tests for welfare recipients. our guest is a little bit -- is with the center from the law and public policy. and we will discuss the state and local government finances with a guest from the census bureau and tracy gordon from the brookings institution. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it's friday, march 2, 2012. you're watching c-span "washington journal." in advance of super tuesday, mitt romney and others escorting voters. for "washington journal" this morning later on, we'll have

senator james inhofe, the ranking member of the environment and public works committee and has a book. we'll be talking to him about that and related issues, and about politics, of course, in the senate. as we start this this morning, we've had continued requests for an open line. call the appropriate line below. our phone lines are open. and a good friday to you. we welcome your calls and other messages by email or tweet to hear what's on your mind in a very busy week in politics and congress. yesterday the senate had a very close vote on a measure that was proposed by roy bluvent

having to do with the health care legislation and also contraception. politico on it's front page covers this, this way. host: likely election issue. senators narrowly rebuff president obama's new contraception mandate as both parties vowed to make it an issue in the november elections. let's hear roy blunt. >> this is the amendment that

would allow religious belief or moral conviction to be an important factor in whether or not people comply with new health care mandates. there is a difference in these faith-based institutions. and now that we have health care mandates that could apply to these institutions, all this amendment does is extend the same privilege to them and others who have a religious belief or moral conviction. a 51-48 vote to kill the amendment, largely on party lines, also robert casey of pennsylvania and ben nelson of nebraska and another broke tringse support it and republican olympia snow who announced her retirement this week, opposed it. and "the new york times"

editorial, bhunting the fact writes the amendment had nothing to do with the ban on contraception or illusions or distortions of the past. new look at it makes customers to cover birth control without paying for care that violates their religious conscience. the real offense against freedom and women is the mandate. that is the wall street journal in support of the amendment. on the other side, a bad amendment. host: it was really about the right for women to make their own decisions. so two views from two editorial pages about the senate measure.

51-48 sponsored by roy blunt having to do with health care coverage and the laws on contraception. we're going to begin with the call from ox hard in, you're a democrat. you're on, shirley. caller: hi there. i just want to say i'm kind of dismayed over some things going on in congress. not very many people are happy with congress. and it seems as though the on the congress. but we never see them. and naysay oh, we're not supporting any candidates, but i've seen one of them at a rick santorum rally. but they are just -- their influence seems very hidden. % i had an wonder if there's a corporate agenda also america's

being dismantled bit by bit, and i just wonder what's wrong with the american institutions. i think it's more about bureaucracy. we could save a lot of money, and i'm just wondering why the republicans are so angry with obama. it just, you know, they don't -- it's so complicated. government's so complicated. and it seems like there's so many arm chair pund its and knowers of everything, and all they really do is watch television. so i don't know why people aren't more humble in this country, and realize this is a much more complicated issue and they really need to educate themselves better. >> all right. three different topics from shirl yea on open phone. next jocelyn an independent. what's on your mind this week? caller: yes. i'm concerned about this

country being a free country. the country boasts about, this is a however, if a person makes a statement, anything they say about anybody that's gay, they lose their jobs, and they have no kind of rights about this. and i'm really concerned. even the churches. the churches are afraid to speak up. i'm trying to figure how could this -- where is the freedom in this country anymore? and also, i think that whenever there are votes, the people are supposed to vote on like gay marriages. all of a sudden. the people have no more state. the judges come in and make a

decision. we're going to stay. we're going to vote for things. that's my comment. host: thank you jocelyn. on the front of the pages, california judges asked to say if they are gay. this is valerie richardson's story. it used to be considered bad form be out gays but the judicial applicants and appointment demographics inclusion act requires the states to ask its 600 jitses, in case they are. rebecca ore stays law does not require the judges to stay say

whether or not they are gay. it's to add by the versety to the california courts. next is a caller from richland hills, texas. caller: i wanted to complain about the way they do the elections in these primaries. the northern states get to pick who the candidates are free. in the southern states we don't even get to -- are you considering a fash primary? >> we don't get to vote for our candidate, because endorsed people, if they don't like them, they kick them out. host: who is no longer in the race that you would have liked to have voted for? >> rick perry. host: and what do you think happened to him along the way, fill sflip

caller: well, i think he tries to be a real person, and the way they jump on every little comment you make, real people don't have a chance anymore. host: thank you for your call. film in richland hills texas. here are the current numbers on delegates and the race for the nomination by the 167 for mitt romney. host: 32 for newt gingrich andt 19 for ron paul. suggestions in "the new york times," gingrich let the record show -- concentrating on georgia. and reporting from atlanta that newt gingrich is spending five days in the crucial states he represented until recent will he he regarded as a -- from his

wealthy los angeles -- las vegas, excuse me, supporters. the pack is spending the windfall in super tuesday states with commercials depicting mitt romney is out of touch with people and/or core beliefs. but it's amazing that now we're going to move on the sullsa -- to tulsa. good morning. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i need help in understanding why the call is to attack iran? netanyahu is coming here to talk to president obama. and this is the same prime minister who talks so violently in the house and the senate against barack obama. and he got 27 standing ovations. and for the amount of money and

materials that we have sent to israel, what is so wrong with iran getting even one nuclear when? at least this is why i like ron paul. at least he speaks of the aspect of war in the middle east. and what are we getting in israel that would require us paying that kind of homage and money to? and the frightening thing is why attack a foreign country for what they want to do in their own country? iran has not, to my knowledge, attacked any other country. gill bert, i'll tell you some stories about this topic. and in fact the 8-pack is happening this weekend in washington and setting the stage for conversations between the u.s. and israel. here is the story. s obama and netanyahu will

dominate the talks. reporting from jerusalem. on nond two will meet in shato and mr. inepten yahoo is hoping to prompt more clarity from mr. oh, by the way, also wanting to press mr. obama on -- following the discussions on both sides, that in recent days. the national director of the anti-defamation sleag quoted here. he says, this is being billed as the most important encounter ever between the two. there has to be serious understanding.

there has to be real trust. so far i don't believe that's there. the red line i'm underlining here is -- on the same topic at the -- on the same story, mr. prez said the united states must make clear to thrarn all options are on the table. he said there was disagreement over where to draw red line that would set off military intervention. the next is a call from fort middle south carolina. aliesya, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. so glad to be with you today. i just wanded to speak to the issue of obama apologizing to karzai in afghanistan for the burning of the koran. kind of how i feel about that is there's nothing wrong with

anybody apologizing if somebody but an apology really isn't worth anything when people are so brain washed, that they can't accept an apology or they don't know how to forgive anyone or anything. why can't they forzpwhive i believe because their god is -- their demon -- they are demon-possessed and they are brain washed. and they have no idea to be grateful for people shedding their blood for them and have no idea how the accept kindness. their ability to reason is gone. they belong to a cult, and people better wake up and realize that. host: aliza, do you believe that of all people of muslim faith?

caller: those that believe strongly that all religions must be destroyed except for the islam religion. even those peaceful ones, when it comes down to the end, they are going to stand by the koran they are carrying if they are opening it up and saying all people ought to be destroyed that don't belong to the fake prophet mohammad always talks about. host: all right. aliza, we'll let you go, with that point. joe rearms, a student who twittered is back to our issue on the blunt amendment. he asks why the conservative creans dislike american women? it's the women who should decide their medical care, not their employers. cal ma as you, christine is a democratic there. are you there? all right. we're going to move on. sorry about that.

conway, new hampshire. katherine, independent. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have been asking a question, and i still haven't gotten an answer. but i have been wondering why pilot vote for the representatives and senators to congress. the people hire the representatives and senators. and why do they get to congress and then they get to decide their own pay, their own health benefits and retirement plans? why does not each state get to make that decision? in other words, new hampshire might have a different retirement plan for their representatives and the state of delaware. or they might have different pay scales and so forth. but anyway, i think if the states handled the money, then

you would have closer -- there would be closer ties to what you think of as "we the people" in congress. and i still haven't gotten an answer of why they get to decide and not the states. host: thank you katherine. on fridays we do something called "america by the numbers." this has the census bureau. and our focus is going to be state and local finances. we feel be looking at the size of their public sector employee base and how that's changed and where the money goes and where it comes from as part of that good morning to carl. you're on the air, please. caller: good morning. you know, i like president obama. i think he's a decent man, and

i'm glad he was elected as an african-american. but one thing that bothers me is a lot of your african-american people that call into your program claim that if you disagree with his policies, you got to be a racist or a bigt. -- or a big bot got. you look at it. something like 97% of african-americans voted for president obama last time. say 97% of white people had voted for mccain. now that would have been called racism, pure and simple. so how do you figure? is it racism on one side and not the other? come on, now, let's be fair about it. host: all right. that's your comment from berkeley springs, west virginia. having an open phones friday. a chance to call in with whatever is on your mind.

freddy, a democratic. you're on. caller: i'd like to speak on this oil situation. you know, we're -- when i was in the sixth grade, i sat in class, and one of the first things we was taught is basic capitalism. you have these people with little baby drills. now in a society we know when desmand great, the price is greater. prices shrink when the market is tpwhrooded. right now -- when the market is flooded. right now we areics porting more oil than we are importing. what -- people said on the republican side, they seem to think that if we continue to drill, that the prices are going to go down, and in a free market society, they are not going to flood the market with oil for the prices will always

go up on either the -- then -- on the network here last week. he was almost -- to me, that was a good idea. host: why is that? caller: but look at what happened to hugo chavez. people here hate hugo chavez based on what media here is saying about hugo chavez. because they have hugo chavez nationalized to oil in his country. host: but you said nationalizing oil would be a good idea here. why? >> because wouldn't be more in this country and put it on the market in this country but not on the margaret in every country in the world. when your oil is being sold to every country in the world

especially today when china needs oil, brazil, india needs oil. america is trying to bring itself up. it needs oil. that's a lot of policy that these country needs where as the 25 brazil. it's like all the oils they need today. >> next up, lafayette, california. and this is a call from tom, an independent there. tom, you're on open phones. good morning. >> hi. i want to speak about primarily the senate thing on the women and contraception. to me, this is an issue that absolutely should not be debated. it's, to me, it represents idiots on parade. why on earth is a bunch of fat, overweight men in their 60's or 70's telling younger women what

to do. this is not right. this is just not right. thank you. host: tom from lafayette, california. connecticut liberal mom tweets most rights happen when our courts realize that was -- host: and a milestone for obama. the president had his 100th fundraising campaign in less than a year. they write thursday night he has held more than 100 election campaign dinners, more than the unofficial talenties kept and suggests he pays for his fundraising and they are likely to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat them. president obama had raised're $150 million for his campaign. next up, richard brookhiser for

debra. you're on. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: great. thank you. caller: as for the last caller. i agree with him whole heartedly. really, to tell you the truth, the reason why they are so doing that and they have been doing it for centuries. because all their. they are ok with it. if insurance pay for all that. and for the other callers that called except the one about the oil of course. i'm so glad that, un, obama is in office. even just for one thing, snurn one guy, he said we voted for black obama, who did we vote for before o'bam kay came into office? the thing about obama is

bringing out all this uncovered racism that we have had to go through for centuries. you understand? i mean, a lot of countries didn't know that we, the black people of america. this is such a racist country, you understand? they don't only treat other people bad. they treat their own people bad. host: thank you. we're here for just a half an hour then senator james inhofe will be with us. emailing us, when will the republicans and democrats come together and move forward. who -- no matter who moves, they will not move in any situation. frank said --

host: next up it's a call from houston, texas. it's a call from open phones. how are you doing? caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm doing well. caller: i want to make a comment. hopefully i won't go to jail again. host: does that mean cutting you off? caller: sometimes when i call your show i have a few problems but i'm not going to dwell on that, because god is good. but i see gas prices and the arabs are about to get their $150 barrel oil. i don't know why y'all pretending we use a lot of oil. our oil consumption is down since y'all said we were addicted to oil, but somehow more than $they give me a

discount. i love the, but to move on me just being against wealthy pee, just like my pastor says, we're not against wealthy people. we're against people who got illened got game. how you can not the theing with -- selling stuff. and last point on the keystone pipeline, 25,000 jobs? come on, republicans. 25,000 jobs? if we do our own oil share and produce our own gas and open those refineries up, down there, we would have all the jobs we want. host: thank you. we'll be talking about the keystone pipeline in a few minutes with senator james inhofe.

this is in the "washington post" this morning. koch brothers seek greater hold over think tank. here's what was reported. >> the billionaires' outspoken political hu according to court records around interviews, charles koch seeks by a lawsuit seeking an option to increase their 50% control of the cato institute. it was blasted as a hostile over the for a company he cofounded with charles coch and he said no. next caller is from fort

lauderdale, california. caller: i just saw -- this is my first time calling in. i have no party affiliation. i have family in d.c. on both sides, and i won't go there, but i just wanted to make a couple exents comments on some of the callers. i find it distressful that so many people in the united states pr uneducated about how our government works. first of all, we're -- in the united states, the people we elect in the office, they are represented spokespersons. we're a republic not a demock criticism. so we have democratic processes. but it amazes me as an educator, and i'm almost 42 years old, how little the american people know about our government and how it works.

it blows my mind. we're talking about oil. i don't think anybody realizes the quality of oil that we have domestically is not as high quality as some of the oils around the world. so when people talk about our oil. it's of the -- not of the same quality. so we cannot use it the same as other people process it. my question is going to be big for the senator coming on and any senator listening. why is it that we preach about demock key. when we ourselves are not up, up, up if >> we have actually holidays why don't we have one for the american people? why don't we pass a bill that

speaks to election day? every single year is a national holiday. the american people can exercise their democratic right to go out and vote and have their voices theodore have our republic represent -- >> we've got jump in, but calling in from fort lauderdale, florida. so senator james inhofe will be here to answer our calls and talk about his new book about global warming. we'll be right back.

>> in shh reeve port, bose your, it's clear. you're listening to shh reeve port bosier's news and radio station. >> this weekend book tv and american history tv explore the history and culture of shh reeve port, louisiana. saturday starting on c-span two, and captain on his book "one damn blunder from beginning to end" then over 2,000 books housed at the sleeve -- shh reeve port library. on c-span three. from barksdale air force base a look at the base's role on 9/11 and the history of the b 52 bomber and visit the founding father's autograph collection

at the museum. and from the pioneer heritage center, medical treatment during civil war. this weekend on c-span 2 and c-span three. >> if you had said in 2006 that the world would be begging for the united states to use force again in the middle east within 3 1/2 years, everybody would have said you were crazy. >> brookings institute robert kagan is not only an advisor to the romney campaign but also serves on -- >> a lot of -- a broad consensus, and i think what you're seeing here is the kind of consensus that exists in the community and there's probably a lot of overlap between the two parties. >> more on robert kagan and that's sunday night 8:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> even a person who is a senator, even ea person now who is president of the united states faces a predicament when they talk about race. they all sorts -- they face all sorts of things. they face the fact that a much larger portion of the american pop will you explain wants to deny the realities of race even now. >> sunday, harvard law professor and former law clerk to justice thurgood marshall on racism, politics and the bow bama administration. the road scholar is a thur of five boofpblgts he'll take your calls and tweets on book tv on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and on this friday morning we're pleased to welcome back to our table

senator james inhofe. he is the ranking committee member on the environment and public works committee and author of a new book. we'll talk about all that and more. let's talk with -- start with oil prices. oil crossed $110 on the explosion of the pipeline report issued yesterday. and sought to explain to people the amount of oil we drill at home doesn't set the price on its own because oil is sold on its is instability in the middle east. you agree with them? >> no. host: what's affecting oil prices? guest: of the millions of people watching this. there's not one who didn't learn in elementary school that thing of supply and demand. and here we are in the united states of america. with the largest recoverible

reserves in coal, oil and gas of every -- that we would have 90 years of natural gas just from us, and 60 years of oil. the problem is this president has spent four years now doing everything he can to attack and stop it, not just the pipeline, everybody knows about that. the hydraulic fracturing, i had an happened to be from the state where the first high brawl i can so is t natural gas that's developed here at home. and at the same time he's trying to stop hi drawl i can fracturing.

so this attack is out there. at least he's honest about it. he's admitting it. he wants to end the -- and look what just happened yesterday and the day before with stephen shoe, the secretary of energy. he came out and reaffirmed what he said in 2008 that he still believes, that is they want to have the gas prices up around this in europe, $7 or $8 a gallon. so neil: that same speech, there's a headline. obama calls again for repeal of oil subsidies. guest: a lot of these things, oil manufacturers deductions. not just the lone gas industry, and if they want to take 1988 to make it more sense so i

think he's making a mistake. he's got, you know, several months try cover from this thing, but he is clearly the one who is responsible for the high place of gas at the pumps. >> on the x.l. keystone pipeline, a note in politico changed the route of the pipeline to get keystone built and there's word that a portion of the pipeline will begin construction. can you explain what's happening? >> yes. this is something that the president as he's doing right now in the keystone could be but a little ways of west. that's a major intersection of the pipelines that come through there. so the pipe going from cushing is the part the president

doesn't -- he isn't stop that portion. >> because it doesn't cross outside the u.s. borders and the over one does? >> yes. but the problem with that is, yes, we -- that will get rid of the some -- you can't have a pipeline going in one direction and accomplish anything. i think the greatest fall sip and the whole argument, he was catering to some of the far left environmentists in nebraska. now berdych. they stop this because he foe permission -- guest: it's not going to stop whether or not they are drilling as if there's some reason to stop drilling up in there. host: from this section the white house has endorsed it.

is that correct? guest: doesn't matter. he can't stop it. he makes it sound like he's being pro gas and oil. he's endorsing it, i mean the people there are if understandably if guest: and for the 2012 campaign? guest: i think so. host: and oil and gas prices are so of the things you discuss. you've long been a critic of those who are advocates of environmental policies which are related to climate change or global warming. the word hoax has a lot of con me toations. generally that it's intentional and perhaps with financial gain behind it.

what is your thesis here? what are you saying? the definition of hoax? guest: what i like to use. i've got it right here. yes. hoax is something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication. that fits it pretty well, i think. what you have, sunes, with the whole idea of the hoax is there are people lined up to do very well, financially, and in fact, i have several quotes by scientists who used to be on the other side. dempsey. i'm trying to remember his first name. anyway, the one that was -- i've got it right here. well, those individuals in the u.k., he was the scientist marching on the streets and carrying the flag of global

warming. after looking at this and how they rigged the science, he changed and now he's on the other side of the issue. from israel a young scientists who was one of the strong supporters of the aleft armist he is a top scientist. he was the leader of that momentum his statement is, it's all about money. host: and do you believe that the? guest: yes. i think he's right. i'll take his word for it. it wasn't long ago in "the new york times" that they said, perhaps al gore will be the first environmental billionaire. that's with a b. and of course we had been reading about that for a long time. there's a lot of money involved in this thing, you know that. "martha" host: you you belief people who

are very public advocates are making it up? >> i think most of them are people who honestly -- i tell you something funny, susan. back when this thing first started with the can i oato treaty, everyone at that time, and i was just a casual observer. everyone stayed man made gases are causing catastrophic global warming. i thought maybe it was true. i didn't pay that much attention to it until they came out with the cost of this thing. the wharton school. wharton economy metrics forecast. it stayed cost of this for the united states for us would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. then m.i.t. and ores came in, c.r.a. and they all kind of agreed.

the frame has been between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. then i went back and recalled the the largest tax increase. it was the clinton-gore tax increase. this would be 10 times that amount for my state of oklahoma and the -- susan, our phones rang off the hook, people calling in. scientists calling in on how they were rejected. for our listeners and viewers, this thing started with the united nations. with this -- fast forward to 1992 is when they had the earth

summit. now they are going to have the earth summit, plus 20. that's going to take place in rio, i think. the we spent a lot of time going back and when the scientists started to come in and saying they trashed the science, then of course, i'll always remember. you used of this, remember when and obama and pelosi and hillary clinton and i think john cary and i came over, and right before i left, we were in the eff -- the fact that shed

that picture of my 20 kids and grandkids on her wall. so yes, i had to like her. she said can i ask you a question? i said madam director, i have a feeling that as soon as i leave town you will have an endangerment training. and -- it was poetic justice, not after a month or week. it was hours after that that the climate information came down. over there, the u.k. guardian and places in europe were calling it the worst embarrassment and scientist -- scientific dallas they had seen

eand then it's been pretty well shot down. and they are moving forward with regulation. and that regulation would be far more than $300 billion to $400 billion. this would be based on the clean air act. the clean air act talks about emissions of 250tons a year. so they would be regulating anyone 250 puns, to so they would have just regulated the major manufacturers and some of the refineries. this would be every chump, school, hospital in america would be regulated. and that cost would be far greater than $300 billion to $4 in. a yea. so it's not that fofe

host: -- host: ok. so i've asked people on facebook to send questions for you overnight. we also have twitter and phone calls. ian on facebook says i believe global warming is scientifically proved. how much of it is caused by humans is e -- guest: here's the thing. we are right now doing everything we can. the amount of money we're spending on research /renewables. in fact it was greater than with the previous administration, the clinton administration. so that's going on, the research.

i can't disagree with the lady who said but you've got to run this machine auld america in the of now pool for example is used to -- then of course you've got gas and oil. if you pull that away, there isn't enough energy to thrun country. and what's going to happen? i suggest to her that -- in fact let me just put it this way -- going back to the administration of the e.p.a., i asked her a question at one of our hearings, and that's televised. i said if we were to pass that, at the time it was, -- would this reduce the c.o. 2

emissions worldwide? she said no, because the problem is not here. in the china and other places where they don't have emissions. i eff -- guest: for example, we have not put any new coal fair to generating plants in the united states. they are cranking out three a week in china. so this is the problem we have. back to the lady's question. if they'll go back and look, the same people, the same people who are saying now that global warming is causing catastrophic warming -- they were the ones in 1975 that were saying another ice age is coming. let me just mention one thing, and of from 198 then from 19

25-1945 was a warming period. then from 1945-1975 was a cooling time. the time where there was more emissions coming out was world war ii. around 1945. but that was of effeff -- host: this is sal, who is a democrat. caller: how are you this morning? host: great. caller: i know this sounds crazy but i have an idea how to get the gas prices back down to where they were. i don't think i can defend on the government, because there's

nothing they can do. we have to pick one company. stop protesting, they don't have a choice. i think people can get gas back down below $3 gallons. because -- we've hurdled this. we know feoff -- caller: with the gas prices, if i can bring up one point, i notice the food prices have gone sky high. a gallon of milk costs $5 a gallon. i don't buy get to milk but swiss cheese goes for almost $9 a pound. i'm about to lose my house because i can't afford to pay my taxes and now i can't afford the gas.

how are people supposed to go out and look for a job? host: let me jump in there. guest: i think he makes a good point. gas prices go up, everything else goes up, too. i was having a hard time hearing everything he said. it doesn't happen in a vacuum. he suggested pp -- guest: based on the -- on them rising prices. host: on twitter it's asked will the keystone pipeline oil remain in america or be sold on the world market? guest: well, first of all, it will be used in the united states, because that comes from alberta and would come down two different sources.

ultimately those sources meet in cushing, oklahoma in my state. some of that will be going towards houston towards port arthur, texas, but it will be used in texas. host: you're on with the senator. caller: yes. it seems like no one believes in global warming now, so senator, why did you write the book? guest: i didn't hear. host: people don't believe in global warming anymore, so why did you of 34% of them. but it was 78% just a few years ago, so people have kind of caught on and realized that it's not -- you know, it's not what it was before. but the reason the book is necessary is that if obama is defeated, it's not going to go away. you've got money behind this. you've got move on.org and the

hollywood elite. so the book goes into the future. it's not going to stop because people think it's no longer -- host: because those people believe the science? guest: who? i know this people you just suggested. guest: well, all right. you get into the issue of the liberals and the conserves. i was asked the other night fighter i said, you know, they like control. hollywood wants to control your lives. if you look at al gore, al gore, all during this thing. and we had him in for one of our hearings. i asked him a question. if you look at the last frame of his science fiction movie, it says are you willing to change the way that you live. so i asked him are you willing to change the way you live?

he hem and hawed around and then finally said, no. they are wealthy liberals, and they want to run other people's lives. and they are out there. this issue is not going to go away. host: this call is for miami. independent senator, and you're on the air. hello, edward? we're not hearing any audio out here. edward, try again. host: we got you, thanks. -- caller: with higher prices and true or not? all these republicans are lying, and my second scomment is it any wonder that the republican-led congress is up

to no -- while you are naming post offices, people are losing their homes. that's my comment. thank you. guest: i can't hear. host: if we can please pull up the speaker, the senator can't hear through his earpiece. he said no wonder the g.o.p.-led congress has a low approval rating, they are renaming post offices while people are losing their houses. guest: well, what about the democrats? host: so what's your opinion of congress? guest: there's always a low opinion of congress. genuinely-speaking, people say they don't have like the congress. right now they are looking at the president also and hi policies, and his numbers are not all that good either. host: this week in the senate with the vote over the contraception bill, it was very

close, -- what do you think about that the vote and the sporns of discussing issues like that? guest: that was the blunt amendment and went down pretty much party lines. depends on who you were listening to. i think that's going to be, you know, somewhat of an issue. i don't think that's going to be as much of an issue as some of the personal freedoms that not too long ago with the catholic church and others, and again, the price of energy is going to be of much greater -- in my opinion, an issue in the campaign in november. host: from pittsburgh. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. you know, senator, you are the most deceitful man in the united states senate. and to put this into realistic

terms, the united states government is geoengineering global warming at all times of the day. you see artificial clouds being disseminated virtuely all over the united states. add to this, pennsylvania having the warmest winter in history on top of the fact that the government is geoengineering our climate now. add to the fact that not only is global warming taking place, but it is exponentially increasing. now, if you republicans claim global warming isn't taking place, then why did you pass a bill providing authorization for the central intelligence agency to geoengineer our climate to offset global warming? in addition, the scientists off the coast of -- the russian scientists off the coast of sy

bierria are seeing massive methane blooms. so when i came back from the caribbean, i saw the most abnormal weather i've ever seen in my life. i've been going down there for years. so you go on spreading the lies, senator, because that's guest: i'll cross him off my list for my re-election. let me just say that i have a long list and i will just go ahead and do one. one of me most prominent scientist in russia said we should fear a deep temperature drop, not catastrophic global warming. we have gone through a -- through a period of 10 years that we have not had any increase and it started to get cooler and if you follow the

trends that i mention admin ago, the warming periods that started after the cooling period between 45 and 75, again, it was historical. now, we have reached the point when at the turn of the century, it leveled off. it's starting to cool again now. and i would be glad to, you know, read some of -- of the quotes from the individual. u.n., this came from the ipcc. they said we're about to enter two decades during which the temperature they admit is starting to cool again. so i'll just say that you know, the man from pittsburgh -- i would say two things. where was he in 1975 at the time that everyone said another ice age is coming? and secondly, he's from pennsylvania. the marsalis shale is new york and pennsylvania. it's not all out west. this is one of the huge, huge

opportunities we have at natural gas and he ought to be concerned about that. i don't have the figures but it's one of the largest employers in the state of pennsylvania now. host: so here's a similar facebook posting. rick duly writes google melting polar caps then try to tell me it's a hoax. gleanland is actually turning green. people that are being paid with corporations are going to make up lies about it. they are idiots. a question for you, then. you don't disagree that there are changing atmosphere conditions but your on it is with the original of those changes? guest: no, that's not correct. to melt greenland ice sheet would require temperatures to rise by 5.5 degrees celsius and remain there for 1,000 years. the ice sheet is growing at two inches a year. it's actually growing in greenland.

i can remember. i'm also an aviation. i flew an airplane around the world and i remember coming through greenland and in talking to people there, they want to see the history about how things were really good when the vikings with, there and it was warmer. unfortunately for them, it's not getting warmer now. the study that nasa has, our study confirms that many changes seen in the upper arctic ocean circulation of the 1990's were mostly -- rather than trends caused by global warming. in 2008, a peer-reviewed paper found -- this is a quote now, a doubling in know accumulation in the western an arctic peninsula since 1850. host: ok. let's go back to the guests. "u.s.a. today," car buyers are slugging at $4 gas. 16% both small and large.

but "u.s.a. today" had on their editorial page says -- calling for us to tap our strategic petroleum reserve. what's your reaction to that? >> well, first of all, the strategic petroleum reserve is there for emergencies like katrina, for example. all of a sudden, we have our refineries going down, we have to go down and we have to use it. so that's what it's for. it's not for supply and demand. we can get our supply. we don't have to go to the reserve. we just have to start drilling here in the united states and we won't have that problem. if you are to go to the reserve, it would be a very short period of time and there would be relief. they are speculating -- well, i won't use the time period because i've heard a couple of different ones but that's not what it's for. it's for a reserve for the emergency and if that should happen, we've got it. host: bakersfield, california.

shawn is a independent. you're on. caller: i mean, how are you going to deny the fact that both of the sheets are melting. the habitat for the polar bears is disappearing rapidly. and even you just mentioned haney katrina and the entire situation was exacerbated by the fact that sea levels are higher than they were 100 years ago and how are you going to sit there and say that this is not taking place, that global warming is not taking place? guest: well, first of all, let's take it one at a time. i've already answered the question in terms of the polar and the arctic and the an arctic. and so we have -- that's a factual response. but on polar bears, i just wonder if the man from bakersfield is aware that we had the total population in the

1960's was between 5,000 and 10,000. today, it's between 15,000 and 25,000. and furthermore, the canadian buy gist -- biologist said "of the 13 populations of polar bears in canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. they are not going extinct or even appearing to be affected at present. it's just silly to predict a demise of particular bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria." host: and a viewer who agrees with you says can the senator talk about the warming throughout the solar system? it's the sun cycle, not us. there are no cars on mars. guest: i mentioned three of the real top scientists from u.k., from france and from is real. the one from -- israel and the one from israel came up with the ding -- while, i will reach.

he is the one walking the streets before gleeble warming and all that from israel. after he looked at what happened to the science in ipcc, he came out and he said something that i thought was really pretty astounding. he said that it is the warming is -- i've got it in here somewhere be. but he said -- hold on. it's the sun. so there are a few scientists out there that are saying the sun tends to warm it up. host: i want to bring you back into politics. what did senator olympia snow's announcement she wouldn't seek re-election? >> that was a disappointment. it's a tough state. i say that. on the other hand, the last election was susan collins out there. she won by a huge margin in the

state. they understand a republican governor, i believe. so it's not just a solid democrat say it. my good democrat friends are all celebrating but i think republicans will have a good candidate. i don't think it's an automatic loss. it's going to be a tight race. host: and likewise, what does your neighboring state bob do if guest: bob has got a problem he spend us a his time in university since he left the senate. he's got to overcome that obstacle and nebraska is a pretty fast growing republican population. host: your state is profiled on the front page of "the washington post." the headline "why look for change in an oklahoma town where nearly everyone lives the conservative life?" and this is a town of washington, oklahoma. do you know it? the point is simply about the

people who live in your state and what's at stake for them in this election. so let me move to super tuesday. rick santorum is suggesting that you are backing his bid for the presidency. guest: no. i haven't heard him say that. i was a speaker at the opening day on the c pack. -- cpac. and i said since he had spoken right before me, i made the statement i know rick santorum. first of all, i did endorse his candidate as rick perry and it didn't work. and i did so mainly because of his understanding of energy and the environment and all of that. rick has very similar views and i like him very much and i just wanted to clarify to them theatric, i know very well. i served with him in the house and we went to the senate on the same day. we have been in a bible study together each week for a long period of time. so i know him. i know his heart and then he says something, it comes from his heart. it's not an endorsement.

he's just a very good friend. i do know this. he came to oklahoma and i wasn't there. i was in washington, but he had -- was expecting on a short notice, something like 200 or 300 people and he ended up -- ended up with well over 2,000 people showing up. so he's very popular in oklahoma and i anticipate he'll carry oklahoma. host: and when we move past this primary stage, is mitt romney the eventual nominee? what are his chances against president obama? guest: he is the more moderate of the four -- well, it's kind of hard. you can't measure ron paul that way because his is not, you know, a liberal conservative dichotomy. what you would have is a mitt romney who is pretty moderate. he will pick up a lot of independent votes. and i think he'll probably do very well if he is the one. and i think those people who thing that this primary is hurting the republicans, look back hysterically.

that's not what happened. that -- historically. that's not what happened. it energized the base. it's like the meeting in copenhagen. they all hated me. in this case, one thing they have in common is they all want to defeat obama. so you have an exercise base with four groups going with that ultimate goal. so i don't think it's going to hurt the republicans' chances. host: would you be happy with a mitt romney presidency? guest: as opposed to obama? yes. host: let's go back to call. tulsa, oklahoma. frazier. guest: oh, that's my town. host: frazier, you're on the air, republican. guest: great. i want to thank the senator for his leadership and his service to the country. my service has to do with cap and trade. it seems inevitable to me and you were the leader in the fight to stop it. how did you do it?

guest: well, i did it because as i started out this program, i said that i really believe back -- there's something to it when i found out there's a cost to it. that's when i started looking at the signs and i really mean it. our phone was ringing off the hook. so we started -- you can go back to my website and see this. we started about six years ago, accumulating the names of people who are calling us. we've got up to 400 scientists that called in. we posted it on our website. and i came convinced that they're cooking the signs on this thing and everything fell into place, we've gone to the warming periods, the cooling periods, and it's all been cyclical. i know that there is -- as they started the hockey stick thing. they forgot about the medieval or the medieval warm period that is between 800 and 1,300.

and then the little ice age were about 1,300 on and forward. so we've gone through these cycles. i've already mentioned two cycles, one going into about over a period of two centuries and the other over 100 years. so that's been there for a long period of time. all you have to do is go back -- look at "time" magazine, i say to my friend from tulsa. back in 1975, the front page of "time" magazine, another ice age is coming. we're all going to die. and then that same "time" magazine had the last polar bear stand on the last cube of ice age and saying we're all going to dial. which way do you want to go? host: we have another caller and once again from oklahoma, this time the town of boswell. glenda. you're on the air. caller: yes. good morning, c-span. i am a christian conservative democrat. and i am going back in history.

i am older than you. the poor has always been oppressed, especially in southeastern oklahoma. the g.o.p. has spent more money on mars. they have spent more money period. and the high gas prices is not because of obama. it's because the g.o.p. wants obama to look bad since the economy's coming up. also, i want to speak on the keystone pipeline. it's less than 10 miles from our house and it is pitiful. do we want our waters in oklahoma messed up? why don't they stop? the greatest refineries are in tulsa. but they want to ship this to china. if the president can't stop this, then why do we elect a president? please answer my question. guest: well, i will. first of all, if you want to send it to china, then stop the pipeline down here because

that's what the canadians are going to do. they've already said that and they could take it to the west coast of canada in -- and the chinese are happy to get it. you're wrong on that issue. when you talk about the amount of money that is spent, we have a president in obama and keep in mind, the president -- not many people understand this. they design their own budgets. not the house, democrats or republicans. it's the president. you'll take the total amount of deficit in the eight years of george w. bush, it was $2 trillion. that's a figure. that's all backed up. no one can argue with that. if you take the deficit of obama, it's been a deficit of $5.3 trillion. that's more than all other presidents combined. and for them to try to continue this argument, this faulty flawed argument that we inherited this problem from bush when his deficit were one fifth

the deficit of obama. so i think you're wrong in that and -- host: that's it for the senator. the global warming -- how the global warming threatens your future. senator, thank you for being on c-span. in our next segment, you are going to meet a woman who is faced here in washington at the law social policy named elizabeth lowerbosh and her issue is the number of states that are beginning to drug test welfare recipients. on the phone is a reporter from "u.s.a. today" who has written a piece about this trend in states around the country. she's on the phone with us now. how many states in fact now have active laws requiring drug testing for welfare recipients? caller: there are two state that have active laws.

missouri and arizona require testing for anyone, any welfare recipient of illegal drug use. florida had a law. it's been in temporary injunction right now but they had a law that require all welfare applicants to be drug tested. host: how many states are considering it? caller: 23 states are considering it currently. host: and what is the genesis for this discussion at this state level? what's really driving the policy discussion? we know that a number of states are having real fiscal challenges. are they looking at a way to lower their welfare role cost or is something else driving this debate? caller: well, i can always tell you what the supporters on the front of the bill have told me. they're interested in making sure that all their tax dollars and all the money that they do have is spent correctly. so they're saying they don't want the money spent on drugs. they want to encourage people to be healthy and to avoid substance problems.

they're trying to make sure that their money isn't spent on drugs and the way they think about this is thing the welfare recipients that do test positive, once the representative told me, if you have enough money to be able to buy drugs, then you don't need public assistance. so it's the idea that drug users don't need taxpayer money. host: have any of the state have deployed this law have enough experience to know what the outcome is? how is it changing society? caller: from what i can tell, i was told by a lawyer before florida's law had an injunction i want to say about 2% of welfare precip yens were testing positive for the drugs. the other 98% were not. people are being asked to pay for the drug test themselves and they'll be reimburse it if they pass it.

so it's costing states more money. so it's what the aclu are arguing. i think the supporters of the bill are telling me that they kind of anticipate that they're going to see a population of people against quote-unquote drug users that are not going to apply for drugs because of these laws. host: for people who are found positive, what happens to them generally? besides not given the benefit, are they given treatment program? are they arrested? what's their fate? caller: the people that are not -- that they fail the test, in colorado, at least, which is one of the 23 states that are proposing, the people would lose their benefits but then they would be able to go into a state-sponsored drug rehabilitation program where they would be able to i guess get clean and then maybe couple of weeks or a couple of months, they'll be able to reapply for their benefits? people fail and they don't want to go into the state sponsored

programs, they would have to wait a year and reapply i guess to try to see if they can pass the test again. host: yamiche is a reporter for "u.s.a. today" and that is considering welfare citizenships. thank you for giving us the overview this morning. we appreciate it. caller: thank you. host: let me introduce you to elizabeth lowerbosh here in washington, d.c. and very much involved in this issue. but you don't like the idea. is that correct? guest: that's correct. it's a distraction from people's needs. host: put a little more meet mayweather on the opinion. how new an idea is this and how did it first get started? guest: the idea has tossed around for a while and under the welfare law that was passed back in 1996 but michigan was doing it for a while after the law was passed and it was suspended like the florida law has been by a

court raising constitutional concerns. host: right to privacy? guest: yeah. that starts without reasonable cause. you can't assume just because someone is applying for benefit, that's the basis of suspecting them for using drugs. host: well, 23 states are considering doing this. so what's happening here around the country that you see? guest: oh, i think it's part of a trend to try to blame poor people for their situation and say if you're poor, if you're receiving weambling it must be because of something that you've done and not because of the economy and not because there's four people looking for a job that's available still. host: for our viewers, we like to involve you in this discussion about drug testing for welfare citizenship -- precip yens. do you think it's a good idea? add not our discussion this

morning. and help us round out our knowledge of it here at the table. our phone lines will be open. we'll also take your tweets and you can e-mail us as well. all of that will be on the screen. so let's move into a bit of discussion about distraction, an argument that you make. what do you mean by distraction from larger issues? guest: well, i mean state budgets are in terrible situations. many of these programs for low income people are being cut from california to alabama. most people who want substance abuse treatment can't get it right away. there are waiting list. -- waiting lists. you're told come back in a few months when we have a slot. it makes much more sense to take the people instead of testing people and help people to provide services for people who need them.

host: how expensive is testing? what do we know about that? guest: you spend 12-18 dollars per test. i've heard more in the $ 30 range and that's also a test. there's also bureaucracy some legal prescription drugs will show up as positive on drug tests. you're going to need a mechanism to track ok, who has a prescription for drugs? if people test positive you probably want to have an opportunity to let them say no, i didn't use drugs. something went wrong. we have baseball players having to the same claims of that. you'd want those defense. all of those add to the cost of the testing program. host: florida's version is the individuals pay for it but if they test negative, if they're clean, not using drugs, that this is reimbursed. guest: that's correct, but i think that may sound reasonable to a middle class person who

laying out $10 or $30 is not a big deal. people don't walk to a welfare office because they've got money. strong lay out that money may mean they don't have a bus fare to get to the supermarket that week. host: do you know what happens to the people who don't apply for welfare although they may be in circumstances that would qualify them because of this test or people who are taken off the rolls because of this test. where are they going? what happens in their lifes? guest: we don't have data on it. florida's program was only in place for a few months but in general, depending on their situation, they may come back and reapply in a few months. if they're, you know, in the case of people who really are addicts, you know, their children may wind up in protective services and you know, the foster care system which is of course a whole other

government expense that's related from it. it's better if you can catch people and say look, if they do need help, provide it rather than instead of chase them out of the system and who knows what happens to them? host: the people arguing in favor of it make the point look, this is public fund. these are public funds. drug testing is common when people are applying for jobs. why shouldn't the state and the people who support the state have the opportunity to say we'd like our money well spent too? guest: ok. first, there is a legal issue that we do have protections against the government that we don't have against private employers. but i think more broadly, you know, i have a library card. i get a significant mortgage. i get lots of public benefits. and no one's coming in and saying they should test me in order to get all of those. it's only welfare that we single out and are so concerned about. host: let's get to our viewers'

calls. phone lines are open for drug testing for welfare recipients. as many as 23 states are requiring drug testing -- for recipients of programs like welfare and food stamps and you can tell is about those debates in your own state or add to our discussion in other ways. let's begin with mary from wyoming. you're on the air. caller: hi. host: hi. caller: i think that drug testing thing always ruins it. unconstitutional. host: so we should learn from experience? is that your point? caller: yeah. you sign up for a job or something like that but jif, you know, a job like in the oil field or stuff like that, but just unconstitutional for recipients getting it. host: ok. thank you. they always end up being sound constitutional.

guest: i think frankly while all these states still have legislation pending a lot of them have a pass and states are looking at florida very closely and waiting to see what the courts find. right now, it's just a temporary finding. there will be a more permanent finding down the road. host: ware, massachusetts. vince? hit that mute button real quickly, please. we're getting feedback. caller: ok. i'll turn that dial in now. i only got one hand here. host: ok, vince. are you ready? caller: ok. yeah. ok. host: no, sir, it's too loud. i apologize. i'm going to put you on hold unless you can turn it down real quick. caller: i can't turn it down enough? host: it's giving us echos. try back calling in again and get that television all the way down since we can't hear you with the delay in the back. next up is from georgia, sam, an

independent. go ahead. caller: yes. to the argument about it being public funds, in england, i understand that all of the benefits come in this way. regarded as unemployment because it's obvious that the citizen is paying taxes and when they come to use the program, they're actually just using money that they have put in. can you use that as an argument? because this is pretty crazy to do this. guest: well, as you may have heard in the unemployment extension bill, there was a proposing there to allow drug testing for unemployment drug benefit and this is sort of us saying people who had jobs, who pay into the system but it's part of this overall thing of vilifying the poor, frankly. host: i have some statistics about the amount of money the

federal government spends on unemployment benefits since that was that caller's question. in 2013, $422 billion, $452 billion in the year 2012. with regard to federal funding for welfare, let's look at those numbers because that's what's driving this conversation. -- those numbers are going down. guest: i'm not sure what programs are including. the federal funding is about $16 billion a year. that's including some other programs. i'm not quite sure what they've got in there. host: there's source on the u.s. government spending dot-com. guest: world fair isn't a technical form in the federal budget. most people think about cash assistance. i'm not quite sure what else is in there.

host: could you explain how the welfare programs generally work? the money that -- whatever the number is, $16 billion or so from the federal government gets the state and how does it make its way into the people that need it? guest: right. since 1996, it's been a blocked ground which means states get a fixed amount and have a lot of flexibility and how they spend it but all states still have cash assistance program and it varies a lot from state to state. they choose how much to give, what rules towhat rules to impl. if everyone has a work requirements. typically, you may be required to do end up front job search and look for a job for a few weeks before your -- to show your action region to show you are looking for work. you are usually assigned to inactivity. possibly a job search again, continuing education. i do not think there is enough of that.

sometimes work experience. certainly, if you identify it and having a substance abuse treatment problem, states will refer people to treatment and expect them to participate. again, if they are on the waiting list, this does not bob you up to the top of the waiting list just because you were told you need treatment. in kentucky, they have a program where they work with people what they are waiting to get into treatment. they do motivational interviewing and stay on top of them to get them ready so when they do get a slot, they can take advantage of it. you are on the air. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i think drug testing is

a good idea of. we need to make a lot in congress to see if they are on any type of drugs at all. when you are living in a glass house, you do not throw stones. [unintelligible] a person who has no other alternative -- you have a nice day. guest: that has been a suggestion in several states that state legislatures should have to meet similar test. i think it is an amusing response. i am not sure a response to the issue, but i think welfare recipients are being singled out. host: his description of welfare being humiliated for most people, that does that mean the

profile of what we know about recipients? guest: it is a process designed to make sure that you do not possibly have any resources that you can possibly be using. to make you go through all of these steps to prove you were looking for a job. but -- someone watches you call people. it is a lot of scrutiny. host: this design came out of the welfare reform legislation passed during the clinton administration, right? guest: yes. this is different in other states. in those stages, the experience is-it's -- cash. host: good morning. corporates christi, texas. caller: good morning. i have a couple of quick comments. a lot of companies and other agencies require alcohol

included in the drug testing. alcohol is legal. at the same time, i have known people who drink up their checks. how will that be resolved seeing as alcohol is legal? my second question i have been dying to ask somebody -- we have been going on and on about what a horrible drug problem this country has and blaming all of the violence out of the border people on america's read this appetite for drugs. -- horrendous appetite for drugs. i have yet to hear anybody say, why is there such a drug problem in the u.s.? i would appreciate it if you could try to shed some light on that.

people bring up solutions, but nobody ever tries to get to the root of the problem socially or culturally. thank you. host: thank you. guest: i do not have an answer to that question. i do not know why drug use is so prevalent. statistics say it is equally in all parts of society. welfare recipients to people in corporate boardrooms. it is a problem. host: to his comment about the difference between alcohol and drug testing, do you have comments? guest: that is one of the problems with this chemical drug testing. it does not ask about people being functional. the screening tools to treat -- that treatment providers use are about functionality. that does not matter about alcohol or illegal drug, but is it getting in the way of your.

in? you're going to work? are you functioning? that is a much more medical perspective. our laws have a different approach. host: mary come a democrat, you are on the air. good morning. i caller: good morning. my comment is, i believe testing should be done. when they started an hour on it because if you have a job, even if it is a minimum wage, and you are using drugs and a test you, you will lose your job. i think they should be tested. host: response guest: for: -- host: response for her? guest: i agree it is that helpful to be using drugs. adding there are better ways to go about it that drug testing.

host: is there a discussion about this being proposed at a guest: national: -- at a national level? guest: it has not gone very far. i.s.m. we will -- i.s.m. welcome back to it. things that bubble up from the state's will usually come up at the federal level. host: this is jim, a republican. caller: good morning. i have a personal saying here. i had a neighbor who was an alcoholic, but he got involved with a woman who got him hooked on crack cocaine. he ended up losing his house. he ended up getting on welfare. he was on food stamps. he was on medicaid. all being paid for by the

taxpayers. his lights went straight in the toilet. -- life went straight in the toilet. i believe if the county had detested him, at least once a week or every two weeks, he may have turned out better. he was selling his food stamps to buy drugs. he was feeling that neighbors mail. -- he was stealing the neighbors'mail. to say that rehabilitation programs are fine -- if you do not know they're on drugs, how do you give them rehabilitation? guest: it sounds like this man was pretty clear. you did not drug test him, but you knew he was using drugs. these workers can make those judgments, possibly with

trading. -- training. you did not need a drug test to know he had a problem. host: i cannot show the tweets because we have so many coming in, but someone asked about the people who -- the children of people who are found positive. guest: i do not believe the state's test children. it is not clear what happened -- what happens to the children. in theory, they can be taken in by another family member who cannot -- who can apply. they're not getting benefits and these are extremely vulnerable families. extremely vulnerable children. i think that is one of the scary things. people who are using drugs will not comply. that means those children will never get seen and the services they need. i worry about that. host: an independent, you are on

the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to complement this program for being one of the best programs in the country. i salute you and your brethren moderator's on the job you do and the clothes you handle. part of -- i particularly like the way you call out a color if they have their facts wrong. today, i would like to address this drug-testing issue. i would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander with legislators. if the american people were to get in front of a mirror and take their clothes off, that would be an analogy for the way

americans have lived their lifestyles for the past 20 or 30 years. we have lived beyond our means. getting back to that drug issue, does the american people not realize that coffee is a drug with caffeine in it? alcohol and wine are drugs with the alcohol in it. we call different drugs the way drugs. -- gateway drugs. if you make everybody drink decaf coffee, do you think howard schultz would be doing as well with starbucks? if you took alcohol out of the year in the wind and as the ritz, do you think people would be drinking their 0 year? -- zero beer?

i do not think so. people need to realize how we have been living. i digress. i am nervous on the phone. thank you for taking my call. host: to live for all the nice words. -- thank you for all the nice words. guest: i would be less functional without my -- caffeine. all of the banks that are seeing bailout money, we did not ask their executives to be drug tested. the government as a whole bunch of different things. host: this you were -- this viewer has a different process he suggests. what did not be cheaper rather than test for drug usage to see if one had been arrested for

possession or non-alcoholic dui? guest: there is a provision that cuts people off if they have been convicted of a drug-related felony. that is in place. states have the option to do different things with that. many states do is say, if you have been convicted of a drug- related felony, you do need to test clean on a regular basis in order to receive benefits. and that does not raise the same constitutional issues because there is a basis for that as opposed to just assuming that all recipients -- host: this your asks, can you speak to the economic results of florida's testing for the taxpayers? guest: id was only in place for a few months. -- it was only in place for a few months. most people tested clean and were eligible for reimbursement. the last i heard it suggested that not all of those had actually received the

reimbursements. i have not figured out what has gone on in that and where the holdup is. i personally live in virginia and i know our state rejected it because of the cost. this would be found to cause the government more than it would save. if host: the state of virginia cost more than it would save so they put off the bill. we will take our next call from illinois. this is michael, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am interested in what the state is trying to do by testing the recipients of welfare. i really cannot see it solving any type of problem, but creating a problem. there are millions of people that are not on welfare and i do not know if they are trying to

prevent drugs from coming into the country or whenever the case is, but i cannot see the drug testing on welfare recipients of the anything or accomplishing anything. can you get inside? guest: the broader question of america 's drug problem is beyond what i can address. host: this is an absurd generalization. we drug test the segment that has no voice, has no lobby is, has no lobby is advocating for in. -- for them. i have been getting drug tested for every job for the last 20 years. i am a computer technician. when i can find a job, do think it is because i do drugs, that is an insult. any comments?

guest: -- host: margaret, republican. go ahead. caller: i am calling because of other people stating that we have to be drug tested in order to get a job. if we have to do it, i do not understand why people that are receiving our tax dollars do not have to be also screened for drugs. i know many families were now in the third generation of welfare , social services, food stamps and they never get off. they're always on. some people are in the grocery store and they will buy what they can on food stamps and then they pay cash for beer. i live on sells a security. a lot of us cannot afford certain things. when you see people like that using your tax dollars for

things that are not necessary, when do we start taking responsibility for our own actions in this country? the longer it goes on, the worse it gets. i remember years ago that people were doing this and nothing was done about it. i do not understand why people are so upset that we are asking anyone that is receiving money from us to have a drug test. that is the least that could be done. host: thank you for your call. response? guest: she said she was receiving social security. did she consider that a government benefit and she should take a drug test? host: that would be your argument? let's go to a republican in texas. last month, he talked about his views on drug testing for

welfare recipients. >> i do not think it is time -- i think it is time to stop such as devising drug use. i wonder how many people went to work in the dark. how many single mother struggled to get their kids dressed and off to school before they went to work. how many people will not get home tonight to their kids practice because they are at work. how many told their boy scouts they will not make they can buy because they are working. how many people are working jobs and we take money to help people who are unemployed. it seems to me that those -- after listening to so many of my local companies were begging for workers that cannot pass a simple drug test -- these workers choose to use drugs, it seems to me that they are not going to be ready and willing to work. they will not have much of a future for themselves or their children.

by removing the block that prohibits states from doing common-sense drug screening and requiring people to actually be willing to work and in some cases to be able to use dollars to get people off that drug habit makes perfect sense. host: elizabeth lower-basch, response? guest: he is talking about unemployment insurance and i think this illustrates the things that he says. he is trying this correlation between the good people who are working and the people who were lazy and not wanting to work, but if they are getting unemployment insurance, that is because they lost a job. if this is blaming people were unemployed for their situation. host: do you suspect that once deployed, this will lead to others? we are already talking about unemployment benefits, are there other possible benefits that are being discussed guest: -- are

being discussed? guest: they talk about reaching out beyond cash assistance. mostly for programs like food stamps. this is only the people who they do not like. i do not think people are saying you're going to tax elderly people going into nursing homes to receive medicaid. i think it is people seem like it out. it is not legal to actually include the drug tested those programs. host: you made reference to snap benefits. what is that? guest: food stamps. host: 8 you were says i would rather have my taxpayers go to a lie-detector tests for politicians. please explain exactly how drug- testing is bad for anyone? if a welfare collector is awarded -- a ward of the state,

are they not happy to find a positive statistics that would arise from this study? guest: how is drug testing that for anyone? -- bad for anyone? some people find it humiliating. people go through it all the time. it is a waste of money. why do it when you have better ways to identify people -- the few people who have health problems. it is good for the companies to sell the drug tests. host: a call from savannah, georgia. have there is an independent. you are on. caller: hello. thank you. i am originally a native of florida. i lived there for 28 years. my mom worked in the social services down there. she retired from there.

i actually moved away from florida when my children became school age. i did not want them in the school system down there. when i got divorced, and i did have to use government programming, while i went to school -- i became self- employed. now i own my own business. i did not want to work outside of the house and end up having two or three jobs and could not be home for my children and could not do the things that i wanted to be able to do with my children. i wanted to be able to put them on the bus and do girl scouts and boy scouts. especially in florida, their biggest problem with the social services program, just from my mom's experiences, was a lot of

people that were on the welfare system had people living with them that they were not claiming. boyfriends or husbands or what not. those were the people that they needed to -- they need more people working in social services industry. that is where they need to focus, not necessarily drug- testing recipients. they need more bodies in that area. in the welfare program. as workers. they need to start training more people and paying more people to where they can actually make those surprise house visits. to make sure that the people aware of these applications are actually the only people living in the household. host: thank you. guest: hearing from his collar, i appreciate it because we do not hear enough about people who receive public benefits.

they get jobs and their self supporting. if people tend to think of welfare recipients as this sort of other category of people who say -- to stay that way for a long time. most people and get what they need, move on, and get on with their lives. the more we recognize that welfare recipients are people like us and not those people, the less popular these services will be. host: drug-testing welfare recipients, looking at continuing controversies in recent proposals. we have talked a bit about costs in administering these tests. we're looking at it here. virginia decided it was too expensive and table their consideration. in alabama, for example, --

the 2011, cost another. arizona, 2008, $3.4 million. florida, 2011, the pilot was reported to cost $2.7 million. idaho, $1.3 million for all. maryland, $2.2 million. missouri, $1.9 million. if one of the motivators for this is that state expenses are out of control, out the cost and benefit equation -- fewer people off our roles is not in balance with the amount of cost administration. >> it is a fantasy to think this was a lot of money because the testing cost money and also the tests needs to be built around -- people do not realize how low

cash benefits are. in florida, a family of three only gets a little more than $200 a month. you are not going to save a whole lot of money squeezing $200 a year or $300 a month across the country. the benefits are not that much money. it is not like you are going to be sitting thousands of dollars when you take a family off. >> this comment -- host: why are people on food stamps supporting a shady lifestyle? there are many people on food stamps and have jobs. one bad thing about drug testing is that the testing is not magic. it is not always accurate. sometimes it is wrong. anything for those viewers? guest: it is now 100 percent accurate. this needs to have an ability to retest to prove. this is one of the perplexities of the nature of chemical drug

testing that was the hard drugs to be detected quickly whereas marijuana last in the system longer. you catch a lot of people who were using marijuana and miss the people who were using harder drugs. host: good morning, your honor. - you ar on. -- you are on. caller: i get my pension from the air force. i have always noticed that the government always spends $10,000 to try to save or retrieve $10 $10 -- that has always been that way. people read his civil-rights, but do not realize that by doing that, they are stepping on other

people's civil rights, like the tax payers. i think it should be -- if someone notices someone using drugs or alcohol, they should turn them into the welfare office. testing is expensive. it is about $80 every time. i have been on both sides of the government issue. if you want to make any comments about my comments, go right ahead. host: thank you. guest: i think the comment about spending $10,000 to save $10 is a good one. there are some people who have issues and it would be good for caseworkers to be trained to

identify them and help them get the treatment they need. going after this broad net of everybody who receives benefits does host: not make sense -- does not make sense. host: what are the rates of positive guest: findings 45 about 2% -- florida found about 2%. social scientists found more less around the same rates as the overall population, which is higher than that. host: why do poor people heat -- why do people take up more intrigue and so differently? many wealthy people use drugs and received grants. our next call is from st. louis. this is nelson, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. call.