we will look to the federal election enforcement of campaign finance laws with mellon a slum, a citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. - melanie ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this tuesday, february 7, 2012. the house and senate are in today and president obama hosts the second white house science fair. colorado and minnesota have caucuses. missouri has its primary. we will talk about that shortly with a reporter from "politic

o." "the washington post" has an investigation of earmarks. the story says more than $300 million has been steered home to lawmakers' neighborhoods and districts. it is legal, but generally undisclosed. we would like to discuss this. here are the numbers. you can also e-mail us and find us on twitter. you can join the conversation on facebook by looking for c-span. let's take a look at "the washington post" front-page story.

it starts off like this.

host: as we go deeper into the story, it profiles members of congress and looks of the projects they have sent home to their own neighborhoods, to their own areas of interest. we can look at one profile. representative of massachusetts. "the post" reports that he secured nearly $100 million in earmarks in the last six years. they range from bus terminals to scenic byways. host: do you think this is

something congress should be doing? what is your reaction to it? one of the goals, members of congress, admit, is to send money back to their districts. what do you think, bonnie, republican in yukon, oklahoma? caller: i think they are all crooks up there. they will do anything and everything to get money from the taxpayers. i think obama is the biggest .rook of all eric holder is another grcrook. the reason people cannot find a job is because they cannot pass a drug test. [inaudible] they could not pass the drug

test and he got the job. i would like to say -- keep obama off the tv for a while. i'm tired of looking at his big mouth. host: let's keep the focus today on the issue of earmarks and members of congress sending money home to fund projects in their backyard. do you have a comment on that? caller: yes, if they use them for good things. they use them for stupid things, like crossings. host: members of congress in "the washington post" story defend the projects, saying they are worthwhile projects. let's go to misty, an austin,ent scholcaller in texas.

caller: this is ridiculous. i live in austin. they have been trying to re beautify. i wonder how many projects have been brought in through our congress people sitting up there for years. i think we need reform. we need to make it known, like votesmart.org, so we can easily find where these people are putting money. two, we need to set restrictions on how long they can sit in for their turn and how many times they can go for re-election. host: let's look at a comment coming to us on twitter. host: let's look at a couple of the breakdown of boxes in "the

washington post" story that show us members of congress, earmarks they sent home, and what it means for the bottom line for taxpayers, as well as their local districts. harry reid, leader of the senate, democrat representing nevada. to georgia.go merlon on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know how many

republicans in georgia have money going into their districts. it should really be legal. i think congress should do something about this. host: if your member of congress brought home money for a project in your neck of the woods, would you be upset by that? caller: yes, if it was next to their homes, yes, i would be very upset. host: jack kingston, republican of georgia, house member. host: let's go to our next line. and arizona, ed on the line for republicans. we were just talking about a project in your neighborhood. caller: hi. i think nothing screams the need for term limits more than the story. i think the senate should be returned to being elected by

states legislatures, as was originally in the constitution. i think that would cut down money in politics. if i may, bullhead city is a one industry town -- gambling. they talked about bringing in a dord plant. they talked about bringing in a water park. i do not think that will happen. all those things will increase the demand for labor, which will bring up wages, because the price of labor follows the demand for labor. host: ed, tell us about this project that majority leader harry reid helped usher earmarks home for. $20 million allocated to build a

bridge over the colorado river right to your community. has that made a difference in your town? caller: there is one bridge now. there used to be a crossing at the dam, of the clothes that for the 9/11 scare. the other bridge will be a shopping mall or a city park. i do not know if they really get enough traffic, or if it is a matter of convenience. i do not think it's about the traffic so much as it is about convenience. there's not a lot of development here. host: ok. on twitter -- host: ross is in louisiana on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you are on the program.

caller: i am a frequent viewer of your program. i enjoyed the program. any time we have politicians doing anything that will benefit them, it is like there in it for themselves. it seems the only time they want to do something is if they are going to get some benefits from it. that will be my comment. i think we need to look at them all in reevaluate it and see if we can do something about sending them home. host: representative john olver, democrat of massachusetts, who we talked about earlier. "the washington post" story goes on to explain some of the rules. it says --

"neither he nor his wife have a financial stake in the earmark. when asked why he chose not to disclose that information, olver said -- " "the project continues today. more than $700 million."

chris on the line for independents. we're talking about this legal action by congress. members can earmark money and send it home to their districts. what do you think about this? caller: well, it is their district. if they live in their district, which they do, i think they should. they would probably benefit from it. i cannot believe i have to explain this to people. when you elect somebody to represent your district, they're going up to fight for you in your district. let the other 534 members fight for their districts. that's how it works. the primary goal is to bring back things for their district. i cannot believe it is a surprise to anybody or they think there's some type of sinister thing about this. the only thing we do need is

total disclosure and a balanced budget amendment, so they cannot overspend, so they cannot spend more than they take in each year. that would be nice. other than that, way up, everybody. education is a wonderful thing. learn. host: touching on what you said, here's how "the washington post" goes into it. host: let's go to l.a. rick on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: ok, you know what? the lawyers -- most of the people and congress and

government are lawyers, right? you have got to understand that they are going to work their interests, even though it may not be disclosed to the public. they may go ahead and do what people expect them to do. that is what it is all about. getting elected by the public does not mean serving the public. it means working the laws that the lawmakers established, right? host: joseph writes in on twitter -- let's hear from st. louis. randy, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i agree with the caller from florida.

we could just keep our money here and not send to washington for the kings to bring home for us to build what we need -- i think that would be a better way to go. there are about to make highway 70 that goes from st. louis to kansas city, a toll road. maybe some people need to say something about that. thanks. host: missouri has a primary today. it will not actually change a whole lot. are you hearing a lot of news about that today? caller: yes, i am a democrat crossing over four ron paul. the local news says that's basically a waste of money. there's not that many people that will go out and it's really sick. host: here is a missouri

newspaper looking at election day. "st. joseph news-press." we can look here at "the star tribune" out of minnesota. a picture of republican presidential candidate ron paul greeting supporters. "voters are far from united."

host: let's take a look at "the denver post." "romney versus santorum in lead- up to caucuses." talking to us now is national "politico"reporter, james hoh mann. guest: technically, zero delegates are at stake today. it's not really about the delegates. it's about momentum. today is a critical day for rick santorum -- the most important day for him since the iowa caucuses. he will either emerged today as

the superior alternative to mitt romney, compared to newt gingrich, or his campaign will essentially be over. he is competing hard in missouri, where newt gingrich is not on the ballot and mitt romney has not invested time. he cannot win in missouri, then he is in real trouble. if he can win missouri, he will be taken seriously. in minnesota, he's considered the frontrunner going into the caucasus. if he can win here, conservatives will give him a real second look. if he cannot win here, his campaign is over. the stakes could not be higher for rick santorum. host: news outlets are reporting that mitt romney is directed attacks at rick santorum now. how is this playing out? how is the santorum presence affecting the other candidates? guest: romney folks are a little

nervous that they have let santorum attack him for weeks and they have ignored him. santorum has the highest favorability in the race. people really like santorum because they have not heard all the attacks in the knocks on him. yesterday, you saw a flurry of back-and-forth press releases between the romney campaign and the santorum campaign as each escalated the fight. meanwhile, because newt gingrich is going to have a bad night tonight, he is trying to downplay expectations. in fact while the three states are voting today, he is off to ohio. he is trying to let them duke it out. that is different than we've seen in the last few weeks, where it has very much been a romney-gingrich race. host: if rick santorum manages to pull some votes away from mitt romney, does it ultimately help newt gingrich?

there is a story where newt gingrich was quoted as saying, "any vote against mitt romney is good for all of us." is that still the case? guest: there's this conventional sense that if santorum was out of the race, those votes would go to gingrich. that is not true. a lot of santorum supporters' second choice is romney. they're very uncomfortable with newt gingrich. what is likely to happen is -- say santorum does very well tonight. a lot of conservatives will say he is the better conservative alternative to romney, so let's get behind santorum. we've seen that in the last couple days. this is what the romney people are hoping for. the conservatives who want to stop romney will continue to be divided more evenly between santorum and gingrich.

we're headed into this february lull after saturday's caucuses in maine without a contest until the 28. conservatives will continue to be divided. they will not be able to pick one person to stop mitt romney. that will allow romney to coast on super tuesday and accumulate a lot of the delegates he will need to get the nomination. the romney folks would love for conservatives to be divided. they do not want people to get behind either gingrich or santorum. they want to keep both of them alive for a little longer. host: there's not a lot of impact in what happens today. explain that for us. guest: technically, these are non-binding caucuses. in missouri, it's a popularity contest. it does not award any of the delegates to the republican national convention, where the nominee is actually chosen. there is no binding impact on

the delegates in missouri. in colorado and minnesota, no matter what happens in the caucasus, it's essentially a popularity contest. it is a straw poll. people who decide are elected by state conventions that and not come for several months. those people are not legally bound by any rules to vote for whoever wins the caucus in the state. in 2008, romney handily won the minnesota caucuses. he won with 50%, but he ended up getting no delegates. ron paul got 15% in minnesota four years ago, but he was able to get more delegates out delegateshere than any other state -- delegates here than any other state. as we have been discussing, what is key is momentum.

coming out of tonight, rick santorum will either look like he is the guy to beat romney, or he is not. host: james hohmann, thank you so much. here is "the new york times" national headline. that is echoing something that james hohmann mentioned. there's a story about politics and what's happening on the campaign trail from "the wall street journal." it says -- host: "the new york times" has a

story about mormon voters. it looks at the values they are waiting -- are weighing and what concerns they bring to the polls. let's go to fairfax, virginia. james, republican. we're talking about "the washington post" story looking at earmarks and how they benefit members of congress when they have property rights in their own backyard. what do you think about this, james? caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm shocked the whole thing exists. we're coming out of recession. we're going through a fiscal armageddon pretty much. we are allowing the lawmakers who are in charge of getting us out of this mess to actually so irresponsibly use taxpayer

dollars. my wife and i are almost $30,000 in debt and then we hear lawmakers have the opportunity and privilege to -- regardless of how important they might be -- there allowed to do this. it is shocking. it really is. host: on twitter, monty writes -- let's take a look at some of the members of congress "the washington post" profiles. congressman akin of missouri is one. host: then looking at roscoe

bartlett. host: looking over at the democrats. congressman g.k. butterfield. host: congressman danny davis from illinois. host: pulaski, virginia. troy on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is kind of similar to this insider trading and

benefiting from that. it is kind of and in reserves. i do not think earmarks are necessarily bad. congress needs to find a way to limit it to a couple million dollars per year for each member and keep the spending number controlled. host: what do you think about the, one of our earlier callers made saying that a member lives in his or her district and will be sending money home to the district, and you cannot get away from that? caller: that part of their job, to represent us and our interests. some of those interests require money. unfortunately, in our district, and virginia, we were promised no earmarks. we will see how that plays out. host: looking at "the washington post" explanation about this

serious. es. host: "the washington post" the say that tomorrow, they will continue a series. they're looking at lawmakers to direct money to institutions with connections to their relatives. that's what's coming tomorrow in "the post." today's big story is about earmarks near lawmakers'

property. william is a democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: the first thing i want to say is we have a problem with congress, not the president. it's funny that they take issue with earmarks for their own personal things, but when it comes down to infrastructure for the state, they always have a problem. i think that is about what i wanted to say. it is not obama. it is congress. we need to get them in line and then everything else will go smoothly. host: let's hear from tony, a republican in nashville, tenn.. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just heard the other gentleman's comments. in this one to save of what we need to do is -- what i want to say is that i think obama is part of the problem, along with the congress.

host: what do you think about "the washington post" story today? caller: about the earmarks? host: yes. caller: i think there should be some laws in place. they need to fully disclose where they live. if they have any financial interests -- i believe they need to fight for their districts. at the same time, you cannot -- just because he lives -- c- span.oyou cannot do it just fors gain. that's what's happening. host: how would you put something in place to prevent against the corruption, from going too far? you said in your opinion it's ok if members of congress have investments in their own home districts. how to keep it from going too far? caller: do some checks and

balances, late check and see what the population is. if he wants to build a major highway and there are 10 acres and a population of 20 people, that does not make sense. host: was a look at it, and coming to us on our facebook page. you can join the conversation there. look for c-span. eleanor says -- sam weighs in and says -- host: let's go to castle rock, washington. joyce, democratic caller.

good morning. caller: i watched c-span one, two, and three. i get so sick of all the corruption going on. i think earmarks are fine if they have to be passed like everything else, and if they are open to everybody. we would know what the money is going for. i would love to see in the investigation on how many in congress have benefited financially. i mean, big time, by their secret little earmarks. i watched "in the middle of the night." this led them in with other stuff and nobody is supposed to know -- they slide them in with other stuff and nobody is

supposed to know. i've watched you guys for years and years and years. i used to think that you were so fair and i enjoyed it so much. all three of your channels anymore -- i cannot turn the channel without the announcer talking to a republican, or a republican on the channel. it gets very disgusting, you know. host: we certainly try to make sure we have all viewpoints on c-span. thank you for your call. looking at this debate over earmarks and the language of earmarks. "the washington post" says --

host: according to "the washington post" there are still ways lawmakers are getting around the semantics of it. let's go to brian. did you participate over the weekend in the caucusing? caller: no, i did not. unfortunately, i had to work. i am an independent, a moderate. i like to listen to both sides. even though we are democrats or republicans, we are all citizens of the united states of america. however, i voted for president obama last time. i'm voting for congressman ron paul this time. i do not like earmarks if they are not disclosed to the public. congress and the president has to realize they are the employee.

we, the voters, are the employer. anything you have to do has to be disclosed to the public. for example, out here, we are supposed to have a bullet train that goes from l.a. county to las vegas. they've been talking about that for over 10 years. that has not happened yet. our founding fathers said this in the 1700's. our government has been slowly but surely too corrupted. i am personally sick and tired of all the politicians, democrats and republicans. i do not like none of them, period. host: "the new york times" has some stories about president obama and campaign donations, and also superpacs. this story says that president obama is signaling to will the

democratic voters that he wants them to start contributing to an outside group supporting his re- election. host: there is a story about the president's the owners. -- the president's donors. it says --

host: here is another story about the presidential campaign. it says, "romney and obama are seeing swing voters slip away" from "to the financial times -- from "the financial times." host: another story here. "improved outlook for incumbents" from "the washington

post." host: another big story in the news on the international front, as syrian forces are renewing attacks. "the financial times" leads off with this story on the front page. at least 67 people have been killed. the u.s. embassy has been shut down. syrian forces intensified their assault on the central city of homs yesterday. the u.s. closed its embassy in damascus, citing security reasons. other newspapers are covering that story, as well. a member of the free syrian army standing guard over a demonstration, from "the new york times" international section.

this is from "the new york times" op-ed. the politics of the keystone project. "harper, prime minister of canada, travel to china for a week of high-level meetings." host: c-span will be broadcasting today a house committee markup of the keystone xl pipeline legislation. you can find out more about that on our website, c-span.org. that is at noon today. we will have other events here

on c-span. we will be covering a senate budget committee monetary and fiscal policy outlook with fed chairman ben bernanke. we will also be looking at a homeland security subcommittee on transportation hearing, looking at tsa's screening partnership program. you can find out more about that on our website, c-span.org. we're talking this morning about a front-page story from "the washington post" looking at earmarks and how members of congress send them home to their districts and how they might benefit from them by owning property nearby. jan? caller: it is not always about property. host: tell us more. caller: recently, i saw a congressman who owns ups stores who is also attacking the u.s. post office. those things do not make sense to me. also, this keystone pipeline is another good example. they are not telling us the truth about that.

i have an aunt who lives in canada who says they will not have that there. the oil sands erode the pipelines. we will not see that allele. it will be sold on the open markets. we need transparency. there are lots of things. i think that might expose a lot of conflict of interest. transparency is one thing they do not want in this congress for some reason. host: jan, as a republican, are you joining the caucuses today? caller: no, i am not. i am not happy with any of the republican candidates. i'm not sure what i'll do about that. host: really? what is it you are not seeing? what are you looking for? caller: we have a big religious right groups in colorado. i resent that. host: you feel like that is dominating local politics?

caller: absolutely. they have a lot of money. they get big tax breaks here. they're supposed to be doing charity and they're sending all the money to these superpacs. we're always having to deal with legislation with the religious right. i just find it really abhorrent. why should everybody suffer because the catholic church does not believe in birth control? host: you do not feel like any candidates are appealing to you at this point? caller: none of them. i am angry. host: let's get a comment from kenneth on twitter. host: in connecticut, a democratic colaller. good morning. caller: the first thing i have to say is i totally agree with joyce, a few calls back. seems like c-span place

republicans and republican topics. it has become a joke in our family to see which speaker will go on first. it's almost always the republican. i do not ever hear progressive issues being discussed -- or hardly ever. i would encourage all democrats to call in or send a message to c-span. as far less earmarks, i do not really understand what all the hoopla is about. this represents jobs for your district. we are talking about small contractors getting contracts. we are talking about the local economy selling goods and services. we are talking about tax dollars when people are employed. to me, it is kind of a non issue. i'm not certain when everybody gets into this. host: we are having a republican come on in a few moments. congressman john mica from florida. we are also having democratic congressman raul grijalva right

after that. he is a co-chair of the progressive caucus. you might be interested in that segment later on. caller: i certainly would be. i work. for me, the first segment is the only one i can watch. host: i am sorry you feel that way. you can find us on c-span.org. you can find "washington journal" there. we will take your comments under consideration, of course. this comment is from paul. one last comment. bob in florida writes -- thanks for all of your calls, e- mails, tweets, and facebook comments. coming up next, we will talk with congressman john mica about

faa reauthorization, which passed yesterday. we will be right back. ♪ >> n new america where freedom is made real for all without regard to race, belief, or economic conditions. [applause] >> i mean a new america which everlasting the attacks the

ancient idea that men can solve their districts -- their differences by killing each other. >> as candidates campaigned for president this year, we look back of 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c- span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the radical liberal left continue to offer only one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again -- we can spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman john mica, republican of florida, where he represents the seventh district. he is the chairman of the transportation and

infrastructure committee. good morning. guest: good to be with you. a little chilly in washington. i heard some of your preliminary talks about earmarks. we want to talk about infrastructure this morning, but a lot of exciting territory that you covered this morning. host: let's react to that for a moment. "the washington post" has a front-page story looking at the earmarks members direct home and making some correlations between where money is sent home and where members own property. tomorrow, "the washington post" will be looking at how members of congress might be helping out family members through bringing home the money to the local regions. what do you make of this? guest: well, you know, someone said that earmarks are a little bit like pornography. you know what it is when you see it. i think legislative earmarks -- there are some bad ones.

there can also be some good ones. everything congress does is earmarking. whether we put one line of taxpayer dollars dedicated to billions of what ever -- and then you have the alternative of turning that money over to the bureaucrats. there are dozens of buildings filled with regrets. there are a number of them in this congressional districts that make decisions. they can make bad decisions, too. i think the best thing is transparency in the process. when i became ranking member, i tried to clean up the process. i put all of the republican earmarks online. we had a vetting process. the had to be in on time. you had to sign disclosure. the nice thing about what i'm doing, the faa bill, and the transportation bill that we mark up in committee last week -- we do not have a single earmark. the faa bill is on its way to

the president today. the transportation bill, we did that in the house. we set an example with no earmarks. host: talk to us about the faa reauthorization that passed the senate last night it is. something you been working on. guest: the democrats were unable to pass an faa bill. i was the chair of the aviation subcommittee in 2001. in 2003, we did a four-year bill. that expired in 2007. democrats took over in 2008. for four years, even though the controlled huge majorities, they were not able to pass the bill. when i took over as chairman last year, i past several extensions and then i said, "this has to stop." the democrats had done 17 extensions. i cut out all ticket subsidies

in excess of $1,000. that raised havoc in the senate. they did not like it. it caused the partial shutdown of the faa, you may recall. it did prompt some action, i believe. that action was completed yesterday. the senate did not like what we were sending them. we have got some long-term stability to what accounts for about 11% of our domestic commercial and business activity in the united states. it is on its way. it is five years overdue. it is very important that we have the stability in place. host: you mentioned the debate, really the still made, that happened. congress went on recess without coming up with a plan for the faa.

guest: i passed on wednesday. they could have finished it by friday. they did not like the cutting of the $1,000 subsidies. one of the subsidies was $3720 per airline ticket. that's outrageous. two weeks to a doctor might extension with the cuts in it. -- to adopt my extension with the cuts in it. four years without a blueprint in place for what accounts for an important part of our economic activity is just not responsible. we have millions of people out of jobs. hundreds of thousands in the aviation industry. congress is fiddling while their

jobs are held hostage. i did what i had to do. that is not on its way to the president. i will do the same thing with the transportation bill, if necessary. we need to stop moving our -- stop messing around. host: secretary ray lahood was lifted in august. he blames you and other republicans in house. guest: he had complete control of the white house, complete control of the house of representatives for four years. he did nothing. one year later, i got it done. i am pleased with what republicans did. the first thing we did is we kept spending in check. the other thing we did -- we cut some of these outrageous subsidies and things of that sort. the other thing we did was next- generation air traffic control, which is so important to safety and everything. host: we will talk about that in a moment. senator rockefeller was critical at the time.

he was concerned about a multiyear extension from the house which will make it harder for airline and railroad workers to unionize. how do you overcome that impact? guest: the house passed one version of changing what the obama administration had backed, a new board, a national mediation board, which organizes for labor. they changed 70 years of labor law and said whoever shows up can force everybody to go to a union. the house voted to do away with that. john boehner worked with the senate leaders and others and came up with a compromise. then they added some common- sense reforms, like audits, like public hearings when the

national mediation board is doing hearings. those are some good fundamental compromises that i think will enhance the whole process, both for labor and for the american public. it is a compromise and i think it is a good one. host: a lot of comments in support from this faa reauthorization. the chairman of the committee who deals with labor issues did have some concerns about language in the bill on unions. let's listen to what he had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> so, these few powerful airlines weighs an unprecedented attack. first, they found some friends in congress. a law that allows congress to overturn a will to a resolution of disapproval. they lost that fight on the senate floor. next, they went to court to challenge the legality of the rule making. they lost that fight in the

district court and then they appeal to the court of appeals and a loss there, too. then they wage a last-ditch effort to kill the rule on this faa bill, which has nothing to do with it. again, this was not in the senate bill. the house put it on. a totally unrelated provision dealing with the national mediation board that is not even a part of the faa, and which is not in the jurisdiction of the two relevant committees. host: senator harkin of iowa. congressman john mica? guest: the obama administration changed 70 years of labor rules. i think the compromise that was reached was a fair compromise. to delay the process any more would be not in the best

interest of the american people. i was determined to move it forward. my concern is outrageous cost duplicate programs, less efficiency, and i think we were able to modify a law that i helped pass in 2003 that expired in 2007 that was long overdue. we got those reforms. they had to compromise, each side did, a little bit on the labor issue. host: 18 international union sent a letter to congress. they said -- guest: well, none of that happen, of course. the democrats, the democratic leadership helped workout this

compromise. i think it was a fair compromise. we got some transparency and this whole union election process. that's the way the airlines, many of them, are organized. yes, it does belong in it. yes, the house voted for probably tougher measures. we did not get those. the american people want us to get this work done and stop messing around. so much of the economy counts on it. host: let's hear from frank from myrtle beach on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: the last time you were on c-span, the question came up if you sign the northwest pledge. you said no. i looked up. you did. guest: i did not understand it as being from mr. norquist, but

you are correct, i did. apologize, if i misunderstood you of the time. someone asked me is a more question -- is that the same as what i did pledge to do. you are correct. i do not believe we need to increase taxes. caller: under any circumstances. guest: again, there are some cases in which you can look of some loopholes in tax laws then the reform. i would be open to that. again, if you look said the bills we are passing, the faa will -- we do not have tax increases in the pretext -- increases in that. we passed a bill on friday. we do not have tax increases in

that, nor do we have earmarks. you try to do your best to stick to those principles. host: let's hear from fairfax, virginia. rich, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is this business of about the $3,700 that they are given -- giving to passengers -- not passengers, i guess the airlines. i grew up in john stumpf, pennsylvania. the airport -- johnstown, pennsylvania. if the airport to grew like you wouldn't believe. he was in charge of the committee. the same thing you are doing, congressman hyde not understand

the idea of these subsidies to anyone. i owed a small business. i employed seven people. we do construction work. no one ever gave me a penny, nor do i want a petty. this stuff has to stop. i think the idea with the internet and social media -- you guys are under the microscope. i really hope that somewhere down the line, you can't put a stop to it. quit calling these things -- you can put a stop to it. guest: i did something to get this process moving, and there were some people on the senate side -- now, this is a per- airline ticket subsidy in excess of $1,000. that is what i put in the extension.

again, we are sent here to represent the american people. we have $17 trillion in debt. you have to start somewhere. i did the change the world, but we kept some of these subsidies, and kept the funding at a minimal, but responsible level. we reformed a lot of programs that we need to move forward on like changing to a gps air traffic control system. we have done those things, but i know it causes some heartburn to lose those subsidies, but it had to be done. host: covers and john mica represents for the's seventh district -- covers and john mica represents -- congressmen

john mica represents florida" seventh district. guest: from orlando to jacksonville. host: we're talking about the faa bill that passed yesterday. aviation news looks back in the minds that it has been five years of debate did 23 short- term extensions. guest: outrageous. host: what has been the effect of that? guest: the motivation i had to bring this to a halt last year is the former faa administrator said representative mica, these are impossible to deal with. that sets the blueprint for the matter in which at a proceeds. -- faa proceeds. the have extensions, some that

were a couple of weeks, and he said it cost millions of dollars. that, along with waiting four years for the democrats, enough is enough. you have to get the people's business done. some people to not like some of the provisions, but maybe that is good when everyone is a little upset. host: steve, phoenix, independent line. caller: three cheers for c's bid and the american public. the last time you were on i was fortunate enough to get through, and i asked you if mexican truck drivers would be paid the same as indebted states americans, a new set the mexican trucker -- united states americans, you said the mexican

truckers would be paid the same. why are we? in the savings that we should with cheaper motor -- seeing the savings that we should? was notthat issue brought up. the administration has been working on some rules. this administration in the past administration have tried to govern that issue. but a lot of the terms of that relate back to nafta, and allowing some of the inter- country transport of vehicles. we did not address that in the correct transportation bill. i would say state-owned. the bill will probably go to the floor next week. host: save less, the surrey,

richard, democrats lied -- saint louis, missouri, richard, democrats line. caller: everyone gets in there, and they go to earmarks for their district. they did in there and they want to do this and that, and nothing ever happens. i do not care for republicans, democrats. they are all americans. guest: let me respond. things have been done differently in the past under the former chairman where people in leadership positions. interest petition, the biggest guerrilla -- . transportation, the biggest guerrilla walked away with the

most bananas. that is not the way i crafted this bill. we listened to concerns. they did not want special provisions. we crafted the bill without earmarks, without tax increases, and we listened to the people in speeding up the process and streamlining the red tape that local and governments get through. everyone gets treated fairly and equally. i know it is hard for him to believe this. we actually increased the states' return on their share. most of this money is when you fill up guess, and it goes into the trust fund, and we decide how it is distributed and what products are eligible. there are no earmarks. there is an increased contribution.

there are no big car routes for people that had all these ways of doing it. i'm just telling you the way it is, and the way i have been able to bring it to the floor, and it is an honest, fair, but new way. host: tell us about next-gen? who will benefit financially? guest: right now we have a pre- world war ii ground-based radar system that controls aviation. most people have gps equipment, sometimes under cell phone, or whatever. sometimes the average person has more sophisticated equipment and our civil aviation planes. we want to go to a satellite-

based system. then, we can know where planes are. we can fly them closer, safer. we can save fuel. it can have savings for the consumer. there are so many things that are bringing us into this new era of the aviation. we have milestones in the bill. we put someone in charge. as far as anyone benefiting, who will benefit is the american people. there have been many contractors and others involved in developing the software and the system. it's called the contract has not been signed? -- host: the contract has not yet been signed? guest: there are people working of the development, the we have done as much as we can without setting milestones. there are multiple agencies. they are making certain that this moves forward in good

fashion. so, there is great benefit. as far as jobs in america, first of all, the biggest employment area as far as exporting is aviation. our planes, our aviation system, and everything, that is the biggest export item that we have. if we want to stay ahead of this in the future, the u.s. has to develop these systems, otherwise we will be buying them from the european union, china, or someplace else. this is a world competitive issue, and we are managing to stay ahead. this sets the blueprint for that effort. host: the faa says these are some of the benefits, as by 2015 there should be $18 billion sales

host: explained, technically -- explained, technically. guest: we can do some direct things. safety is one of my primary concerns and one of the faa's primary concerns. we need to know where they are on the air and on the ground. if i know where they are on the ground, i have less chance of the incursion. this, from a number of standpoints is a win-win. host: one story on the internet says booz allen hamilton has a 10-year contract, and there are other companies that have gotten a cut of this so far. guest: many people will benefit. the other thing i'm trying to do

is keep at bay from tried to develop the system. i have been be around when they try to do things. they'd do it over and over and it costs a great money. the government cannot develop these things. the private sector can do it if it has value and they have the opportunity to put it on the market. they will develop them, and it will be used. when the government does it, it is such a convoluted, but expensive process. host: from twitter -- guest: no, it will not. it is probably more like 15 years. it is a massive change out. we are talking about equipment, towers, and on every aircraft. you have to have the aircraft

equipped to know where it is. host: let's hear from omaha, neb., where john joins us on the republicans line. caller: i do not follow transportation worked closely, and i hope you have not already answered this question, but can you explain the purpose of the ticket subsidy again? guest: there are some rural areas, and congress started a small program, about $50 million, which is still a lot of money, to help underwrite service to areas you can not get to buy any other means -- alaska, hawaii, some of the areas out west, and some of the rural towns. that program mushroomed dramatically. we had so many signing up for

it, and it quadrupled in the money we were spending, and some of the subsidies went as high as $3,720 a ticket. i when i -- when i cut that off, that broke loose. some people benefited. you cannot continue these gross subsidies. most of transportation is subsidized in some way. we are trying to ween off of that. we have a limited where there is close service, too. anyone eligible for that subsidy. you have to start somewhere, and i tried to do that in our aviation programs. host: lynn, boston, an independent scholar. caller: you are talking about

subsidies, and the things you are doing politically. i have been a republican most of my life, and i went independent. i am concerned about what i'm hearing about you and agenda 21 to the council on foreign relations, that they're really trying to turn us into a global, one-world government. i really want to know how democrats and republicans are not on the same page with this? people need to find out about you when the agenda 21. they are doing it with non- political means. check of denver, colorado. they have an underground plant going on. i think everyone ought to find out about the.

why does the patriot act call people looking for gold potential terrorists? we do not get our rights read anymore. what are your leaders doing to us? i was the most devout republican my whole life. guest: well, but thank you, and one of our most fundamental responsibilities is to maintain individual rights and american sovereignty. i try to work towards that. some people have a different opinion and believed it differently. thank you for bringing your viewpoint forward this morning. host: florida, louise, a democratic caller. caller: when president obama

first off as one of his goals was a high-speed rail canada that would have generated many jobs. florida was offered funds. representative mica and governor scott turned it down, and instead they are building a small rail that goes through a winter park, where you live, representative mica, and it is not really sufficient. because we are stuck with republicans who are against anything that is all, we are stuck with a chuchu trade instead of high-speed rail. guest: thank you for your call. i thought we had someone that

wants to move forward in president obama. what they did was spend the money on projects that were not high-speed. it was sort of a bait and switch. on a number of those projects, the money was returned. i did not return the money. governor scott did. that was not a high-speed rail project. it was about 80 miles an hour. high-speed is 110 miles an hour. the ohio project went from 39, to maybe 49 miles per hour. most were 78 miles per hour. that is not high-speed rail. the rail line that runs through central florida, i have to correct the lady, it does run to the orlando airport. there is a stock that surge the airport. it will connect the tourist area. they are doing it in a phase, a

reasonable process. the state bought the right of way. that was not my choice. i do back the project because the aligned does go through all of the communities and it does provide some transit alternatives. i am a supporter of transportation projects where they make sense, and it is very cost effective, half the cost of auto buses currently running. host: covers and john mica represents for the's seventh district. -- congress and john mica of represents florida's seventh district and is the chairman of the infrastructure committee and the oversight and government reform committee. he is serving his 10th term. as a reauthorization passed the senate yesterday. it goes to the president.

from "usa today." guest: that is very important. there have been questions about how we run drones. some incredible things have been taking place. there have been runs already. one was from australia to the united states, a cargo aircraft without a pilot. the pilot might not be the plane, but someone can control somewhere else. we are entering a new era we would like to see drones used, but we want to see them used safely. this sets up regimes and regulations in which they would fly. the last thing you want is conflict with passenger aircraft, or endangering the safety of the skies.

host: deity joins us from louisville, ky. -- guinea joins us from louisville, ky. tired airlinery pilot. in the last eight years of my -- i am a retired airline pilot. in the last eight years i training -- i got into training. i was a pileup at carnival airlines when we went from nine you did to you in. there was a lot of resistance -- when from nonunion to union. when the union came in, it was unbelievable how everything changed. before the union came in, pilots would be pressured by dispatch or operations to fly with less

fuel than what the pilots thought necessary, or had to stretch duty times by saying this is rest, even though it did even though it was actually getting to the -- even though it was actually getting to the hotel. seniority issues, they would upgrade captains based more on the stocks that did the stuff they wanted to do. now, there are all whole lot of people that got the value jet situation, the way they were operating before the crash in the everglades was because they were not heeded. if anyone mentioned unions they were out the door. it kind of contributed to, you

know, and error of doing what the company wants, or losing your job. host: stay with us for a moment if you can. we will get a response from john mica in a moment, but i wanted to ask you, there is a story i am reading from nbc looking at the faa facing a shortage of air traffic controllers. is this something you saw as your phasing out your career? caller: i spent the last eight years in the airline crew training. i was not doing a lot of active flying. coincidentally, where i was doing a lot of the training, they had an air traffic control school there, too, one of the few that there is. of course, it was a school, so they were looking for as many

students as they possibly could. it is pretty easy to tell if you do not have enough of them. guest: i think he raises some good points. we just about all the legislation i have work done, i think workers do need to preserve the right to belong to a union. what we had here was a case in which it is organization rules, and how you organize. for 70 years, you had to have a majority of those who belong to the union show off and actually vote to go into the union. they changed that to whoever showed up. if you had a thousand workers,

and 200 came, 101 could vote. i think it is reasonable to hold the referendum. they will be represented. it will not interfere. you cannot just keep calling elections and keep everything in turmoil. you have to have some stability. with union representation, we have to be fair to workers who want to join the unions and that whole process in which you organize, and keep it transparent. host: to you agree with the caller, as he brought up something said have been proved by the union.

it improved by the union. guest: -- that has been improved by the union. guest: we have not had an accident with a major aircraft in the united states since december, 2001. in smaller aircraft, we have, and we found out the situation he describes, not enough breast, et cetera, was taking place. we have -- not enough rest, but senator, was taking place. at the institution has administered some roles. after we did some of that, i said we cannot put a chocolate under every pilot's pillow. i get some comments about that. we can only do so much. people have to act responsible. if they're out partying, and

show up not rested come i can't -- rested, i cannot control that. host: melody is in new orleans, a democratic color. -- caller. caller: if republicans are so interested in jobs, why did you not pass the president's jobs bill that allows teachers to continue teaching in the schools? why did you not pass the part of the jobs bill that helps the infrastructure in this country? it helps the companies in this country. i would like the representative 's comment on that. guest: i was there when it passed the infrastructure bill. they called it stimulus.

as it and the death, we only had 7% of -- as it ended up, we only had 7%. you can't throw money -- you can throw money at all kinds of projects, but unless you get the money on good projects and in an expedited fashion, it will not be effected in putting people to work. because of streamlining the process, after 2.5 years, there was still 35% less to the treasury last october. they could not spend it because of the paperwork. the great thing about our bill

is we streamline the process. this is the streamlining process. it takes seven or eight years to get the approvals done. host: we are looking at the current process for highway projects? this is what you are going for? guest: we are not running over environmental process approvals, but we are saying is you can do six things concurrently rather than consecutively. -- we can do things concurrently rather than consecutively. this is the current number of programs. this is the bureaucracy we have built at six programs fills an entire page. this is what we are proposing. i have shifted the to the transportation bill, which will be taken up in the house, probably, next week. we have expedited the process,

and then we consolidated, streamlined, and reform some of the programs. we have cut out the earmarks and sending money into the trust fund, and back to the states. it is at least 94 cents for every state. guest: well, there are differences of opinion on how to fund that. we passed our bill out of committee. we do not raise money out of our committee. that is done by ways and means, and in this case energy and commerce.

they have a two-year bill that runs the trust fund. we have a five-year bill that is paid for. host:, a republican in indiana. caller: we talk about cutting fuel costs for the airlines and stuff. why don't we just get the speculator is not out? i can watch the oil on the market. we need washington, d.c., a democrat, republican, independent, to get these people out of there. the speculators are ruining the country. the oil companies are making record profits and they're ruining the economy guest: i think the man is correct my -- correct. my committee does not deal specifically with that issue,

but i have to deal with the money that comes into the trust fund. others deal with the speculation. part of that is demand, and some speculation on the availability. our bill deals also, i think, with trying to russ -- responsibly fund transportation. we do have a shortfall in the trust fund because cars are driving further, paying less, and we need additional revenues. republicans have said if we could develop more domestic energy sources, and take royalties off of that, in use that towards transportation, now you are paying at the pump. there would be paid at the source, and directing that properly. instead, and now we're taking money from the general revenue and barley 43 cents on the

dollar. that has to stop -- barley and 43 cents of the dollar. that has to stop. we hope they can find irresponsible way, and we can have a meeting of the mine -- find a responsible way. we need to have a mean of the mines. it is not how much you spend, but how you spend it, and we have been wasting a lot of it. host: congressman john mica, thank you for joining us. coming up, we will be talking with congressman raul grijalva of arizona. first, this news update. >> adopted on the situation in syria from the french foreign ministry announced that france is recalling its ambassador to syria for consultation because of the continued crackdown.

a spokesman says the french embassy in damascus will remain open. the announcement comes as other western powers including britain, the united states, and italy have called back their convoys in the wake of violence in the country. a spokesman for the egyptian embassy confirms that an egyptian delegation scheduled to meet with senators carl levin and john mccain are cancelling those meetings after 19 americans, including the son of transportation secretary ray lahood were referred to criminal court for trial. word from the white house was the crackdown could threaten the country's $1.3 billion in annual military aid. iran is dismissing the stations on tehran with the foreign ministry say they are part of a

psychological war. he insists the measures will not halt the nuclear program. washington ordered the new penalties monday, giving u.s. banks additional powers to freeze assets with to the iranian government. meanwhile, iran put the government has summoned on the did the shot -- present time the division. it is the first 17 of its kind since 1979. -- summoning of its kind since 1979. >> i need a new america where freedom is made real for all without regard to race, belize, or economic condition. [applause] >> i need a new america which

the everlasting league attacks the ancient idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> as president candidate's campaign for president this year, if we look back at 49 better ran for president and lost. you can see video of the contenders. >> got profits of the radical liberal left continue to offer only one solution to the project -- problems that could suck -- confront us. they tell us that we should spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> cspan.org/thecontenders. >> "washington journal"

continues. >> we are joined by congressman raul grijalva from arizona to talk about a hearing today on the national labor relations board recent recess appointments. the question that will be asked today is whether the appointments that president obama did at the beginning of last month are legal. are they legal? guest: i absolutely believe they were legal. one has to put this in the context of history. president reagan made 240 recess appointments. george w. bush made 171. president obama to this point has made 32. the cry and the posturing about these appointments, they have to do more with the political situation, in which president obama's appointments in the

senate are stagnated. they're not moving at all. these are critical appointments. the board cannot function with to the the wall members, and the three appointments the president made a short we will have a functioning majority on that board. one of the people appointed has been waiting says generic, 2011. if it is a critical board -- since january, 2011. it is a critical board, and i am glad the president moved forward. there was a board established for the purpose of dealing with suppliers and employees and protecting basic laws. i am glad he made them. host: the three appointments we are talking about our sharon block, terence flynn, and richard griffin. we will do the lines differently if you have questions about the

national labor relations board for congressman raul grijalva. 2026280184 if you are a union household. a lot of the questions comes down to whether the congress was in recess when these appointments were made was congress legally in recess? -- made. was congress legally in recess? guest: i believe we were in recess. we're waiting for some action, but we were in recess, and that is a legally defensible position. we do not have a constitutional crisis in front of us.

we have the stubbornness and the political posturing on the part of the senate not to move any appointments. this is one in which quite obviously all across the country we are having issues in my state, michigan, ohio, in dealing with the rights of employees, the rights of workers in the workplace, and this is part of the agenda of trying to eliminate the ability of working folks to have a right and they say, in to be able to deal with issues of safety i see this as part of the anti-labour, anti- union agenda that has been part of the republican mantra for 18 months. host: you are saying they were in recess even though they were in a pro forma session?

guest: yes, we were in recess, waiting for action. i really believe that those are not only legally defensible, but under the executive authority of the present, he made them correctly. host: i want to go to a column by former u.s. attorney general and a former lawyer in the office of legal counsel in "the washington post." they talk about the cause in the constitution that relates to whether congress in which it is in session. -- congress is in session. it says the house republicans in the consent to a recess of more than three days, so the senate must have some sort of session every few days. that was the pro forma session. the present and anyone else

they object, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, and the senate did pass a bill on december 23, a matter the president's took notice appeared guest: i believe it was in the president's constitutional authority to make those appointments. i believe it is indefensible. there are corresponding views that insist that his actions were correct. it will be litigated, but the fact remains that at some bad recess appointment that the president made -- and said that recent appointment that the president made, we would still

be talking about the possibility of an appointment to the national labor relations board which no baugh -- with no approval be made by the senate. host: did the president give the senate enough time to consider this? two of the appointees were just nominated the month before. you are certain they would not have picked up these them the nation's? guest: we have had one waiting says jerry of 2011. following the -- since january, 2011. following the pattern of obstruction, of holding off any appointments the president might have, whether they be judicial, agencies, commissions, boards, the pattern has been said that the senate republicans are not going to concede any -- the senate republicans are not going to concede any appoint an

suppressant. it is a critical board. without those appointments we would still be sitting waiting for the senate to act, and the senate will not act until after the 20 12th election, in which they hope to have -- 2012 election, which they hope to have a president. host: was this a win for the union? guest: to have a functional labor relations board, yes. i consider since the 1930's have been the bedrock for workers functional, yes, it is a win. host: i want to get a response from presidential candidate mitt romney recently. [video clip] >> you are seeing the president taking his friends and putting them into positions of power, and the most egregious example is the national labor relations

board, where he is paying back organized union labor by taking you did stooges, putting them into the national labor relations board, so they will do his bidding and follow his policy is. guest: i think mr. romney has to go back to the point about the context of history. i do not see him criticizing any potential stooges that president reagan or president bush might have put with the numerous bruises upon as they did during their tenure. like i said, this is geared toward an agenda that is very much anti-labour and anti-union, and quite frankly, anti- employee, and anti-worker. the comments that romney made are reminiscent of what we will get at the hearing today, and also reminiscent of the agenda that has been out there for the last 18 months and aggressively

pursued by the republican party. host: there is a full hearing today in tide of the national labor relations board recess appointments, implications for america's workers and employees. let's go to the phones. on our union is herald, for mobile, alabama. caller: wire the democrats -- why are the democrats not standing by the president, mateys recess appointments, and bring us a jobs bill to the senate floor so we can get jobs? we need jobs. growth is jobs. the of the planned rate will come down. -- the unemployed rate will come down. to a paucity choice. we are hurting out here -- give

us a choice. we are hurting out here. please. guest: i couldn't agree with him more. on more than one year of no jobs agenda. what we have was distractions. this hearing today is about distracting the real issue in america, which is people need good jobs. the president presented a jobs bill. progressive caucus and others have presented a jobs bill. it would really create jobs in this country. the fact that we now find ourselves having to deal with an issue today at this hearing, as opposed to talking about the constructive steps that can be taken on a bipartisan level to create real jobs and having the government invested putting people to work, this gentleman's

frustration is the frustration shared by many americans. why is the congress not doing something about putting people off to work? president obama -- h -- host: president obama put out an ad. [video clip] >> there is more work to do, but you might be surprised to see the progress we've made. help spread the word. host: can you talk a little bit about president obama's jobs proposal? guest: there is a constructive role the federal government can do in creating the opportunity for input in this country, primarily dealing with issues of its structure, putting people to work to fix america's losing investment, which is our major roads, our highways, our

physical and the structure in this nation, our schools, sewer treatment plants, etc. that would create the jobs that are necessary. the progressive caucus has talked about creating 5 million jobs over three years, again, making investments in with the american people need right now, and that is to renew america. if people are working we will get out of the recession quicker. private-sector jobs are going up, and that is good news. the game this last quarter was significant -- gained this last quarter was significant. there have been corresponding losses of public-sector jobs that are vital to this nation. if those jobs are stabilized, you would see the unemployment rate dropp.

host: we are talking to raul grijalva. let's go back to the phones. paul, tennessee. good morning. republican line. caller: i have a problem with this fellow. this is how unions work i work down here for tva. at the end of the fiscal year they tell us to go hide so they can make sure to spend all their money, so they can ask the federal government for more money. then they have to pay off these union dues, and they are telling them that they're keeping them a job. they are keeping them a job while they are putting four people in the poorhouse. minimum-wage is sitting at $7 an

hour. i did not see how white person could make it. the unions are nothing but -- how a single person could make it. the unions are nothing but crux, along with the president. guest: anecdotal -- that is an anecdotal it simple, and i do not know whether that is a fact or not, but i believe very strongly, in my father was in the union his whole life, have brought dignity, a sense of fairness into the workplace. i would hate to return to the times were people had no recourse but to take what they were given. the wage disparity he talks about has been increasing in this country. working families, middle-class, have seen their earning power and their wage decrease.

it has been done because one of the issues in which a profit blind is increased is diminishing the wage earner's ability to earn that money, lowering wages. unions representing -- represent -- and it is a democratic process, you can choose to be, or not to be. he has every right to decide he does not want to. if the majority of the work force decides they want to have representation, they should be entitled to it, and that allows them a place set the table. my dad was a laborer. he used to tell me that they might work me like a dog, but they have to treat me like a man. i think that is a key part of the existence of unions.

host: could you explain more a bottle of the national labor relations board? -- role of the marriage to live relations board? -- national labor relations board? guest: there has been an effort to keep workers out of labor relations peg the national labor relations board allows a balance. if you want to have an election deciding if they want to be represented by a union organization, those disputes are arbitrated. also before the board comes the question of fairness, access to the worker, and various other issues. key to that is to allow the democratic spirit in the workplace to take place, and to allow workers to choose whether they want to or not.

host: democrats line, new work, the delaware. caller: i would like to ask about the faa bill. it seems like one of the biggest union-busting deals i have seen in quite awhile. did that bill not take out collective bargaining for the unions? host: bofa a bill? guest: i voted against it because it made the process of representation even more difficult. it would be akin to us have been stripped away our ability to go to the ballot box in choose who we want to represent us in congress. it is the same democratic principle. what the faa did is they get more difficult for unions to be able to organize, to call for an

election. it said the state girds for participation higher, and overall it made it more -- set the standards for participation higher cut and overall it made it more difficult. all we are talking about is choice. we're not talking about being forced to do one thing or another. all of us as americans like, respect, and part of our tradition is we get to choose. a uniont's go to household. gland is from lancaster, california. good morning. caller: hello, raul. this union thing -- my dad was in the you did for 46 years. i was in the union off and on for six-to-10 years in the

workforce. i'm a carpenter in california. our union meetings are being held spanish. i do not understand it. host: what do not understand about you give issues? caller: budget is like the dream act thing the u.s. pushed instead of creating jobs. i just did not understand what you guys are doing up there. you're not helping the american citizens. you're helping the people from other countries, like this health-care bill. it is just to hide the illegal immigrants. i am also a native american, mr. raul grijalva. guest: we all go through significant changes in this country.

as a native american, i think the gentleman should know that in my state it took a supreme court decision in 1948 to allow native americans to vote in the state of arizona. we have all been through struggles, and the fact that some union halls provide multi- language and communication reflects their membership. we have multi-language ballots. diversity in the workplace, and give our society, it is part of reality. we can put our head in the sale and it and pretend it is not here, or we can all understood that reality can't accommodate can't integrate back into our society. -- reality and accommodate and integrate that into our society. in order to fully communicate,

and have everyone understood what they are voting on, it is appropriate and necessary step. host: carl, a republican from burlington, n.c.. caller: did the democrats not use the same tactic during the bush administration, which the bush administration respected? secondly, is it ought to the president of the bed states to decide whether the senate is in recess or not -- is it up to the president of the bed states to decide by the senate is in recess or not? guest: the second question will be up to litigation. president george w. bush made 171 recess appointments. i would think the gentleman will understand the need for president obama's to move his appointments in the recess for

things as critical as the national labor relations board, so the administration can function. if the rationale on one hand for bullish was there was obstruction of the democrats' side, so we had to make them, i would suggest the same criteria would apply in the case of president obama. host: on the legal challenge is coming up, this is a letter from 39 republican senators. they say that we believe that the appointment of individuals to lead the consumer protection bureau and national labor relations board are unconstitutional. we intend to file a brief. let's go to david and the independent line from las vegas, nevada. caller: congressman represent

arizona, i was wondering what you feel about the merger with the u.s. airlines, but to live with the pilots and mechanics, do you think guest: that was a decision to consolidate and you can see that with unions across the country in which there is consolidation because either they are representing like-workers, whether it is the machinists union, or any other union. those consolidations are made in an effort to have a stronger presence in the workplace and in an effort to be more efficient. beyond that, i do not know the internal decision making for that, so i cannot comment on that part. as a strategic step, i have no

problem with it. host: an e-mail here. guest: well, you know, there are people that will claim -- individuals that will claim, "i am a job creator. i have created x-amount of jobs in a given community." all that money used as job creation momentum came from the federal government in the taxpayer.

for us to say we are going to rebuild our roads, that contractor that gets that contract to rebuild roads in a given community will be generating and creating jobs. you cannot define what is a taxpayer dollar that is good money being spent versus bad. in terms of unionization, the history of this wage disparity. wages decrease in this country and so did the disparity. there's a role for unions. that role is very much a part of our democratic tradition. they are part and parcel of making sure that the workplace is safe and that people have a living wage in the place that she worked.

the public sector has a role. the fireman, the policeman, the nurse, the care giver -- they are our neighbors. they were for the government faugh -- they work for the government. to make two sides, good workers versus bad workers, i think that's a mistake. host: kentucky. doug on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make comments about the unions and the gentleman from tennessee. he said that created minimum wage law. he better learn a little bit more about things.

i was a union member for 40 years. i worked for the united autoworkers and everything. they brought our business into their areas to help create their economic areas. furthermore, if he ever worked in a coal mine for 50 cents per day, then he will learn to respect the unions. host: doug from kentucky. guest: the union-bashing an anti-union fervor and even frenzy that's going on right now is a blame game. let's blame the unions for our economic woes. let's blame immigrants for our

economic woes. that blame game gets us diverted into fighting among ourselves when we have common issues that we need to deal with, as opposed to really dealing with the crux of what got us into this mess. history has a short memory. the job creators that mitt romney and the presidential candidates talked about were also the job-shrinkers. they took jobs overseas. they got tax breaks unbelievably. the top 1% got richer in the last 10 years. federally, we find ourselves wanting to create a balance to create jobs for people who love and hurting -- people who have been hurting or are underpaid. i think there is a middle ground. the middle ground is you have to respect the fact that we need a real jobs bill.

not only the progressive caucus, but others, are promoting a real jobs bill that will put america to work. host: bring it back to and -- to the national labor relations board and the president's appointments. "the washington times" from february 5. host: concerned about that going forward? guest: obviously concerned about that. there has been so many important issues before this board that have been waiting and waiting to have full membership. now you have that point

litigated as we go along. host: we're already starting to see some of those cases going through. this is a labor fight in brooklyn from "bloomberg business" this week. guest: that will be the whole litigation find that we spoke about earlier. i'm confident imports the president did its -- confidenct the president did it legally. i think it needs to make decisions, if those decisions are to be tested later in court. that is the process that we have inappropriately so in this nation. now that it is a full board, in

needs to start dealing with the huge backlog that it has in front of it. caller: good morning. representative, you -- you said the republicans were blocking it. it [inaudible] is inactive in the senate. you also said the house has done nothing. i have heard different republicans say that i think 20

or more bills have been passed out of the house and are waiting for the senate to take action. guest: the house of representatives has not dealt with a real jobs bill. it has not dealt with the progressive caucus is request. it has not filled with the president's request that he made of the state of the union address. those have not been tested. i would say the republican leadership in the house of representatives, and that's where i work, and bring it to the floor and let a decision be made and let the american people judge who is making decisions on behalf of putting people to work and who is not. if we are talking about 20 bills, and i fear that a lot from republican leadership -- how is increasing the levels of mercury in water and emissions from a polluting plant going to

create jobs? it is going to create other consequences that will cost the taxpayer money in the health- care area. how will that create jobs? how is undoing environmental laws and labor laws across this nation going to create one iota of jobs? is that when to make an industry hire more? i doubt it. will that bring additional cost to the taxpayer in terms of health costs and safety costs? yes. labor protections for the working person have nothing to do with job creation. this is the investment we are making and these are the jobs we are going to create for the american people. the decision has yet to be made. host: back to our union line.

robert is from nashville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i did want to defend tennessee in saying that everyone in tennessee is not a redneck. i am a teamster. i've been a teamster all my life. i'm 55 years old. i made a good living in the union. if it were not for ronald reagan, there would be a lot of young men out here working in unions instead of splitting in prisons right now from slinging dope because they could not find a job that paid more than $4 per hour. for anybody that goes out here in gets a job, when you get a raise, it's because of the teamsters broke their backs to go out here and do what they had to do. anybody that does not believe that is too ignorant to understand. ronald reagan is the one who

started this union-busting business. that was eight years of that. clinton did not help a lot by passing nafta, because he let all the labor laws slide through the cracks in order to get it passed. it has never changed. obama has not done enough to earn the union vote. host: robert, a strong defender of the unions in nashville, tenn.. guest: like i said earlier, and there's a historic context to this. the history of union and organized labour in this country have contributed mightily to the economic prosperity and to the strength of this nation.

host: howard on the republican line from marietta, california. go ahead, howard. are you there? we will get back to howard. let's go to emily on the line for democrats from little rock, arkansas. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am a first-time caller. i have been watching your show many times. this time, i had to call in. i want to thank you, mr. raul grijalva. i am a flight attendant with a major airline. i've been a flight attendant for approximately 36 years. i'm 63 years old. i've been a union member my entire year. i want to thank you very much for your stance for the unions and for union workers. i wanted to bring up about the

faa bill -- i have called my representatives from arkansas and i e-mailed my representatives. i do that when issues come up regarding my career. i have insisted that they vote against the bill. i have not been able to go on to see if they voted for or against the bill. i did see that it was passed. i feel awful about that. it is a terrible union-busting bill. i am sure it had a lot of provisions that the faa needed, but the problem of them having things that would bust the union -- i was totally against. now it seems that we have no recourse when contracts come up to make our jobs better. what am i supposed to do? what are we supposed to do now

that this bill has passed? guest: the legislation passed. that passage, like many pieces of legislation, unfortunately, that we get in the house, there's always a necessity for legislation over all. it has not been passed. then you make it difficult for people such as myself to support legislation that is needed, because we put poison pills to route that legislation. the issue with unions in that legislation, some safety issues in that legislation that caused a significant number of people to vote against it. where we go from here, -- i, let's go back to -- i believe we should go back to the national labor relations board, so there's an arbitrator to be able to take issues such as yours, issues of representation, issues

of being able to negotiate a fair and decent working conditions and wages, so we have an arbitrator. that is why did these opponents -- these appointments are so critical given all that's going on to have a board that will function as an arbitrator and as a balance. host: in what will happen at the hearing. congressman, we have to leave its there. thank you for your time. next, a discussion on the role of the federal election commission. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> an update on relations between the united states and pakistan. two officials speaking

anonymously earlier today say willgeneral james madiso meet with pakistan's army chief to talk about the investigation into the air strike that killed 22. he would be the first high- ranking official to visit since the air strikes, which prompted pakistan to close its border to u.s. war supplies headed for afghanistan returning to economic issues, uncertainty over the greek crisis has markets lower. papademos is holding talks with three main political parties, hoping to reach agreement on austerity measures, which have been demanded by the country's rescuers, in exchange for a roughly $171 billion bailout. government and private-sector workers are striking in a day of protest against the planned to cut 15,000 jobs and cut down the minimum wage.

no arrests or injuries have been reported. dow futures are down 12.3 and more on the economy at 10:00 a.m. eastern when fed chairman ben bernanke testifies before the senate banking committee. economists expect no changes in the fed's efforts to boost the economy and keep interest rates at a low level until 2014. you can hear bernanke testifying live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> a new america where freedom is made real for all, without regard for race or economic conditions. [applause] a new america which everlasting

the attacks the ancient idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c- span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders to have a lasting influence on american politics. >> continue to offer only one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again that we should spend out of troubles and are spent -- and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're joined now by

melanie sloan, executive director of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, who is leading a petition asking president obama to fix the federal election commission. guest: citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington -- the federal election commission in recent years has refused to act on almost anything. five of the six commissioners are sitting despite expired terms. it's up to president obama to nominate new commissioners. host: what is the purpose of the federal election commission? guest: this is one of the important government agencies americans do not know about. fec was created post-watergate to deal with campaign finances and it monitors are campaign --

campaign contributions. they are supposed to monitor to make sure everybody plays by the same rules. they are doing a lousy job of it, frankly. we're seeing millions and millions of dollars -- this presidential election will undoubtably run to over $1 billion because of all the money pouring in. the fec is basically just sitting it out. host: the history of the federal election commission. it was created by congress in 1975. it's an independent regulatory agency disclosing campaign finance information. it also has an enforcement arm. the enforcement to enforce

limits and contributions. talk about the judicial role of the fec. guest: the fec is supposed to enforce campaign finance laws. there are contribution limits. all of these things are supposed to be monitored here by the fec. when they violate the rules, the fec is supposed to step in. groups like mine, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, routinely filed complaints with the the federal election commission against candidates who have violated the rules. it is the fec's job to enforce the law. one of the problems with the commission, it's made of three democrats and three republicans and yet you need four votes in order to accomplish anything. host: we are with melanie sloan with citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington.

we're going to do the phone lines standard this time. host: melanie sloan, you talked about that some of the commissioners of the fec terms are expired. how are they still able to serve? guest: they are allowed to serve until their replacements, and. there have been no replacements even nominated. this is something we're very critical of president obama for. there have been a lot of problems with campaign finance. the citizens united decision has changed the election landscape dramatically. congress has refused to pass any campaign financial information. president obama came in on a pledge of campaign finance reform and he has not really

follow through. a lot of groups, including common cause, public citizens, have all been pushing this petition. the white house has set up a petition process whereby if you can get 20,000 signatures, the president will respond to your question. we put together a commission asking the president why he has not nominated new the fec commissioners and asking him to do so. host: talk about the citizens united decision. you are very critical of the decision. there are people out there who say more money and helps more people get involved in politics, can get the message out to more people. is it not getting more people involved? guest: i do not think too many americans feel like they are not seen enough negative campaigns. we are seeing, for example, a

contribution of $10 million to a superpac for newt gingrich that has basically allowed newt gingrich tuesday in the race. it used to be that candidates needed to get money from small donors across the country in order to show that they have some support for a presidential election. yet, newt gingrich has brought in almost no money. that lack of support would generally force people to give out of the race. and yet, mr. gingrich is still in the race. the citizens united decision is allowing billionaires' and multimillionaire's to have much more influence. host: we want to get your reaction to a story on the front page of "the new york times" this morning. the headline --

host: does this article concern you because the obama campaign has not taken money from some of these pacs in the past? guest: in the first campaign, he did not want to see that kind of money spent in the campaign. he wanted to control his own message.

this election cycle, we've seen so much money poured into restore our future, mitt romney's superpac, and newt gingrich's superpac. given the huge influx of money, president obama's finally concedes that if he does not take the money from the superpacs, it would be at a considerable disadvantage. host: say louis, missouri. caller: with all the money that pours in, but little man does not have a chance. what about a corn -- about acorn? guest: i agree with you that the regular person has been sidetracked in this will nomination process. now we see independent

expenditures made by these superpacs on behalf of congressional candidates, as well. congressmen and congresswomen are now more concerned with special interests than they are with the interest of regular americans. they're constantly raising money. the money has totally over power of our political system. host: james on twitter writes -- is that possible, to abolish the fec. guest: john mccain calls the fec a little agency that cannot. it has really been a disaster. the formation was a good idea of. the way it is currently constituted, with three republicans and three democrats means they really cannot get anything done. it's time to consider abolishing the fec and starting over with a new type of system that would better enforced our campaign finance laws.

host: wasn't the commission set up so one party could not punish the other, to force them to make decisions in a bipartisan fashion, and that just has not happened? guest: that did work until 2009. at that time, senator senator mitch mcconnell, the minority leader, had appointed several republican commissioners who had said flat out said they do not believe in enforcing campaign finance law. they were led by tom delay's finance lawyer. he has said he does not believe in campaign finance regulations and will not enforce them. he believes his job is to help republicans. host: a few facts on the fec commissioners themselves. no more than three can represent the same political party. they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the president. at least four votes are required for any official action.

back to the phones. line. is on the democrats' good morning. caller: good morning. that was interesting information she just gave to us. did my thing is that -- my thing is that people who say they hate government in that government is too big, why aren't they in government? all they do is destroy those things that are supposed to help us and then they turn around and say, "see, government does not work." one last thing. i feel like -- america, if you do not understand what the unions were for, this race to the bottom is going to destroy us. talk about being in this of money that the rich have -- you won't get any money. guest: i think the caller may

have been more to your earlier conversation. host: warren on the line for independents from delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. the democrats are not as the lesser evil. it seems like the republicans does everything for the rich and then trickled down. all the money that accumulated, they are not spending that money investing in america. host: are you concerned about federal election commission. caller: i was a speaking about the economy. host: let's go to their role -- to daryl from south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. who came up with this idea of superpacs? why isn't there some way you can

level the playing field given that if someone doesn't get on the ballot in starts running for president, they are allowed diso much money and then everybody is level on the so-called playing field, and then we can go by the substance of what they believe in, rather than all this money pouring in for people? even if romney did not get any, he made $21 million last year. certainly, he will do better than someone like rick santorum, who i believe has a good platform. host: on the creation of superpacs. guest: i think you are right about that. the money pouring into the system is a problem. it does mean that the substance of people's views is lost. it is so overpowered. you could hold the supreme court responsible for this in the citizens united decision of two years ago that unleashed this torrent of money into our campaign system.

in that decision, the supreme court held that independent expenditures, which are basically money spent on ads, as long as they are not coordinated with the candidates, they can be -- there can be unlimited amounts of money spent on those. it used to be the corporations were not allowed to use the treasury money to run such ads, and now they are. host: again from that "the new york times" article today on superpacs. it says --

host: back to the phones. gary is from sarasota, florida on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. could you comment on the status of the investigation into representative buchanan? is there any investigation into the election irregularities in our district? they lost 18,000 votes here. guest: certainly, you had more than your share of problems in florida. buchanan was the subject of an investigation. that was thanks to a complaint that crew have followed based on information in florida that mr. buchanan was reimbursing employees at his car dealership for contributions made to him. the fec has recently closed that matter, but it has been referred to the department of justice. yesterday, the office of

congressional ethics issued a report on mr. buchanan, also indicating that he had failed to properly include information on his financial disclosure reports. there will be further investigations on that. mr. buchanan remains of a serious cloud and merits a lot of scrutiny. host: what are the penalties that the federal election commission could hit a candidate with? you are talking about referring to the justice department for a congressional investigation. is it just fines the fec can issue? guest: the penalties can be severe, although, often they are not. one of the criticisms of the fec is that so frequently its enforcement procedures take so long that by the time they get around to doing anything, the campaign is long over. in fact, you could violate campaign finance laws willy-

nilly and then become a senator, and then simply have to pay a minor fine in the end. you could use your campaign finance to pay your fine. host: there are examples of current members paying fines for campaigns they ran long ago. host: -- guest: i cannot think of any, but again, the fines are not serious enough to be a serious deterrent. host: you are asking the president to fix the fec. is there will in congress to look at the fec and go through some of these issues? guest: there is really no will in congress did the republicans, led by mitch mcconnell, r firmly against any kind of campaign finance regulation. they will say that quite publicly. the democrats have talked about being in favor of campaign finance regulations. they try to pass a law called the disclose act. one of the problems we've seen superpacs with seen -- we've

seen with these superpacs is we do not know who is behind some of the ads. they're always from groups that have innocuous names, but we really do not know who the money is. the disclose act would have required more disclosure so americans can weigh these ads in congress. that fell by the wayside. host: again, we are talking with representative raul grijalva of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington -- we are talking with melanie sloan of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. she served on the house judiciary committee as a counsel on the judiciary committee. back to the phone. ralph is a republican from lancaster, pa.. good morning. caller: fellow. i have a comment. you can argue the fec will never

get anything done, but with these black box voting machines, all the boats go to spain first to begin with. accounting -- all the votes go to spain first to begin with. all the accounting is done in another country. can you comment on that? guest: i am not so familiar with voting machines, but it has been my understanding that they're counted in america. host: what issues have you seen brought up through the fec? guest: the fec does not regulate that kind of information. the fec regulates campaign finance issues. host: what does that go through, what he is talking about? guest: the department of justice. host: long island, new york. kevin on the line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. in new york city, i participated in an event called of the pie -- called occupt the

courts. one of the things chanted by occupy wall street it was, " money is not free speech." guest: there's a movement to have a constitutional amendment to make it clear that money is not free speech and that corporations are not people and they do not have the same free speech rights as every other citizen in america. i think the occupy movements have brought to light money in politics. i've heard in new york and in washington, d.c., you could see tents that talked about the problem with the money in politics. most americans, seven, are not just -- most americans, sadly, are not aware of it. you can thank colbert.

this is an issue americans need to educate themselves about. any issue you care about, whether it's the environment or children's health, it is incredibly influenced by the amount of money going into our political system. special-interests are ruling the airwaves. host: you brought up stephen colbert. here's an article about the superpac he created. what has he done to bring this issue to the forefront? guest: i think it's been incredibly helpful. he has created his own superpac, americans for a better tomorrow tomorrow. he has said trevor potter come on. it was also john mccain's finance lawyer. they have explained to americans

in a way that's easy for them to understand exactly what a superpac can do. he has brought in jon stewart. mr. colbert has explained that there's this unlimited amount of money that can be brought into our political system that is unregulated. host: john on the line for republicans from north carolina . good morning. caller: good morning. in my opinion, the democrats, they have some free superpacs, such as cnn, abc, nbc, msnbc. 90% of the news media is free the democrats. all this is free. it does not call the damage -- it does not cost the democrats a dime. what the republicans have got to

have -- some kind of counter. i think most of these people work for their money. they can spend it the way they want to, the superpac table. and what is your opinion on that? guest: i disagree with your premise. i do not believe the television networks are working for democrats. you failed to name fox, which clearly means more republican. i disagree with that premise. i think regular americans are not well served when very few people with huge resources can influence our elections, often for reasons that may not be in the best interest of america. if, for example, an oil company is usually influencing an election outcome simply because they want to make sure there are fewer regulations on global warming -- that may have a negative impact on all of us in just help the company and a few

other oil companies. there can be a lot of hidden motives on why some of these incredibly rich people and corporations contribute to elections. they could potentially by the potentially buyresidency the presidency. host: an e-mail from claudia. guest: rich individuals can contribute unlimited amounts to their campaign. wealthy people can contribute as much as they want to their own campaign and very frankly, that's why you see both democrats and republicans recruiting candidates for congress who are wealthy and can help finance their campaigns. host: can you go over some of the other limits that the federal election campaign act lays out for certain candidates? guest: federal election

commission lays out contribution limits. you can donate in the primary and the general election. then there are contribution limits on political action committees, which most members of congress now have. there are fewer restrictions on how they can spend that money. the money that goes into superpacs is the totally unregulated money. people would now rather see the money go into superpacs. host: a few other issues on limits that the federal election act lays out.ign individuals must be identified to give them $200-plus. all of those are listed in the campaign reports that anybody has access to. guest: some of those expenditures are a little problematic. you often see a candidate with $5,000 paid to the vendor of

american express or visa or mastercard. host: jason on the line for independents from cambridge, mass.. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for susan. -- for c-span. [inaudible] why isn't there an occupy movement for independents? i am going to go ahead and study your web site. outstanding program. guest: you are right. it has really been three republicans and three democrats. the way the act has been set up, the president is supposed to nominate them. in fact, the senate majority leader and the senate majority leader -- senate minority leader have named the people they want. it has been people who've been very align with the political

party and have close relationships with the senate majority and minority leaders. i think we really need to see some campaign finance experts who believe in the issue of regulating campaigns fairly and applying the laws to everybody equally. host: can you talk about the status of the petition you currently have on the white house websites? guest: we're asking for president obama to nominate new commissioners to the fec and replace the five that are sitting on expired terms. we have 14,000 people who have signed the petition so far. we need a total of 25,000. we only have until february 10 to get these signatures. the white house only gives you a month. i hope those of you who are watching and interested will go to the white house petition. you can sign this petition and

add your voice to the call to ask the president named new commissioners. this is not a republican or democratic issue. it is is not doing its job. we deserve to have an agency regulating the campaign finance spending. host: you need a certain number of signatures before the white house will respond. guest: we need 25,000 signatures. we have 14,000. we are happy to report that credo will be sending out an e- mail to its list today. they have a very big list. host: the white house will then respond? guest: the white house will respond to the question in the petition, which is, when will president obama nominate new commissioners to replace the five who are sitting on expired terms? we need 25,000 signatures by february 10 in order to accomplish this.

host: a question from footer from -- from twitter from matt. guest: i think what we have really seeing is that the commissioners often take the sides of the candidates who are there political party and refuse to enforce the law against the other side. this has been even more of a problem by don mcgann and a couple of the other republican commissioners who believe their view is to help the republican candidates. we have seen outrageous misconduct that the fec has refused to take action against. as the caller mentioned earlier, buchanan is one of those. host: back to the phones. steve is on the republicans'

line. are you there? we will go to elizabeth on the line for democrats from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if she could speak about the organization, alex, and who belongs to it? i was wondering if anything else has happened with the coburn thing a couple years ago with the payoff of his mistress and him leaving office? guest: alec is an organization that works to influence state legislatures and works to create legislation in different states around the country. they have a very conservative agenda of. they are funded by corporations, mostly, who want to see states

pass for a stickler legislation. because state legislators have so little stuff themselves, they will often take the legislation alec presents. you brought up former senator jon ensign and the affair he had had at the time. the fec had refused to act on the finding that perhaps the money had been a gift. the matter was referred back to the department of justice. it does not appear that the department of justice is investigating mr. ensign, but he was forced to resign his seat in the senate because he was going to be expelled because of his misconduct. host: paul on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about the

citizen united case. i believe it was kagan who argue for the government. she said the government could use the law to silence any corporation, including one that ran in newspapers. citizens united was a corporation formed for the sole purpose of making a negative fell about -- negative film about hillary clinton. did the supreme court overreact? did they go too far in the other direction? as i recall, they took a second cut at it. they reconsider their original decision. i was wondering if maybe the supreme court needs to fine- tune their decision on this. guest: in that case, you are right. citizens united was a nonprofit organization that was not formed for the specific purpose of this movie, but it did create a very negative will be about hillary clinton.

the case was briefed and argued and then the supreme court decided to have it re-briefed. they ended up with a much more wide ranging opinion than was anticipated. they could have ruled simply on the issue of airing the movie about hillary clinton, but that's not what they chose to do. they chose to take this wider view. that is something the supreme court should revisit. justice anthony kennedy, writing for the majority, said there was no evidence that these independent expenditures not coordinated with candidates would have a corrupting influence on our elections. i think we've seen thus not the case. there is room for the supreme court to reconsider it. the montana supreme court recently issued a very lengthy opinion talking about how the influence of copper mine corporations had really corrupted the political system in montana. they said citizens united was flat wrong. the united states supreme court may have the opportunity to rule on that montana decision.

they could fine-tune it. justice antonin scalia has said he feels strongly there should not be regulations on campaign finances. host: mike on twitter writes -- we've got about 10 minutes left with melanie sloan, executive director of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. we will go back to mickey on the line for democrats from connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been a 40-year registered democrat. right now, i'm supporting republicans. i really want them to win for 2012. my big thing working in the polls as a moderator, i really do think that we need to have voter i.d. -- proof, you know,

that you can vote. we used to do a lot of work as a moderator to research if a person was qualified or not. of course, they have got to let them vote. that's the law. i think that needs to be changed right now, before the 2012 election. i want to know about your comments on that. i would say that the federal election commission is kind of a funny organization, but i think it benefits more the democrats. with the citizens united, the republicans did not do as bad a job as the democrats are trying to prove that they did. guest: a couple of things. so far, there's really no question that far more money has rolled into superpacs on the republican side.

i do not think you will see any dispute about that. president obama has raised a lot of money for his candidate committee. the money going into the superpacs is a huge amount of money. that money come in the 2010 congressional midterm election superpac had a very deleterious effect, obviously on democrats. on your issue of voter i.d., i disagree. i think there's no evidence that laws that are in fact necessary. they often discriminate against poor people and young people who do not have the right kind of i.d. i think there's been no evidence of big problems with voter fraud in this country. i think that's kind of a made up problem. efforts to restrict voting to those people with a government- issued id is a way to restrict voting. host: we talked about colbert

bring in some attention to this issue. this is from today's "the washington post." fallen story about abramoff.byist jack ingra he says, "i was involved in a bribery." what you think about jack abramoff being a spokesman for reform? guest: it's interesting. i have met with him and talk to him. he seems quite sincere about his beliefs and that he is a good spokesman. i think he is right when he talks about the issue that we basically do have a system of

legalized bribery. this is a problem separate and apart from citizens united. members of congress are constantly doing what we call dialing for dollars. from the minute they win the election, especially in a house seat, members have to be constantly about their fund raising in order to run the ads that will be necessary for them to maintain their seats. the people who are most likely to give them money are lobbyists and members of trade associations who want that money. we have seen something particularly egregious recently. former senator christopher dodd, who used to say he'd never taken a dollar to do anything -- recently, in his new role as a lobbyist for the motion picture association, he basically said he was very upset about sopa -- he said people should watch out and that his

campaign contributions would really dry up. here he was on the other side admitted that the campaign contributions have a huge impact and those who are not supporting his issues will not receive those campaign contributions. host: barb on the line for republicans from commerce, michigan. go ahead. caller: i would like to find out if it's all right for president obama to receive $10 million from george soros. where are you getting your money? guest: it is not ok for president obama to get $10 million from george soros. there are contribution limits on his presidential committee. he could not accept $10 million for mr. soros or anybody else. he does have the superpac, priorities usa, which is not coordinated with mr. obama, just like mitt romney is not associated with restore our future. anybody can commit money to the

superpac. i am not aware mr. soros has contributed any to "the new york times" that. reported earlier that he has not donated to that. mr. soros has said obama and romney are one in the same. host: do you want to talk about where citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington gets its funding? guest: we get our funding from people who support our mission and of nations to support our mission. host: what is your budget for the year? guest: the budget is about $2.8 million for year. it cost a fair amount of money to file the fec complaint. lots of ethics complaints with the house office of congressional office and the