> thank you. one of the problems about the use of metaphors and the fact that barack obama's paragraphs are more fulsome and he does not produce the sound bites is that we don't have a frank luntz and we don't have any think tanks. george lakoff had started one that is dedicated to cognitive science producing the metaphors. he started rock ridge institute in 2002 and got some money from george soros and after that he could not get any funding and closed it down. i don't know of any other so-

called progressive think tank. the word appeasement was used by three of the presidential candidates on the same day and i believe all three of them were speaking in front of audiences that were joyce-american audiences. -- or jewish-american audiences. it backfired on them but they are producing talking points, words, expressions so that the same words used three times within a few hours on the same day. >> is a great point and they have much more message discipline. they run circles around the democrats. on the political battlefield, every day -- newt gingrich gave this memo to republican candidates in 1990 -- language:

a method of control. he lists words that republican candidates should use and they ended up getting the congress in 1994. "courage,"strength and they had contrast words like lyre, pathetic, taxes. all the words you used to try to stigmatize the opposition. i am not suggesting that democrats act as orwellian as republicans and should not imitate the worst of this linguistic abuse but you make a great suggestion that somewhere in the progressive movement may be at the center for american progress, they need to put as much focus on using language to communicate as they do on the

policy details. you can do all the policy work you want and come up with a brilliant and eloquent policy solution and it won't get to first base if you cannot frame it and there is very little thought put into it. >> i read your column this morning. democrats used the word " infrastructure." what is that? how about rebuilding? people know what rebuilding his. >> we were having lunch with david axelrod earlier this week, a bunch of reporters in new york, and direct herzberg made the point that entitlements was first used by donna shalala in the jimmy carter administration to describe what franklin roosevelt much more smartly call the insurance. he called social security

insurance because it kind of works that way. starting in the late 1970's, democrats started to call social security and medicare entitlements. it sounds like spoiled, greek seniors who feel entitled. -- greedy seniors who feel entitled. even abraham lincoln and the whigs called internal improvements and that sounds better than infrastructure. >> it is kind of a crime that we still call financial reform regulation dodd-frank. we tried to talk about president obama's healthcare accomplishments as the affordable care act rather than whatever the title it actually was. sometimes the words do matter. >> they always matter.

they did ok calling of the affordable care act but everything before that was pretty horrible in terms of giving people a language to explain what this bill really did. i think there are many other examples. my favorite is the earned income tax credit. by the time you get from a earned income tax - everybody is asleep. it should have been called the working family tax. it helps working families. >> this lady back here. >> i'm a freelance journalist. i would be curious about your

perspective -- some of the pieces you did in kansas were long overdue. why did he choose this timing and why did he do it? would have productive to do when you're go? >> i don't know. >> would it have helped our done nothing? >> i think he should have done it a long time ago but better late than never. it is not actually that much earlier in the presidency than when roosevelt pivoted. roosevelt cut the budget 25% and instituted hoover -- herbert hoover's plan. like obama failed to nationalize the banks when there was more reason to do so at that time, and later on, he pivoted so the line from roosevelt you heard was i welcome their hatred. they are economic loyalists.

that was 1936 when he was running for reelection. in that sense, obama is on the roosevelt schedule in moving left although he has not done that in substantive terms as much as roosevelt did. roosevelt did direct hiring like v wpa. ccc began the first year of roosevelt's presidency obama should have moved to jobs earlier. the big question i have is what -- nixon had an 18 minute gap -- obama had an 18-month gap between when health care was signed. it was right for them to focus on health care because the president told me that if we did not do it now, it would not have happened. once that was signed in march of 2010, they should have pivoted immediately to jobs and they

would have been much better off politically and put it in this teddy roosevelt frame server there was an historical context. it is a great way to tee up his re-election and this was a very good week for him in terms of making the case that he deserves reelection. >> this lady in the second row here. with the orange. >> thank you. i am with stand up for democracy, free d.c., for statehood. normally i would ask for the -- about the lack of democracy in the nation's capital but i would like to know why use -- why you glossed over the biggest scandal in the bush administration which was how he came into office. [applause] [laughter] >> do you want to jump in there?

>> yes, i was in tallahassee when the supreme court ordered the stay and there were very, counting ballots and in the midst of what would have been inappropriate recount. right in the middle of it, on a weekend, when the court stopped it. bush vs. gore will linger. if anybody is interested, they should make sure to watch the colbert report where my wife works. i'm not sure when it will air but stephen colbert did an interesting interview with john paul stevens. there is quite a bit in their on bush vs. gore. >> some other questions? yes, please. >> i am an independent tv

producer. how do you evaluate the scandals and whether there is report by somebody? in some campaigns, somebody will say don't talk about negative things. on the other hand, a governor can get appointed by a elizabeth warren and they cannot. this system is getting worse and worse. it is a vicious cycle. can you comment on this? we say there is no scandal of this administration or whether there is a cumulative scandal of past presidencies. where does it stop?

>> are you saying there are scandals in this administration? >> we are talking about scandal but [unintelligible] >> that gets to the point we were making about how the real scandal is often was legal, not what is illegal. maybe we should define certain things as the scandals so we can maybe broaden our notion of what is scandalous behavior. for people to be in the congress and not allow

unemployment compensation to be extended, to me that is scandalous. then you really get into turning the worst scandal and do something that is the in the eye of the beholder. it already is in many ways. elizabeth warren i wanted to touch on. that is something that i think the administration made a mistake on in 200010. they should have pushed and had a big fight over elizabeth warren before the 2010 election. if some of these economic issues had been heightened better for the 2010 election, maybe the result would have been different. all of this darrell issa stuff is because they lost the house. the 2010 midterms were among the most critically important elections we have had in me -- in recent memory in terms of what they have done to the country. they stopped the obama agenda in its tracks.

the folks who run the house now, as result from their reaction to the tet roosevelt speech, they want to turn the clock back to the 19th century, the gilded age before all of these protections were put in place. i wish they had had a fight over elizabeth warren earlier. i don't figure was a scandal that they did not but i think the white house made the wrong decision on that them. >> one thing i would ask the white house to consider is structural requirements about the system they are operating in which is broken and thinking about proposing ways to rectify some of the major problems in the system they have to deal with. there is a lot of campaign finance reform to work on and the influence of corporate donations and. the administration has had a revolving door policy to make

sure that people leave don't get to lobby in the area of work they were doing so that is a good start. another one is the senate having some reform over the fact that a lot of these nominees are being defeated by majority vote. if the majority cannot get things done, there's a problem with the system. if the white house were to think about a kind of campaign around this issue, i think the american people would be receptive. people don't get excited about process but when they see the outcomes, they do. >> i totally agree. there are a couple problems -- one is we love process in this room and write about it a lot. it is not where people live. >> they live in the outcomes. if you look at what immigration reform did not get done and

there is a community of people who care about having the immigration reform done -- >> i agree with you in your diagnosis but it is how you talk about it. if you think about what you need to do with the state of union address -- the problem with the kansas speech is a did not offer a second term agenda. that probably would have been asking too much to all -- to do all that in one speech. in the state of the union, he will talk about what we should be doing as a country. the roosevelt speech in 1910 had a bunch of reforms that are now lot that he proposed. obama has not proposed structural reform. this needs to be more far reaching. we need fundamental tax reform. i think a lot of republicans are right about this and democrats have been slow to come to the idea that they think it is somehow a republican issue, tax

reform. they should get rid of a lot of these loopholes do something like bill bradley did, get rid of loopholes and bring down some rates. there is a lot of big things that could be done. >> what if we have a democratic house and democratic senate that cannot pass it to? ? >> this gentleman in the second row. >> i'm with the energy policy center. the bedrock of america's democracy is the right to vote. yet koch brothers and others including gillespie are going through all the state legislatures and denying people the right to vote. we only hear about that if we are on blogs.

we don't hear that as a nation. that somehow we are letting our democracy be stolen from us. i don't understand why there is not a greater outcry and people on the streets demanding this stop. >> this is an issue that cannot get too much coverage. it is outrageous and it is happening on a state level. in a naked way. for the average person, the average voter, the idea that you need a driver's license to vote to does not seem that outrageous. what the republicans have done p pick something. there may be little or no actual voter fraud, very little of that.

for the average person, being careful about voter fraud does not seem to be a stretch. i think there is a callousness on how we approach the franchise of voting. if people are not allowed to vote on voting day, that is ok with them. >> i think it has to be the movement of progress is to say that the franchise is so incredibly important. you have to find a way for them to vote. you have to build in safeguards into the system where the vote is counted and we ensure the person who cast the vote was a proper person but you have to allow that person to show up and cast that vote. right now, we have a system where we're getting to a point where people will show up and it will not be allowed to cast that vote. >> i made the comment before the democrats lost everything.

if democrats really want a project, i would like to see them go and get 8 million people who don't have a photo ids between now and november rather than fight it bywhining that the republicans are disenfranchising people. how about we just make sure they can vote. that is my idea. >> they are saying if you're a college student, you have to vote where your parents live and not a college. >> that is outrageous. >> as you indicate to, they are going after a problem that does not exist. >> no question, no question. >> people have scoured the country looking for boater fraud and legislating against and i cannot find it. it tells you where the republican party is right now. they note that the democrats -- the demographics are moving

against them. maybe if they put marco rubio on the ticket, they can get the democratic share of the boat down from 67% into the 50's. basically, things are moving against them so the only way to hang onto power is to have fewer people boat. it is kind of pathetic. >> we will have one more question. there's a question at the back of -- there is a gentle man at the back of the room. very quickly, sir. >> we hear about when and "all the talk about people being entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. there are parallel worlds on facts. there are people watch fox and listen to hannity and so forth and there is a factual world that is different.

do you see that changing and if so, what causes it to? >> it seems to be getting worse rather than better. you look at something like the regulation of financial services. on the right, the belief is that this was not a failure of regulation. this was government allowing people to buy houses who should not have bought houses. it had nothing to do with regulating the non-banks and all that. that is a story that works ideologically for them and you can throw all the studies you want to saying the opposite and they will not believe it and you could have this discussion with conservatives all day and they might concede a pointed to it that is what they are comfortable with in the end. i don't see any signs of a change. >> i bank it has to be -- it is an issue for conservatives to deal with in their own ranks. they have to settle this and make sure that they are clamping

down on those aspects within their own party and their own ideological movement who have been manufacturing stuff and hurting their cause. it goes across a wide spectrum of issues but you have people smearing and casting aspersions and doing so with intent in the conservative movement who are benefiting from it. i think it will not stop until the conservatives feel like this is really hurting us. >> the only way that happens is the solution for everything in our system which is elections. it will never stop. this has been going on for all american history. it will never go away. it can be a less-dominant part of our political culture if when they have 9% unemployment and

every external factor in the economy is working in their behalf, if they got stomped or even beaten in this next election, then they will have to look to ask if this idea going with kroger norquist a smart of us to do? they will not make that assessment until they get beat. they will not get beat up and while things are waiting for someone else to do it. i have a problem with the liberal critics of obama. they expect he would wave a magic wand and everything would get better. young voters did not show up in 2010. they had something better to do, going to the gym or whatever.

they did not go. >> barney frank said i get irritated at people who did not give me enough democratic colleagues to get things done and wind that me i am not getting things done. i want to thank john, faiz, the center for american progress for hosting this. i really enjoyed it and i think we will have to see if there is a scandal between now and november backcast real aspersions or whether we will be watching polls rather than that. you can read the john alter these on washington monthly. take all look at thing progress.org and thank you all

for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] >> coming up shortly, we will have live coverage of the white house press press briefing with jay carney. until then, your phone calls from today's "washington journal." here's "the washington times" write-up of the hearing. again, if you wanted to look at it later on today, you can see it on our c-span.org website, holder refuses to fire aides is the headline they've chosen.

host: in the following pages. "washington times," it goes as follows -- host: that's the facts 69 casmse the politics from it from the hearing coming out. give you a little bit of context as you're calling in this morning, want to play you a couple of pieces of tape from yesterday's hearings. to give you a sense of the exchange that took place, this first one is attorney general holder talking about the fast and furious program and also

talking about what he sees is the use of criticisms of the program and the department for political gain. >> we work to identify where errors occurred and to ensure that these mistakes never happen again. we must lose sight of the critical challenge that this flawed operation has highlighted, and that is the battleo stop the flow of guns to mexico. of the nearly 94,000 guns that have been recovered and traced in mexico in the last five years, more than 64,000 were sourced to the united states. during this time, the trafficking ofirearms across our southwest border has contributed to approximately 40,000 deaths in mexico. now, the reforms that we have undertaken do not make any of the losses of life more bearable for grieving families. these tragedies do, however, portray in very stark terms the exceptionally difficult challenges that law enforcement agencies confront every day in working to disrupt illegal firearms transfer.

operation fast and furious appears to have en a deeply flawed effort to respond to these very challenges. as we work to avoid future losses and further mistakes, it is unfortunate that some have used inflammatory and inappropriate etoric about one particular tragedy that curred near the southwest border ian effort to score political points. host: that was attorney general eric holder from yesterday. now to give you perspective of somef the questions, we want to play you a bit from representative james sensenbrenner, the republican from wisconsin, speaking with the attorney general. they were raising the idea of impeach -- i'll use hi words, or at least what was said, impeachment as an optionf the mess from fast and furious, as he saw it, wasn't cleaned up quickly. >> we don't get to the bottom of this, and that requires your assist offen on that, there's only one alternative that congress has, and it's called

impeachment, where our subpoena powers are -- i've done more impeachment than anybody else in the history of the country. it is an expensive and messy affair, and i don't want to go this far. host: your thoughts on the fact of fast and furious going forward. the numbers on your screen, 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-737-0001 for her democrats. also, you have email, facebook, and twitter at your disposal if you want to post a comment as well. let's go to ourselves fir call, baltimore, maryland, marcus, democrats line. good morning. caller: on this subject, pretty much it started with bush. i'm very sure what the republicans are going to say, that obama's mess, the real

issue is the war on drugs. 40,000 or 50,000 people died in mexico along the border in this failed war. some synthetic drugs? my brother just joined the baltimore city police force, and i'm scared for his life, because he could be chasing a kid who has, i don't know, a dime bag or two dime bags of weed on him, and the kid could put his life and other people's life in danger. host: do you anything from the program impacting how the government handles the war on drugs? caller: yes, i do see the impact. what ty're trying to do is cut down on the gun smuggling. it's just inevitable.

there's no regulation of guns. if anyone tries to claim guns, it's really b. host: beverly hills, california, republican line. go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. basically much of the general's testimony, when you're in the bus, any business or industry, safety causes to have much safety equals minimal damage, minimal injury. to have no regulation on operations such as this equals mistakes, pedro, which turns into bigger mistakes, pedro, which turns into violations and death in this case. you know, it's the attorney

general that regulations and basically to have somebody's finger on the pullings, to have somebody who is going to make sure that mistakes don't happen , this is basic in these operatio. host: what those things in mind, what he wants the long-term impact, in your view? caller: once again, pedro, it's all, unfortunately, a small steppingstone. host: that's beverly hills, california. you can weigh in on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. greg smith and others have weighed in this morning, saying -- greg smith saying more than 200 people are dead, eric holder is responsible, he knew about fast and furious. c.e.o.'s of corporations are held responsible for things beneath them. eric holder needs to go. new orleans,eginald, independent line. go ahead. caller: hi. i watched some of the hearing

for about a year myself, but a lot of that that we see concerning fast and furious, it's been going on for years, not just within the last five years. in fact, if somebody else also -- the attorney general of the united states had knowledge of that particular operation other than attorney general eric holder. host: so, what's the point? caller: i think the impact of it is the united states needs to control their laws regarding guns and crack down on it here in the united states, and it won't get to mexico. host: off of twitter, jack says this thi morning, he says that senator issa is using fast and furious as a political expediency. darrell issa weighing in on the

fast and furious pages he is the chairman of the house co-oversight and government reform. here's a bit of what he had to say -- host: again, your thoughts on the impact of fast and furious, a hearing yesterday. many of you saying this morning thaw caught a little bit of it. you can catch it again on c-span.org and tune in to our website for more details about that. long island, new york, thanks for holding. anthony, democrats line. caller: yes, i'm calling in reference to representative issa and his basically lynching

and grilling of d.o.j. leader holder. this is about transparency. if this is about international transparency and the uses of weapons on our borders, trading the weapons to agents that support us and will it be drug trafficking or any other type of international assault upon our land, there's only so much transparency that the justice department is going to be able to expose, but this representative issa, with his approach to it, they're willing to have him, representative holder,expose information that the public is not supposed to

even getng wind of, in order to just put his reputation, put his job, put everything about the department of justice out into the general public where we don't really want to know. host: we're talkinabout the fact of fast and furious. philadelphia, pennsylvania, keith on our republican line. you' next. caller: hi, yeah, this is a classic example of why the federal government messes everythi up or how they mess everything up, and they should -- instead of regulating people, regulate themselves, which i'm sure, if ron paul becomes president, and he should, he'll fix that. but the war on drugs is causing the violence, you know,rying to stop that is creating more violence, and, you know, war on guns and gun control, you know, that's just fueling it even further. so, you know, it's not the people, it's the government, and they need to check themselves and stop wasting all this money.

it's a universal problem throughout the whole federal government. host: in the "new york times," this article -- >> 74 families said no. >> that has not changed because of this, i guess, revelation. >> none of those 274amilies, i think what you're asking, has come forward and ask us if they want to change -- that they now

want to be notified, they want to be told f. they do, we'll certainly be forth right, tell them everything we know about the dispositions of their loved one. host: and just for context, at was about t family members asking not to be tified, the air forcesaying they would be forthcoming. you can see that whole exchange on our c-span video library, if you wish. if you go to c-span.org, click on the video library link. it will be there for you to see, as well as other information that we've had over the past few weeks as well. danville, georgia. thanks for holding. dave, independt line, we're talking about the fact of fast and furious. caller: yes, i was wondering if the families of the deceased agents could personally sue for wrgful death. they might throw it out, but at least it would make a big splash, you know, sue the president. i mean, this is nothing more than chicago-style -- it's the way they run things in chicago,

you know? i mean, lie, lie, lie. cbs uncovered some ema, this was their plan, puthe guns down there, blame american citizens, and then the justice department, the a.t.f. will be able tcrack down on u.s. citizens, and the problem is not that, the problem is the government, you know, trying to do this subterfuge to get guns away from people. on the bright side, since obama was elected, i'd say probably another five, 10, 15 million guns have beenold in the u.s., so it's going to be really tough for them to, you know, pry them away from people. host: kansas city, austin, democrats line. caller: hi, yes. my comments are pretty brief. representative issa was a pretty good representation of the conduct of congss and how it wasn't the conversation of gun control all, and he was attacking holder, which, sure, he's responsible, but you look at the decisions that were made

in that operation, they were much lower level iseems at this point. to say holder should be impeached, as some of the other representatives had indicated, i think that was far-fetched at best. but my comments basically, i wasn't very satisfied with e way congress was conducting themselves in that room today. host: what do you think about the long-term impact on gun control issues? caller: i think it's going to bring some light to it. i think people are going to be talking about it more. it's hard to say it's good, fast and furious has a good outcome. but if there is, it's that people are going to be talking about how the department of justice should be conducting itself when carrying out these operations and how should gun control be mandated, if at all by the government further or less restrictive. host: now, you said that you weren't satisfied with the way that congress was conducting itself in this investigation. could you expand on that? caller: sure. it's funny. when you watch governments around the world conduct themselves like civilized adults, and then you see our

congress yellingver each other asking questions of the testifier, a person that's supposed to be testifying, and then they don't even give them the chance to respond, it's sort of depressing and a little discouraging that our government actually acts that way. host: the weapons that were involved in fast and furious, you may remember when this story initially broke out, the a.t.f. had displayed some of the weapons involved. a picture for you, just to give you context, was about some of the weapons that were discussed, walked into mexico, as several made the point yesterday, there's also a picture here in the "washington times" this morning,, it does show representative darrell issa, one of t hearings abou the fast and furious operation, again, showing some of the weapons involved. henri, south carolina, andrew, republican line. caller: south carolina. ok, ok, please don't cut me off. i got -- i want c-span -- i

watched c-span all day yesterday, and i watched the hearing. ok, now that last caller from kansas city, he's really -- he's really -- he need to wake up and start watching some of the stuff that's going on in ngress before he gets on there making an idiot of himself. ok, i watched the hearings. darrl issa is doing the right thing, and eric holder, eric holder, yes, they got aggravated, got to screaming and hollering a little bit yesterday, but -- when he has stonewalled the investigation, but anyway, that's enough about that. i want somebody to tell me, just his overall job, eric holder, just look at his record, and even going back to the clinton when he was assistant -- assistant --

anyways, he was right in there with clinton, pardoning the biggest criminal ever left this country, and i can't remember his name, but he wouldn't switch with all kind of money. host: so caller, what do you think of everything you've heard from the hearing yesterday, everything you've shared with our viewers, what do you think is the long-term impact of what was revealed at yesterday's hearing? what do you think how it might affect other policy or at least in washington, d.c., in the future? caller: it will probably get -- in other words, yeah, whi holder was testifying, he was not only -- the democrats will probably get some good out of gun legislation that will probably come out of this, and i'd like to correct the thing that people keep saying it goes back to bush, bush, bush. bush had the other -- i can't

remember the name of it, but the difference was that, when they let guns walk, theyad something that was tracking the guns, and then that went awry, and they didn't lose 2,000 guns. they was much smaller, and first of all, this guy from kansas cy, they said that this was -- well, i mean, things was much -- them guys and all this, thiis a big enough operation where the attorney general should be going about it, just like eshed be going about this guy that lost $1.2 billion. host: ok. florida, independent line. clyde. caller: yes. good morning. i watched part of the hearings, pedro, and it's obvious that eric holder is hiding and being

evasive, playing dodgeball. host: about what? caller: about who knew what and when they knew it. there were plenty of emails, memos, drafts, that went across. there were just dozens of them that were floating around, and lenny brewer claims that he doesn't -- he did not read this, he didn't understand it, he doesn't remember reading it. this is obvious, dodging the question, i believe what's going on here is the attorney general is hiding really the purpose of these 2,000 weapons that were supposedly walked into mexico. i'm just wonder how sinister this really was and what the purpose is. host: what do you think is the ng-term impact of this? caer: the long-term impact hopefully we'll be able to get

to the bottom and get rid of some of these people. eric holder has a record. he ran the paper pardon under the clinton administration. he needs to go, and about half a dozen people underneath him need to go. host: eric holder yesterday talked about the program, making the statement that allowing guns to walk is unacceptable and inexcusable. here's a little more of what he said. a new recent years the department has devoted significant resources to this fight, specifically to addressing the unacceptable rate of illegal firearms, trafficking from the united states to mexico. unfortunately, in the pursuit of that laudable goal, unacceptable tactics were adopted as part of operation fast and furious. now, as i have repeatedly stated, alwing guns to walk, whether in this administration or the prior one is holdly unacceptable. the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it mustever happen again.

host: again, if you want to contribute about the impact of the fast and furious program in light of yesterday's hearing, the phone lines are available to you. email is available to you, as well as facebook and twitter. just le ronald this morning, who says that a.g. holder should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate fast and furious to silence his critics in congress. lendale, south carolina. pat, democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i'm calling now, they can blame anyby they wanted, but you can get guns illegal here, and just take them over the line because congress -- the republican congress just put out a bl stating that everybody should be able to take the guns across the state line. so i don't know why they explaining about this program, because they going to get guns that are illegal or legal. so i know they were trying to talk job, but the republican

wanted to talk about they can take their gun across the state line, so they need to start there. host: we'll let it about there. fort washington, maryland. ndy, democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. host: morning. caller: i really think that the republican congress is trying to get rid of attorney general eric holder, and the reason they want to get rid of him has nothing to do with fast and furious, but everything to do with voter suppression. because the justice department will have to approve these states who are changing their voter registration laws. so if they get rid of eric holder, they have chaos going on at the justice department. they can let this slip through through 2012 where they're changing the laws in a lot of states that equal voter suppression. host: >> see the rest of this segment on our video library. we are going live to the white

house briefing. >> before i get started, i wanted to mention that i saw a report this morning that caught my attention for a couple of reasons. throughout this payroll tax cut debate and through the debate over the american jobs act, one of the consistent points the republicans have made, their number one talking point about why they refused to go along with asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more in order to put americans back to work is because they don't want to her job creators. that is their phrase. it is what they go to every time they are asked about it. it is what you all right in your stories when you say the president and democrats to support this surtax or this way of paying for job-creating measures or tax cuts.

republicans say it will hurt small business. one news organization decided to ask the leadership office of the republicans whether or not -- to give them an example of the small businesses that would be affected. for three days they got nothing. there's a reason for that. the treasury department says that the simple fact of the matter is that it is less than 1% of all small businesses that would be affected by this kind of request that millionaires and billionaires pale but more. that is just a fact. next time you write a story, or produce a spot, a second sense might be worth adding which is that it is bogus. with that, i will take your questions. [laughter] >> just something had to get off my chest today. [laughter] [laughter] >> on the national decision on

boeing - some wondering if the president's fingerprints are on that? did he directly influence that decision? >> the nlrb is an independent board. the president thinks labor and management should find ways to work together to preserve and create jobs. we're glad they have reached a resolution but this is not something the president was involved with. >> what about the substance of the case? is that something the white house is supportive of? >> this was the action of an independent enforcement agency. our comment today is the same as a was before. a was before.