bank and finance regulations at 8:30 eastern and we will be joined by the author of the book "buying america back," about how individuals can affect manufacturing and trade. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this tuesday, may 15, 2012. shareholders of jpmorgan bank will meet in florida on the heels of the $2 billion trading loss. ron paul is stopping actively campaigning for president. the white house announces the new rules in the wake of that gsa scandal. we would like to get your reaction to those new rules.

did they go far enough? do you think they're necessary? do you think it will change things? here are the numbers to call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. you can also find us online. it joined the conversation on twitter. you can also weigh in on facebook or send your e-mail to journal@c-span.org. let's take a look at a story and "the washington post" -- in the "the washington post."

a blog post offers some new rules. we can talk about those this morning. here is what the white house is saying. there is already stuck in the works on capitol hill. we would like to hear whether you think capitol hill is the way to address this. or is the white house doing the

right thing by taking the lead. we will hear what you have to say in just a moment. here are the details of the plan. it would require the secretary to review any conference where it could exceed $100,000. it would prohibit agencies from spending over $500,000 on a conference unless the agency's secretary approves a waiver. it would require agencies to post, publicly, every january the prior year's spending. from utah, what do you think? caller: i think they should have restrictions. but this shows how the government is so out of control with their spending. they're wasting the people's

money. the people are sick and tired of it. this also shows of the obama administration's governments is so out of control that they do not have a handle on anything out there. i think it is good that they do this. the american people want to know, if they are going to pay taxes, that the money is being used wisely instead of on a lavish trips. these people that are elected to congress think they have a right to enrich themselves. i am glad to see it. i will be looking forward to mitt romney's alexians that we can get rid of all of this waste in washington. host: what do you think mitt romney will do to change things? caller: mitt romney is a terrific businessman. he is a terrific organizer.

being a mormon, he will do things right. he will put that house in order. guarantied. host: let's hear from ryan in houston. caller: i think we need more regulations. you have people who are only thinking about themselves and not the whole country. then they want to take their money and go to other countries. i think it is mainly in the south. you know what i'm saying? they want the president to make decisions, you know? i appreciate the call. host: thank you for calling. let's take a look again at what these rules change. it requires the deputy secretary to review any conference that goes over $100,000. and agencies have to post every january how much the previous year's conferences cost.

a florida of, what do you think -- florida caller, what do you think about these new rules? people need to actually research about how money comes into the government and circulation. if the government has bonds and a bar money from the fed. once people understand how money comes to the population, you come to find out that without debt, there would not be one single dollar. listen to all these populaces talking about debt. if we got rid of all the debt, there would not be a dollar in the population. host: what do you think about

the gsa spending council -- scandal that has erupted? and do you think spending is out of control? $800,000 on a conference outside of las vegas? caller: well, a lot of things are going on and out of control. like i said before. the debt deficit and the debt. if people understood how money comes into circulation, they would understand that money is attached to debt. that is money. without debt, there would be no money. host: let's look at some comments coming in on facebook. she is linking this new rule to what happened with the secret

service agency down in columbia. the office of management and budget is taking a look at these rules, but she has a point there. let's hear what erik has to say in alabama, a democratic caller. caller: all of these programs and things we had in place before president obama took office. they are trying to make things seem like -- in order to cut money. what you really should look at is people who used to work for a $500ernment' who has billion contract. most of these people up there

are tv, lobbyist and things, what they are actually doing is and nepotism and the stuff, these government contracts, they're becoming millionaires and billionaires, extracting money from the united states in order to make it seem like things are dysfunctional. they are getting rich. their kids and grandkids have good educations. mitt romney has five sons, money in the bank, $100 million. government makes many jobs. host: we will see what jim has to say on twitter, echoing a comment on facebook. what do you think about this? let's hear what darrell, a republican has to say in san diego, california. caller: good morning. i think it is typical of

government rules. it misses the point. back in oklahoma city, a couple of conferences ago, the gsa spent less than three and a thousand dollars total with the same number of people. the question is, how much are spending per person? are you getting value? if they make a rule of $500,000 or $100,000, is it going to get a conference of 30 people to stay under some limit. if you're going to produce rules, quickly enough, they should be producing a per diem rule. how much per conference, whether it is appropriate, and how do you trust -- how you justify conference. do i think they should have conferences, yes. had the conference is function just fine. host: let's look at with the gsa

is now doing. wichita kansas, are democrats on

line. caller: thank you for receiving my call. i just want to comment on the regulation of these banks. the christians around this country understand exactly what is going on. the bank, the gay movement, and the killing out of all the things of this country is the signs of the word of god. god bless you. host: let's keep the focus on the traveling conference rules we're talking about. we will talk about other news today, everything from ron paul suspending the active part of his campaign to how the president was a step towards gay marriage is being received. right now we're talking about the new traveling conference rules. here is a comment on twitter.

our independent line -- i think we lost that call. let's go to north carolina and hear what thomas has to say. he is a republican. what do you think? caller: i think we should have rules to govern these conferences. really, it is no different than what obama does. campaign, fundraisers, the taxpayer has to pay for it. i do not think that is right. host: what would you do about it? caller: they should have rules concerning how much he should be able to do so. he is extreme. he says it is policy when it is nothing but campaign and fund-

raising. we have to pay for it. host: let's a lot at a tweet coming in. our independent line. caller: i think he needs to look at his own expenditures. it costs millions of dollars for him to fly round of the country to inform the rest of the public. he should cut back to once a month out of town. besides the cost to the federal government, there are enormous cost to local governments. that is my thoughts. thank you. host: before we let you go, what you think about these new rules pertain to federal police

conferences and how much they spend? caller: it is a shame they had to add more rules to get that accomplished, but that is what it takes. unfortunately, you know, it is too bad we do not have people at the top. a business, you have to generate profit. you're less likely to do that because somebody is going to look did you. host: as "the washington post" mentioned they are gripping to deal, here is a story in politico.

that is something a couple of our callers have mentioned. good morning. caller: this is, to me, comical. we had congress, we see mr.

panetta, the defense secretary, he flies home to monterey, california, every weekend. we had nancy pelosi. you talk about the pot calling the kettle black. honestn't slam dunk civil servant employees. remember, the plot that was just for the was a cia agent who salary -- he was working undercover with al qaeda. where is the appreciation? these people are risking their lives just because the gsa abused their prerogatives. c'mon. let's get real here. it is nothing more than election-year politics. let's slam dunk federal employes because they are an easy target. does not look to what they contribute.

vestas throw all the incumbents out. see you later, alligator. just throw all of the incumbents out. host: let's look a tweet. taking a different opinion than our last caller. how about a republican in florida. what do you think? caller: i think the travel rules are all focused. i want to, of a caller said about how money comes into existence. there is a book called modern money mechanics. host: what did you learn from that? caller: it describes what money is and how it comes into our government. with the government, with the

bonds, any of the federal reserve with the money. when the governor wants to borrow money, the distraught treasury bonds and the fed buys them with so-called dollars. people need to stop listening to all this propaganda about the budget and all this stuff. it is all propaganda to keep us fighting each other while the politicians get rich. if we take the time to study our system, we will learn that we are being lied to about everything going on. host: that's the directions coming in and of the white house new rules. here is what joe lieberman had to say. he's the chairman of the homeland security. he said --

host: bruce on our independent line joins us next. go ahead. caller: i find it funny that when the president was first elected, he got on businesses about holding conferences and loss vegas. of course, now, the gsa are holding their conferences in las vegas. the thing that upsets me most about rules or new rules is that nobody ever in forces it -- enforces it. you had the fcc were they were watching porn 24 hours a day.

air traffic controllers are sleeping on the job. nobody gets fired. the have all kinds of rules. there are no consequences. i just do not understand. why make rules of nobody is going to enforce them? host: here is a comment on twitter. michael, the democrats' line, welcome. caller: i think it is outstanding the president obama implemented these roles. probably should have done that earlier. you have to give him credit for it. this has gone for many years with many administrations. once again, he has done something about it. kudos to president obama. host: what you think of the new

rules as far as the actual details? indeed think it will make a difference? caller: can't hurt. cutting any federal spending will help. better than social programs. host: joining us from ohio, hi there. turn down your tv and go ahead. caller: i get no answers. why -- [unintelligible] i think he should clean his own house first, just as all of us have to do. what you think would happen? host: what do you think would happen? caller: there would be a revolution, getting rid of all of these people who are taking our money and a laughing at us.

that is what i think. host: let's take a look at stories and politics. this is from "usa today." the campaign while in his strategy today.

making a difference there in wrapping things up or sticking it out in some fashion. let's look at a couple of other stories in the news. nebraska has a senate race that is up for grabs. take a look of the headlines here. here is a story that comes from that paper. several endorsements have made it impossible to handicap the three-way race. nobody should bet against either the state senator or the state treasurer. it takes 35% of the vote to win.

in a low-turnout primary, it could be any candidates game. we'll be watching that as it develops. here is a story from "usa today." rhode island will recognize all same-sex marriages. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. "the wallstreet journal" says that gay marriage recasts senate races.

here is a story out of denver, colorado. "the new york times" looks at the endorsements. voters reject the view that it was principal. most expect that he was motivated by politics, not policy.

here is a graphic from "the new york times" and cbs polls. 38% should be allowed to marry. 32%, no legal recognition. 24%, should be able to marry but not -- the whiteing up house's the new travel rules in the wake of the gsa scandal. chris, a democrat, what do you think about them?

caller: i can think it is a -- i think it is a good idea. i just cannot understand the hype that callers have about is being president obama's fault. it probably happened under republican president watches along with president obama. it is not his fault that this is happened. it may happen again, even though these rules may be put into place. republicans seem to care more about the debt and deficit, but they never mention that when there is a republican president. host: where do you think the problem lies where it comes to excessive spending, the gsa conference the cost of for $800,000, where does that come from? you think it has been happening a long time. caller: it comes from whoever is in charge of distributing the

money. somebody in that agency is responsible. it is not the president. it is an agency issue. host: let's go to aoridag, joshua, republican. good morning. caller: i believe these ideas are sound. at the same time, i believe they are not going to help. we need a boulder proposal that would require a constitutional amendment by the states. i hope they will use their article five powers in implementing the rules. go further. host: how far should they go? what would you put in place? caller: i would change the

government financially. the agencies and. a departure would have to be approved by the state. -- a department would have to be approved by the state. host: a constitutional amendment talking about spending. caller: yeah, and the scope of limiting the agency. host: atlanta, good morning. caller: is this one say one thing that is wrong with washington is they are like little kids. they need some bosses up there. every state ought to put in the name of a hat the names of some intelligent citizens. not anybody in politics, as part

of an oversight committee. let somebody like mike huckabee and martin luther king's daughter. there will be anybody who's better anything in it. give these people the rights to overside everything on the committee and that seek the truth. the bosses always work. stuff like this for gsa spends all of this money. that's light on the titanic, because it sinking, you lay off the life raft. anyway, have a nice day. host: a republican caller in north carolina, good morning. caller: it is actually south carolina. host: excuse me. we're glad you called. what you think of these new rules?

caller: first of all, that's fine. the president is doing a good thing there. that is sort of minuscule. and is seeking amount to avoid talking about the $2 billion that got lost in new york. i do not know. i'm not educated as some folks. i do watch a lot of c-span. that is my comment. if you allow me extra time, like you do so many, the real thing i think that is going on is the corruption, like some many have said. as one guy said four or six calls ago, about people never get punished. this administration is a classic

example. yeah of the house ways committee chairman sitting up in the office there. that had been a republican, there would probably be doing time somewhere. they have so much corruption. nobody ends up going to jail or does this board, so to speak. as far as the money that is being wasted, when you have a shadow government like barack obama has, and then all the people coming into the white house, one thing i will give him credit for, if he does get unelected this fall, i pretty does not get a second term, i hope he goes to the academy awards next february.

they need to give him an honorary oscar, because they given his make it as a hollywood writer and writing a script for him. he don't get on camera hardly ever. he is one of the best actors. is the denzel washington of our time. host: let's go to twitter. our last caller brought up the $2 billion trading loss by jpmorgan chase. let's take a look at the news related to that. "the new york times" reports that red flags to go unheeded.

"usa today" today says the jpmorgan fallout build ahead of the shareholders meeting.

a couple of other stories. a budget time bomb. this is then "the washington post."

it goes through groups federal lobbying in congress to change things more quickly instead of waiting for the lame-duck session. let's hear from nancy in baltimore, maryland. a democratic collar about the new rules regarding conferences and travel that federal agencies will now have to obey. what do you think, nancy? caller: i think, you know, they need to cut down on all of this fraud and abuse. but also, the congress. they have to be cut down on all of this campaigning, waste, and money that they do all the time. let me say this, too. you brought this up now. do not cut me off. the gay rights.

whether it was political or not. whether they trust him on his position. could you read the poll about mitt romney, too? host: sure. i will go back and find that. an independent caller, go ahead. caller: you made a point. sorry about that. i just want to make a point that the original way the constitution was set up was for the senate to be elected by the state representatives. i think what we have done by changing that dynamic is shifted the balance of power more towards the federal government. in the free market system, it was set up originally. is not just set for economics. it was rigged for political means as well. that is why it was set up the way it was.

they are looking at a hierarchy of players that play off of each other and compete for constituency. when we move that and disperse it as a whole, you now create a national -- it shifts towards the federal level. the states had no representation at that level. they cannot compete for their interest as sovereign entities. the national government meant has freewill. this is what you end up with. underperformance. host: our last caller had asked about the polling of the new york times looking at public

perception of the president's stands on gay marriage. we talked earlier about how the poll asked what americans view was on same-sex marriage compared to civil union and no legal relationship been recognized at all. here is what she wanted to see. information about mitt romney. let's take a look at the two presidential candidates. does --

talking about federal budget deficits, the new york times and other papers are looking at what is happening in california. governor jerry brown had hoped to dispense what greeted him when he took office. on monday, there he was in a familiar but uncomfortable posi. "the new york times" goes on to look at what will be happening in california and how they will deal with this. see the governor there at a press conference in sacramento on monday.

marcos on our democrats line, what do you think about the new travel rules. caller: congress is not doing their jobs. the takeaway everybody's freedom, they call it before the civil war. the state's controlled everything. [unintelligible] that is what i said. thank you. host: i think if these agencies have to spend all their funds or get cut the next year has an effect on outrageous spending we see. caller: you have the right demeanor for the job you are

doing. here is the issue. since obama has been president, there is a microscope on washington, d.c. because he is a black man. everybody is going to watch every little thing because he is a black man. it is good that he is the president. he is going to be really watched. i am happy that he is the president. it to be good if yet four more years. by the time his done, we will have everything cleaned up. they blame him for everything. two: let's look at political stories before remove on. romney is drawing a contrast.

it can also see here, president obama, speaking at barnard in new york. coming up next, we will take a look at a key interest group in washington that is filing a lawsuit against the senate. and later on, marsha blackburn will join us with corrections to jpmorgan's trading losses. as we go to the break, we wanted to show a portion of president obama's speech yesterday at barnard college. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> people ask me, sometimes, who inspires you? heroes all across this country. some of your grandparents who are sitting here. no fanfare. no articles written about them. they just persevere. they just do their jobs.

they meet their responsibilities. they do not quit. i am only here because of them. they may not have set out to change the world, but in small, important ways, they did. this certainly changed mind. so whether it is starting a business or running for office or raising an amazing family, remember that making your mark on the world is hard. it takes patience. it's takes commitment. it comes with plenty of setbacks and it comes with plenty of failures. whenever you feel that creeping citizen, whenever you hear those voices say you cannot make a difference, whenever someone tells you to set your standards lower, the trajectory of this country should give you hope. previous generations should give

you hope. what young generations have done before should give you hope. young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and stand -- and stood in did not just do it for themselves. they did it for other people. that is how we achieve women's rights. [applause] that is how we achieved voting rights. [applause] that is how we achieved and workers' rights. [applause] that is how we achieve a gay rights. [applause] that is how we make of this union more perfect. [applause] if you are willing to do your work now, to reach out and close that gap to america is and what america should be, i want you to know that i'll be right there with you. [applause] if you are ready to fight for that brilliant, magically simple idea of america, so that no matter who you are or what he looked like, no matter who you love, or what got you worship,

you can still pursue your own happiness. [applause] i will join you every step of the way. [applause] >> "washington journal" continues periods host: bob edgar -- continues. host: bob edgar is ceo of common cause. guest: the filibuster was not in the constitution. we have done a lot of research. a board member and atlantic came in to his position at common cause, helping us to understand that the filibuster is locking the debate. common cause has always been interested in having full debate in the senate.

as you know, the filibuster was used very sparingly over the course of history. in fact, when the movie mr. smith goes to washington had jimmy stewart standing up and doing a talking filibuster, there were zero filibusters' that year. in the last couple of congresses, it has just accelerated. common cause accelerated after citizens united disclosure legislation passed. it passed the house. went to the senate and got 59 votes. we were shocked about that. we were also concerned when we saw some many young people hurt by the dream act for it got 55 votes in the senate. it should have become law, but it was locked by a minority of senators. after careful research, we decided to take on the filibuster. with a number of house members.

we have supporters who are plaintiffs. we want federal courts to decide. the constitution does say that the senate has the right to shape and write its own rules, but those rules cannot be unconstitutional. we think we have a very strong case. we're looking forward to having the courts decide whether we are right. and we hope that, maybe with the pressure, the senate will change its rule. here is the question period should democracy be based on majority rule? or should one branch of the legislative body have a veto power on the other branch of congress and to block legislation? look to the definition of the filibuster. here is how it is a defined. the group put out some

information about the filibuster. looking at motions that have been filed from 1981 to 2010. you can see the number in the under 50 rates and now is in the upwards of 100. >guest: if you go back before that, it was used very sparingly. it was used more often in history to per cent lynching laws or segregation. we will get some push back, from progressive democrats who think they might lose the senate next year. but even when the democrats were in a minority position in the senate, they did not have the ability to hold the floor. they did not use it as an abusive power. we think it is time for the senate to reform its system. it is time for the courts to ask the question.

is this constitutional? host: why not work through legislative means? guest: we tried. a senator from colorado and i look, there were to very hard -- and iowa, they worked very hard. the problem is, you cannot change the senate rules because they can be filibustered. the senate thinks of itself as a continuing body. it does not sit down like the house does. i served in the house for 12 years. every two years we had an up or down vote on the rules. the senate has been living since 1917 under a continuing resolution because only 1/3 of the senate is up every two years. they believe their roles should play -- should stay in place unless there is an extraordinary procedure to change the rules.

we hope, given what harry reid said last week where he apologized for his lack of support a filibuster changes, that next january when the senate is back into session, date, in fact, will fix this problem before we even finally understand the court's's decision. host: if you'd like to weigh in and talk to bob edgar about the filibuster, here is the numbers. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. let's hear from joseph was a democrat joining us from florida. caller: good morning. i'm calling to express my great pleasure in the fact that c-span is giving common cause some exposure. i've known of common cause for many years back when mr. gardner was the originator, one of the first leaders of it. i am currently a member of common cause.

i would encourage anyone listening to go to the website and joined a common cause. i believe it is, truly, a nonpartisan organization. this filibuster issue is something i have also followed. i am so happy that common cause is pursuing it. things like the senate is not able to take care of it on their own. so we have to go to court. i wish you well. i hope the american public wakes up and realizes the importance of this issue. guest: thank you for that comment. we were founded by john gardner who was a moderate republican, when there were moderate republicans around. for the last 42 years we have been working on ethics and lobbying reform. trying to improve the redistricting issues across the country. we installed public financing in arizona, connecticut, and in

maine. we would like to see that good a virus spread across the country. over the last two years under the leadership of robert rice was the former labor secretary and now chair of our board, we have become the on common cause, working on issues like the filibuster. it just a couple of weeks ago we took on the american legislative exchange council. patterson you were in florida. during the trayvon martin issue will discover that the national rifle association had gotten florida to pass the stand your ground a lot and then spread it. just two weeks ago we filed a whistle-blower complaint with the irs to keep an eye on that. we just felt that, alec, trying to corporatize democracy. this issue where average, ordinary citizens are being harmed by the senate procedure,

not committing full debate, full discussion. stopping debate, stopping discussion. it is also making the congress of united states much more partisan. much more divided. we have got to get back to the kind of idea we had when i served in congress. i got elected as the watergate baby class back in 1974. during the 12 years i served, nothing was put in place by one party or the other that, once elected, we served the public. host: a democrat elected in 1974. he also served in the church of christ for seven years. he has been on common cause for several years.

there was a story in roll call today that filibusters have no real danger. it says that read, which is blowing off steam on reform, they are unlikely to pursue changes. what do you think about that? what do you think about the likelihood of it coming from within? even if there are not enough votes for it, with members sank this is how we want to do business. guest: i think there is a growing group of senators that are showing more courage. we saw this 18 months ago when we tried to change the rules and the filibuster. with harry reid's comments last week, i think you'll see in january with senators stand up. -- he says, let's keep the 60 votes, and a few days later he says let's make it 55.

over a three or four week period, get down to a majority vote. what he is saying is, if you want to use the filibuster, to slow up dialogue, fine. a eventually get to a point where even have an up or down vote where majority rules with respect to the minority. i hope that maybe hour filibuster, maybe a harry reid's comment and the national concern that "the new york times" editorialized today that it is time to be changed, i think it is hopefully a moment in history where we will get back to some sanity. by the way, jefferson and hamilton, our founding fathers, clearly stated in the constitution that they would put six instances where a super majority is needed. you cannot impede the president without one, you cannot have trade policies without a, there

were pretty smart. if you read the federalist papers and look at english common law, they never intended that one body of the legislative part -- if the senate wants to have a super majority vote, work with the house, work with the states. put it in the constitution. do with the founding fathers did, but do not use it as an abusive technique to simply stop legislative progress. the health-care law would have been stronger and many other bills would have seen the light of day because they had a majority vote. host: here is "the new york times" article he was mentioning. in florida, chuck and joins us on the independent line. the morning. go ahead. caller: i want to ask for just a touch of times like and get this

question out there. the senate, in my mind, is kind of a road institution in the way it is doing its business. i learned how government works back in the early 1960's. it was always my understanding that the house of representatives represented the people and that the senate represented the executive of the various states. originally, the states selected the senators. when an amendment to the constitution was made for the direct election of senators by the people, i think there is this understanding that now centers represent people and not the states that they are there to represent. the vice president was made the president's of the senate as a

liaison between the chief executive of the federal government. they stopped doing that. they are elected by the people. that is kind of rogue. what do you think would happen if the senators were required to represent their state government and the way that government wants to do things at the federal level. am i wrong? the senate does represent the state legislatures. the vice president is the liaison. host: we get your poni int. that is a good question. let's look at the definition of what a filibuster is. guest: you make a good

historical point. senators were appointed years ago. senators were representing their states. when i was getting educated in the 1950's and 1960's, my understanding was the house was made up of representatives that would represent the constituencies. my case it was about 500,000 in suburban philadelphia. the senate was intended to be a more diplomatic place where they did not have to run for senate every two year and its to work on treaties and be more thoughtful. what has happened is senators have become super house members. they spend a lot of time pork

barrelling legislation and going around with the cost of running campaigns, money has soiled our political system. the senate changed the rules to do away with a talking filibuster because that took up many hours of debate. senators did not want to spend that time in washington. they wanted to raise money for their re-election. having a filibuster for issues of conscience and as a last resort and not the first debate. let the amending process go forward and get down to the point where the senate and house representing two different constituencies, one the states, one their own districts, take

that down to the white house. if the president vetoes legislation, that makes a super majority to override a presidential veto. host: we have some tweets coming in. that is what mike has to say. tony says -- guest: no. the filibuster worked fine for about 150 years, be used just rarely and the senate did not suddenly become a super house effort. what has happened in the past two congress is is there is a tyranny of the minority.

minority senators can control the outcome of the senate. the senate was set up to represent states and have proportional representation. states like new york and california are disenfranchised by the filibuster. 14% of the population represented by 40 small state senators can block all the legislation by using a filibuster. we have to give back to work the house and -- the senate is representative of the broader issues of the state. majority rule is the core values of democracy. host: joe is a democrat in atlanta. caller: how about you, bob? ut-out.d to give a sho

anothery'all took down republican millionaire. he is already getting death threats. host: what you talking about taking down a republican? caller: they took down a republican yesterday. they said they will do everything they can do. even death threats, i guess. guest: i do not have an answer for you. i am prepared to say that george has been helpful in the lawsuit against the filibuster. a distinguished lawyer has won many prizes and is it the heart

of this federal lawsuit. the hero of the civil rights movement is one of the plaintiffs in this case. another congressman is also a plaintiff suing the united states senate. hundreds of bills have passed the house in a bipartisan way that it blocked by a single senator, putting a hold on the bill. they get block if a senator threatens a filibuster or if a filibuster it is imposed. george's is very much involved in this lawsuit. i will leave the lawsuit for other commentators to reflect upon. guestlet's hear from a talking -- good morning.

to come up with a book called "defending the filibuster." give us some history on the filibuster. guest: the filibuster has been one of the defining features of the united states senate throughout its history within to wonder years. it is one of the twin pillars which are the right to debate, the protection of the right to debate which is a protection of the minority in the senate. the related ability to amend in the senate for the most part. most of the time the right to amend legislation is unfettered.

unlike most legislative bodies, there is no jermaine tgermaine h restricts the ability to restrict on any subject and on any time. i don't want to get too lost in the weeds. these are a guarantee for the minority in the senate. all like the house of representatives, the majority can tightly control the body. in the house, it is up to the majority which legislation comes up, what amendments are in order, what the rules will be -- all of these things can be tightly controlled by the majority in the house of representatives acting through the rules committee. in the senate, a starkly the minority has a right to

basically to force the majority to come to the table. when it has worked well, it has made the senate a force for compromise, for moderation and stability in our government throughout its history. >> tell us about other challenges that have been issued to the filibuster. has anyone filed a lawsuit like common cause is doing? guest: i have a great deal of admiration for common cause and congressmen edgar. i came to washington in the same year that he did. i was working with paul tsongas and we were working with the watergate babies class. i disagree with them on this

particular issue. this issue has been his starkly in the senate has come up repeatedly going back -- let me give you a little bit of history on this. what makes the filibuster possible in the senate is largely the absence of a rule that we call the previous question, a motion to consider the previous question. in most legislative bodies, that rule allows the majority to end debate and bring a matter to a vote. the senate has no such provision. there was one prior to 1806. even then it was not used in the

same way. the senate has the tradition of unlimited debate, of extended debate. in 1806, at the suggestion of aaron burr, the senate dropped that rule. until 1917, when it passed current cloture rule in the senate, there was no restraint on debate whatsoever in the senate. the only way that debate from 1806 to 1917, the only way the debate could be ended in the senate is when all the senators decided it was time to vote in the matter. host: tell us if there have been other challenges before. guest: not specifically

lawsuits. i'm not aware of any particular time a lawsuit has been blocked before. i'm not a constitutional lawyer. i doubt the supreme court is going to want to jump into the middle of 200 years of senate history and declare the filibuster on constitutional. i think it is pretty straightforward that in article one, the senate has the right to write its own rules. host: richard arenberg, thank you for joining us. guest: good to speak with you. host: it is a matter of history and tradition? guest: let me say to richard, i

congress to work with been paul tsongas from massachusetts. i suggest you look at leading the lawsuit which we filed with the federal court. it has much of the history in it as well as an article from the harvard legislative review which is mentioned in an article in "the washington post" today which details some of the history. to give you some help, there have been several times when it lawsuit has been brought against the senate rules and in several of those occasions, the supreme court has ruled that the rule was unconstitutional. you're right the senate has the right to shape its own rules but it does not have the right to

shape those rules if they are unconstitutional. you mentioned the right to debate and the right to amend. the current abuse of the filibuster stops at the right to debate. the filibuster is used at the end of the process, not after the legislation has been amended. the senate should look at its rules so that fair and adequate amending of bills will be provided, i agree with you. we did have germane-ness rules. you could have a small business built that everybody supported and there would be a sure bill protection act or a

highway or road. it restricts what amendments can be offered and the house member walks across the aisle towards the senate side and asks the local senator to attach their pork-barrel legislation on to the rule. i would like to be open it in full debate and that is one of the reasons we are filing suit against the filibuster. i would like the senate to change its rule to allow much more opportunity for amendments and i like the senate to stay in session more often so that all senators can be heard and a discussion can take place. when you get to the point if a vote, the majority should rule with respect to the minority. host: anthony in modesto, california. caller: i think we should look at recent history. we had a disaster in 2008.

the united states made a complete mistake with liberals in charge intent on destroying this country. in 2010, we started to fix it. i believe that is what you're talking about, the dream act. the senate needs to be able to stop these people from attacking this country. host: what should the% b percent be? guest: the founding fathers were pretty smart. the founding fathers decided there were six issues that cit had a super majority. -- that should have a super majority. democracy will be based on

majority rule, not on super majority rule. the problem is that we have moved away from a super majority. when george w. bush was president, he was able to veto every piece of legislation that came through during his eight years. obama has the right to veto. it goes back to the house and back to the senate for a super majority vote. it is important to be some protection from stopping bad things from happening. that was given to the president. the senate should find a way to extend the discussion but come to a majority vote with respect to the minority's own opinion. host: there have been a series of stories looking at the

filibuster rules. the minority party in power at any given time is often reluctant to change the filibuster rules because they use it to the advantage. the majority does not want to lose it because at some point they might be on the other end of it. guest: if the senate goes over the other side, don't be surprised if the republicans change the rules on the filibuster to prevent 41 democrats from blocking legislation. this is an issue of whether the majority should rule and whether the legislative bodies should act on legislation based on their own best judgments, compromise, and take those issues to the white house over majority rule. host: good morning.

caller: good morning. one of the things the constitution does not disallow as far as i understand -- one of the other callers said, especially the last two or three years, harry reid is not along the senate to do anything at all. this is the only other parties had to hold back from allowing misrepresentation of the people. the voters need to wake up and see what is going on with the constitution. not a obama's father is u.s. citizen.

he is not eligible to be president. he knew that. that makes him a traitor. host: the rules do not relate to your parents place of birth. guest: we will disagree on almost every issue. we need full debate and full openness in the united states senate. the filibuster is not in the constitution. the founding fathers never intended there be a filibuster with one body of the legislative branch being able to block legislation with a vote. it was invented 50 years after the constitution. after the time it was invented, it was used three or four times.

it is only been in the last 10 years that there's been an acceleration of the use of the filibuster as a tactical tool. i did not agree with you at current use of the filibuster is in the best interest of the nation. the disclose act -- eight of the nine supreme court judges who were dealing with citizens united, a supreme court decision that opened up the floodgates of money. eight of those justices said, we believe there should be full disclosure. foreign corporations should not be able to meddle in our politics. there should not be anonymous or secret donations given to political candidates. the house passed the disclosed

legislation. it went to the senate. it was blocked even though it got 59 votes. we need to change the rules of the filibuster. host: bob edgar is president and ceo of common cause. they are challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster. the students were hobe in the dream act would pass in congress. we have a press release from the dream couple group, a new era of advocacy. chico, california. mark on our democrats line.

caller: i am a member of common cause. thank you very much. it is a great organization. a couple of things. i thought the vice president was the tie breaker of the senate. with the filibuster, that is not possible. smaller states have two senators. when you look at california, we have way more people than other states. it would seem that maybe there would be a way to break up the bigger states in order to deal

with that situation. guest: thank you for that comment. this is a very technical issue inside of our legal brief. the only job of the vice president of the united states as stated in the constitution is to break ties. the filibuster presents that from happening. he cannot break ties at 60 votes. the point about the smaller states. we hope that california and new york and some of the other states that have been hurt, harmed by a filibuster, by a handful of smaller states be able to block opportunities for things like the buffett rule, which would make the large 1% wealthy taxpayers pay their fair

share, or something like unemployment compensation or other issues. they have been harmed when other issues have been blocked by the filibuster. we're talking with those states and we can and plaintiffs' tort lawsuits -- and we can add plaintiffs to our lawsuits. host: there is a piece by as klein in "the washington post." you can see back through time.

you can see how often it was used back in the 1920's. you can see an increase in the last handful of the sessions. this is on twitter. you mentioned the image of jimmy stewart in the movie "mr. smith goes to washington," trying to be able to keep going. things?t chancge >> when i was in elementary school, the movie "mr. smith goes to washington" is what we thought about when we thought about the filibuster. it won a nomination for the best there were zero erbut

filibusters that year. the majority has to stick around when a filibuster it takes place as opposed to the minority that has called the filibuster. we like to go back to the talking filibuster, a filibuster that what happened at the end of the process. i think the senate needs to be shaken and they need to change their rules. if the senate does it, one of the courts will take a serious look of the constitutionality of the filibuster. the chart you showed is one of my favorites. there is an explosion of the use of the filibuster in the last couple of years. host: leon from louisiana. caller: thank you a lot.

common cause -- all them people disenfranchised by the filibuster. i am thankful we have a filibuster up there. if the old country was run like new york and california and maryland and michigan, we would be in trouble. it takes 1/6 of the entire population. usually there is a balanced budget. we do not need california and new york running the entire country. we do not need to be like greece. i'm concerned about the senate. we have harry reid. i did not seal one person in the house and one person in the senate can stand there and turn

around and you have one guy like a dictator of a third world country to have a debate. host: does get a response from bob edgar. guest: harry reid can stop a lot of legislation. republican senators have done the same thing. one senator can put a hold on an appointment. president obama had the use power to appoint the head of a consumer agency that was passed by the house and senate. a handful of senators did not like the law itself, they blocked a qualified person for that position. in all states, they have been blocked by one senator making

that decision to put a hold on that vote. the senate has complicated rules and a lot of respect for each other. we think that is fine and appropriate. we think the majority view of the nation and of the house and senate should be the rule of the lands and not the tyranny of the minority. host: rick from connecticut. caller: good morning. the majority of people -- many people feel when they vote they are voting for the lesser of two evils. many people feel relieved when congress is not in session. it was set up to make it difficult to pass laws. host: let's get a response.

guest: they made it difficult. it is 8 deliberative process. -- it is up deliberative process -- it is a deliberative process. the debate was blocked on health care or tax policy. they intended the house and senate would be responsible and that there be a majority vote and that a vote would go to the white house for an up or down veto. the rules have been altered, abused, and we have seen a stagnate in the senate. that is why common cause has taken the extraordinary step to file in the u.s. courts and we

believe the research we have done will prove that this unconstitutional rule should in fact be removed from the senate. host: bob edgar, president and ceo of common cause. the group is filing a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the filibuster. up next, marsha blackburn will respond to questions about increased regulation on banks. later, a grass-roots effort to overhaul the made in the u.s. label. >> rebecca brooks said she and her husband will face charges over britain's tabloid phone- packihacking scandal.

in north carolina, the eldest daughter of john edwards is set to take the stand for the defense today in his corruption trial. kate edwards is a lawyer who has been in the courtroom almost every day. he faces a up to30 years in prison if convicted on all counts. today is the primary in oregon with 25 delegates at stake. ron paul issued a statement yesterday saying he would stop spending money to compete in the primaries. mitt romney is 171 delegates short of the number he needs. the first all summer's plan -is-

set forr's plan is today. there is a new website that is alzheimers.com. [video clip] >> this saturday, hear conversations between president nixon and a key adviser chuck colson, who passed away last month, as they talk about george mcgovern. >> i think he is on the verge of something. everything he is done has gone wrong. >> nationwide, xm channel 119.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: representative marsha blackburn is our guest. thank you for coming in. we want to talk with you about jpmorgan chase and your thoughts about the banking industry. there's a big shareholder meeting today. what do you think went on? guest: i think we will find out what went wrong. it was jpmorgan losing money and not the federal government. that is one of the things we have to realize. the tooill dealing with big to fail concept. we look at the $2 billion loss.

every day we learn a little bit more about it. they said it went to the clearing houses. host: president obama was in new york city yesterday and taped an interview with "the view." they have put out a preview. [video clip] >> jpmorgan is one of the best managed banks there is. jamie dimon is a smart banker and still lost $2 billion and counting because they were making bets in these derivatives markets. it will be investigated. this is why we passed wall street reform. you could have a bank not as strong making those same t

bets and we might have had to step in. host: what is your response to the white house take on the situation? guest: we will learn a little bit more and see what happens with this process. we have to keep in mind dodd- frank -- there have been400 rule-makings. sometimes you get so many rules and regulations. the rules and auditors cannot see the forest for the trees. we call for simplification and common sense that may end up bringing some good processed to bear. you want to be able to get to the root of the problem. even going back a little bit

further than dodd-frank -- what happens when washington has a knee-jerk reaction to things? they are very definitive. but then they do not lay out enough of a process. "i think there may be a problem over here." i want to see what we learn as we move forward. this is a good way to say, let's take a good approach to this. we pass this bill, at 2300 pages. host: "usa today" takes a look at the situation. this comes from the op-ed pages.

"taxpayers pick up the tab." host: do you think the volcker rule would change things? guest: i think that is one of the items that we're going to learn a little bit more about and see if this would have been a violation. host: let's go right to the phones. you can call 202-737-0001 if you're a democrat. 202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independents. caller: i have been waiting

years to get congressman black burn on "washington journal" and told her accountable for a big lie she told on "washington journal." turn the health-care debate, she said massachusetts had a $5 billion budget deficit because of the health care in massachusetts. that was a lie. we did not have 8 $5 billion deficit -- we did not have a $5 billion deficit. this woman has no credibility. no one should listen to a word she says. she kept saying massachusetts has a $5 billion deficit. that is a lie.

why did you lie? guest: my goodness. it sounds like ivan has had its coffee this morning. i think the record will show that massachusetts had a $5 billion hole in their budget. tennessee was the test case for hillary clinton health care. this was done as an executive order. the governor's office of tennessee -- this one on the books in january, 1995. tennessee ended up seeing their health care delivery system quadruple in cost over a five- year period. as we were reviewing the plan in

massachusetts, what we did see is you also had budget restraints, the largest area of growth came from the health care delivery system. the health-care program increased costs and do not deliver better outcomes. there is no one that can show your plan. i have asked secretary sebelius many times to show me a program that is going to give you better outcomes, a decrease in costs, an increase your access. there is not want they can point to that has run well. host: have you had a chance to talk about this with mitt romney? guest: i have visited him a few times, and i think that he looks

at this and says, "massachusetts tried something," and he knows what would it would not work. look at government-run health care through the obamacare bill in our energy and commerce committee and health care subcommittee. one thing that we saw whether it is guaranteed issue in new jersey or what california tried, what you know is when interject government control, the price is going to go up and access will godown. down. host: you appeared on abc's this weekend talking with congressman barney frank. [video clip] >> let me give you one specific example. his was done by jpmorgan's

london affiliate. if an american institution engages in derivative transactions, it will be subject to no american regulation. that is an effort to weaken the reform bill that we pass to. ed. we are trying to decide whether we will have the rules and place-- we are not trying to stop banks from losing money. host: that is congressman barney frank on abc on sunday. tell us by your reaction to that is. guest: look at all the regulation that has come out of the town in the past year, whether it is banking or other financial-services or whether you're looking at health care reform.

80,000 pages last year. 4000 new rules. our businesses are living through more uncertainty than ever before, whether it it is in the banking sector. every time i'm in my district and talking with our community banks, which did not cause the problems that we saw but have been greatly affected by dodd- frank and some of these rules. health- talking with care providers. they all complain about the uncertainty that all this rulemaking has caused. the overreach of the federal government in the areas where they may not go. i think it complicates the situation and is counter productive. look at the job loss numbers.

it is the lowest it has been since 1981. this is not something that is strengthening our economy. congress should say, let's draw a little bit further down. this blanket of regulation is stifling job growth. host: tom from lexington, tennessee. caller: it is a pleasure to speak with you. guest: how are things in lexington? caller: i watch bill reilly's rant he had last night about being rich and everything he supports and we are supposed to lift off of his income. my mother worked 45 years, a southern girl. she saved quite a bit of money

on her own. you could save united states savings bonds. they were secure. why is it the working class people are the ones that get hurt on their 401(k) plans and their savings? other people would be losing a bundle now, too? about this health care deal -- my fiancee works for one of the largest employees in this country. they raised their deductibles to $3,000 a year. that is practically a quarter of for income. -- of her income. guest: good tennessee common sense. i want to go to what he said

about savings bonds. i remember growing up so many club if it was say4-a 4-h that i was winning, i got a savings bond. right now our children are not getting savings bonds. look at what is happening with the debt. my youngest grandchildren has $40,000 worth of u.s. debt. we're capping in trading our children's future. he learned a lesson from a his mother-- work hard, save your money. you can get these savings bonds. you can participate in the

success of your country. that is a great lesson. it is unfortunate that my grandchildren look at the debt because cell phones politicians will not cut back on what they are spending. he talked about his fiancee's health insurance deductibility being raised. you had a government control of health care with this managed- care project in tennessee with hillary clinton health care. we sought an acceleration in the health insurance rate of our private insurance in tennessee. look what has happened since obamacare has passed. up.ybody's rates have gone the companies i've talked to --

they have seen their rates go up. the lowest rate was 23%. 23% was the lowest that i heard back. hospitals are being paid 50 days out. it is taking a longer time to get to rit. to health less access care and the cost will go up when the government intervenes. it is exactly the wrong path and with the american people do not want. host: our guest mentioned her home district in tennessee. she serves on the whip team into the house of representatives and is on the energy and commerce committee.

in republican in florida, good morning. caller: how are you? i am glad you brought up some interesting points. until you bring the glass- steagall act back into place, the dodd-frank act will not work. it is more regulation. you brought up bonds. i think it is time to have the first bond banks. turn them into something that is the first covered bond bank that is owned by the people that invests in bonds. it will be fair. remember the interest mortgages, 30-year fixed.

there is a mortgage based on that. there are so many solutions. it does have a silver bullet for the housing market and creates a new segment. we cannot protect ourselves from the common dangers. i would love somebody to express these ideas. i do have them in a writeing. the problem i had -- private access. there are solutions. that is my comment i have to say. guest: thank you. there is one thing i would encourage him to do -- contact his member of congress.

blackburn.house.gov is my website. i would encourage people to be in touch with him. you confinement at blackburn.house.gov and don facebook in twitter -- and on facebook and twitter. sessionsng listening or at the grocery store or filling up my car at the gas station and people will come up and say, i have this thought. it is worth going back to his point. he said individuals have the silver bullets. what has kept this economy going the faith and action of the american people.

when you talk about stimulus and bailout and excessive regulation, it all comes back down to the best economic stimulus is a job. the american people are ready for jobs. right now you have the stagnant, non existent jobs growth. look at the number of jobs in the sector that have been lost since barack obama became president. you do not see the vibrancy that you need in job creation. the reason you did not is excessive regulation, the amount of uncertainty that was put into the marketplace when you see the amount of -- when you see the impact of obamacare. are you going to have to pay the

penalty if you do not have health insurance? what kind of taxes will be levied? this creates uncertainty. you do not get what you need. that is the old formula that works for a job creation --less litigation equal to job creation. it is the individuals that will change what is happening, whether it is in banking regulation or in the economy as a whole. host: conversation continues on twitter. the original glass-steagall act -- do you support it in its original form?

guest: you look at the simplicity. what was it there for? you can spell it out. go back to glass-steagall. look what happened to dodd- frank. 2300 pages and they still haven't gotten around to giving the in -- the definitions. this is part of the problem that is there -- the overreach of the federal government and the lack of common sense into the process. the original pact is similar -- the original act is simpler. they knew where the rules were. host: democratic caller from florida. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.

this is my second call in about 10 years. i don't think the regulations are being enforced for openers. there were whistle-blowers' before the banks collapsed and nobody paid any attention to them. the banks went on and on with their multiple mortgage deals. i think that is basically the reason that they collapse. they were stretched too far. no common sense. greed. pure greed. i have a question for the representative. you take an oath when you go to office to uphold the constitution of the united states. most of the republicans may have taken an oath not

to raise taxes. which both do you observe more closely -- which oath the observed more closely? guest: i appreciate that you talk about a lack of common sense and greed. you take an oath to uphold the constitution and that is something of a take very seriously. making certain that you appalled that constitution. we did our pledge to america, we put in there that you would have to fight what causes, what provides the constitutionality of for that bill before you filed that bill. that is an important step to take.

there are pledges that people today. i am a no-new-taxes pledge. from my experience as a state senator in tennessee, reading a four-year fight of the imposition of the state income tax, i know the government never gets enough of the taxpayers' money. sometimes i ask people, "how much is enough?" people do not know. they always want a little more. government has an insatiable appetite for money. look at what has taken place in the past three years. it is unbelievable. $15 trillion in debt.

$5 trillion in the past three years. i thought president bush spent too much money. now you're talking about -- look at that is their monthly deficit. so the spending has to be brought under control. it is greed. bureaucrats need to be forced to get their spending under control. that's why i'd run amendment every single year that would require that the bureaucracy reduce 1%, to%, or 5%, of the spending. you do those across-the-board

reductions and give haircuts, and get the spending back under control. host: you mentioned taking a pledge and committing not to allow for taxes. graves for norquist has the tax pledge, have you signed that? guest: yes, i think i have signed his and others'. the problem is we are not overtaxed. this government is overspent. we are not undertaxed. we are absolutely overtaxed. tin-tin as a spending problem. the more you tax, the more you spend. every time the tax increases, you have a little more loss of freedom. host: nashville, tennessee writing by e-mail --

guest: well, what i am pushing is to reduce federal spending, because those tax cuts, our sales tax deductibility that we enjoy in tennessee because we don't have a state income tax, it is a fairness issue. this is included in the tax reductions. some of the provisions that are there for our detainment industry, for our musicians and songwriters are included in those tax extenders, as they are called. i will support continuing with the bush tax cuts. is the spending. when you look at government gone wild, like the issues with overspending at the gsa, when you look at the tsa overspending, these are areas

where you can begin to cut back as well as beginning to make some reforms that need to be made. host: carlos in chicago, independent caller. caller: good morning. good morning to you, also, ms. blackburn. guest: good morning. caller: to you have an and paper? i have five questions. -- pen and paper. the first issue is housing. she was talking about dodd- frank. i used to be a democrat, but then i was done with them because they agreed with the banking industry and i went through foreclosure. my first question would be, those of us, while you are talking about the banking industry, talking about getting to the heart of the problem.

and then what can those of us americans -- my parents have worked hard for this house and i'm working hard now as a massage therapist, who can we talk to for relief on that? seconding his health care. i believe you are about to support mitt romney which did the same thing as obamacare in massachusetts. the third thing is the debt. every year you guys get a pay raise, i believe. you passed that through with no problem, you guys. what about the rest of the american people? i will take my answer off the air. guest: the caller has a full plate of items. first, on the issue with the debt, congress led the way in cutting our budget. that is the first votes that we took. i think at this point we have cut our budget by 11%.

he is misinformed on the pay raise. a lot of things gore around that we have special health care and don't pay social security and all these different things. have a health savings account. so he is a little misinformed on that. one of the things that i would recommend at is going to the web site and looking at what we have done to push forward -- to lead the way an sec example on how other federal agencies should be making spending reductions. that's a good first step. it will not solve all the problems, but beginning to make. across-the-board cuts is a good first solid step. just like in tennessee, we made across-the-board cuts in order to bring the budget into control. you will see that helps get spending under control. on the health-care issue, you

and i would not agree on everything if we had a conversation. my husband and my children and i don't agree on everything, but we agree on most things. i expect that is the way many of us are going to be with governor romney. had i been in the issues, i would not have done the massachusetts health care plan. because what we learned in tennessee 8, we were the test case for this. a covered option plans, it does not work. we had a democrat governor that reshaped the program and took 270,000 people off the program so it would be affordable. what we do know is a few things. we need to focus on this -- increasing options for health care and decreasing cost and mandates. the system needs to be

simplified. whether it is bureaucrats in the government's or insurance companies. it is just as frustrating not to be able to understand what your boss as with health insurance are having all these objectives interpretations of what the policy covers. that need to be cleaned up and clarify. we also need to do is get the taxes out of health care. obamacare put taxes on medical devices, they have excise taxes. we need to increase when you can do with your help savings accounts and do it on a tax-free basis. all are all items that could be done to help make health care more affordable. my goal is to preserve access to affordable health care for all americans. there are some steps that we can take. with the housing issue, you wanted someone to talk to. i suggest that you call your

member of congress' office and speak with one of the case workers and ask them if they can provide you a little bit of direction and informational where you can go for further information on how to deal with your mortgage holder and processed through a foreclosure. host: representative marsha blackburn representing the seventh district in tennessee that includes memphis, franklin, and clarksville. qusseir from mike, a republican, in tennessee. caller: good morning a. it's a pleasure. ms. blackburn, you are doing a wonderful job out there. everything you say makes so much sense. that journalist, you took care of him very well. good for you. i have a quick question on the

banking finance regulation deal. awhile back when they were bailing out the banks, i was familiar with some of the people that were over -- oversaw these reputable banks, three different banks, personnel that i knew. they were telling me they did not need a bailout, but they kept on forcing the money at these banks. i was i-- i did not want to get nosing because they are clients of mine -- nosy. with this j.p. morgan, it is really funny on wall street. they must have some big investors out there that were losing money that were tied into congress or something.

this is very odd, hearing both sides. anyway, that was my question. thank you again. guest: thanks, mike. i appreciate that. hmike is talking about something that was happening during the bailout, you would hear from some of the bank's such as our regional banks and different banks where they did not their problems, but the money was there and there was the pressure to take some of this money. it reminded me of the thing we often hear is that we are doing oversight, "we have an appropriation and have not spent all of it, we need to hurry up and spend this money by the end of the year." i think that is what mike is

referring to with some of our financial institutions that that felt there was a push to get this money into circulation. too big to manage. increased regulations, which is exactly what this is happening now. you don't know what you are going after. you have rulemakings. that the number of rulemakings. last year, 80,000 pages of new regulations entered the federal register. who could read all that? it doesn't matter if it's banking regulation or health care regulation or manufacturing regulation, things coming from the epa. the uncertainty that it creates, the manipulation of the marketplace, it is something

that is not serving our country. the american people are saying enough is enough and it is time for us to be under rollback regulation and taxation and government overreach and let people get back to doing the business they want to do. host: a tweet -- are there other things you could get behind? guest: i think one of the things that people are wanting to see is just not add more regulation, use a little common sense. whether it is in health-care audits, audits on hospitals, whether it is some of your fdic audits in banks, you can tell, if you have well-qualified auditor's who know what they are

doing, then you are going to be able to figure out where there is a problem and where there is not a problem. this pushed through increased the number of auditors from the irs and the number of auditors that are with the fdic, they have got a lot of very young individuals who have not had private-sector experience. i think the first thing you need to do is not add more regulations on what you need to do is get some regulations off the books. host: gregory as on the democrat line in new york city. turn down your tv for us. caller: the morning and thank you for c-span. i love watching you, libby. this has been a headache listening to this congressperson with a lot of run on sentences. she never enters a question specifically.

my question has to do with two things. health care. she keeps talking about health care and the government and how the government should stay out of health care. i wonder who pays for health care bill, her gas. could we removed some congresspersons? let's see some real americans in the country for everybody -- let's see some real americans. the country is for everybody. would you sign one of my pledges? host: the next person on twitter says could start by cutting by 50%.'s salary guest: >> gregory katsas the opportunity every two years ago to the ballot box and vote for someone different if he does not like his member of congress. he is a little bit wrong.

i fill up my tank myself. i pay for my health care. i have a sehelp savings account. when you talk about members of congress' salary, these salaries have been frozen and there's always a push to reduce the salaries. what we have to be careful is you don't want a congress where you end up with only elite who can work without making a salary. we have a lot of folks that have children in school. i think it needs to be a little. careful little. host: accurate the notion of reducing the numbers of the members of congress? guest: i have not heard anyone say anything about trying to change the number of members of congress. i have a lot of people that say they wish there were more things we could do by referendum.

a lot of our states have been very successful in moving issues to a referendum. i think that you are probably going to see a little bit more of the ballot initiatives and referendums and allowing those so people can speak their piece. tennessee we have had some. we had one on a lottery, whether to allow it. north carolina just had a referendum on the gay marriage issue. you will see more of these across the country. it does allow individuals to be more involved and active in the process. it's a good thing. host: marsha blackburn represents the seventh district of tennessee as a republican in the house. thanks so much for being with us. next we will talk to the author of the new books "buying america backed," and its plan to overhaul the made in u.s.a. label. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> at 9:16, here are some headlines. consumer prices were flat last

month as cheaper gas offset modest increases for food, clothing, and housing. the data also indicates inflation remains in check. the labor department says that the seasonally adjusted consumer price index was unchanged in april after a pretense of a percent gain in march. commerce departments as retail sales rose just one-tenth of% in april. retail spending had risen 0.7% in march and 1% in february. the euro zone narrowly avoided going into recession in the first quarter this year. today the european union's statistics office said the economy was flat from january to march when compared to the previous three months. facebook is upping the ante ahead of its scheduled initial public offering this friday. in a regulatory filing today the social networking company says it expects to sell its stock now for between $34 per share and $38 per share.

previously it said $28 to $35. finally, the interior department says active-duty military personnel and their dependents will soon be able to enter every national park for free as part of an effort to thank service members and their families. an annual pass will be made available to members of the military free of charge beginning saturday, which is armed forces day. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> reading has become over the last two or hundred years the ultimate democratic act of the ultimate democratic country, because it makes it possible for the many to teach themselves what a few once held close. the president can " mark twain because he has read huckleberry finn and the postman can understand the reference because he has also read huckleberry finn. although demagoguery is still

possible, it requires a lot more cleverness. with careful reading of books and newspapers and now material on the internet, their claws are revealed to ordinary people like us. it was not for nothing that the nazis made bonfires of books. >> in 1992 she won a pulitzer prize for columns on a wide range of personal and political topics. in a few weeks you can talk to the best-selling author sunday, june 3, on c-span 2. get a head start by watching some of her other comments over the years online at the c-span video library oen her writings, believes, conviction, and her life in journalism. all searchable. "washington journal" continues. a real deal blueprint for restoring american prosperity. what you mean by "buying america

t -- back?" >> two thirds of the american economy is consumer purchases. government only controls a small part of it. if people look at what they are buying and the noaa has an effect on their own future. we need to start doing that host: when a consumer in the u.s. coast or retail store and buys a product, there's a label on its debts as made in the usa or made in china. guest: two problems. first, it is often inaccurate. there's a big exception where they have this last point of significant transformation where you can take apart from china, put it together here and because you put it together here, it was the last time it got touched, you can now claim made in america. the rules are very often cheated. the other thing is things are now made all over the world.

you need to do a breakdown when you make a purchase if you want to know where your money is going. now we have details on our food. from my personal experience, i am 59 and we all fight weight problems. when i buy something in the market and has 900 calories, which i did not think about before, now i make the choice of maybe not purchasing this thing. it takes government regulation to help everybody dietary habits. a lot of information is self correcting. i think the same thing could happen with purchasing. i think if you have more reformation, a lot of people look at the stuff and say i would rather buy this one or this one is from a country i don't want to purchase from because of child labor. host: alan uke advocates for a label like this one. 30% of a good is made in china,

so you would see that. this label, mexico contributed 30% of the good. if the u.s.a., 20%. talk about the trade ratio and what this number is. guest: it is the percentage of what they buy from us. china buys 25 cents a must for every dollar that we buy from them. that means it's not an equal trade and money runs out of the country. a lot of it has to do with policies they have. 100%.lly it's 50% to korea is 79% and taiwan is 73%. host: what should a person do with this information if they see a label? how does this inform consumers? guest: i would rather help the u.s. future. i have young kids. they are trying to find a job

right now. if i change my purchases so that there's more jobs in the united states because either the country has a big trade ratio so we are creating a lot of export jobs or it is a country where we can switch into american content. it creates opportunity and we will start getting the manufacturing sector to rise and unemployment rate to go down. host: here are the numbers to call to speak with alan uke -- he advocates for the cool label. that is the countries of origin label. that would be put on goods. he is a san diego businessman and his products already have the ideas of a bipartisan coalition. whose support do you have? guest: a whole range. secretary of commerce gutierrez

under the bush administration. ralph nader. and the last head of the armed services. a range of people. peter for ideological reasons, like they want to support countries or not. because of human rights or environmental reasons. or people want to help the economy and make the u.s. more dependent. host: what about services? you are talking about manufactured goods, items you buy at a store. what about the banking industry, where the trail of money actually goes? though the chinese have a stake in your bank or is there some sort of other overseas connection? guest: i will not be dealing with consumer products with this. that's a whole different thing. that will probably be a committee in congress to deal with that. i am a manufacturing and i've sold to 60 countries and have a tradition in germany. i have been selling overseas 35

years. i would like to get back to where we were before, where people watched a lot of american things and now adapting to that they either buy from a good trade ratio companies or they buy american things. host: surely is a democratic caller joining us from enterprise, alabama. caller: good morning. i'm happy for c-span. host: thanks for calling. caller: i just wanted to say that my friends and i have talked about this zoa lot. we think that america needs to internalize in some areas, such as half a company that only hires americans, but only produces in america, and sells in america and no stock market limit to what the ceo's can make. and that way get our jobs back

and get us back on track. there are too many washing machines and dryers and dishwashers and this and that made somewhere else that don't work that well anyway. what we need to do in my opinion is start taking care of our own. guest: i agree. that is what a lot of other countries do. if you look around the world as japan, south korea, china, germany, france, they make a real effort to either own stuff even if it's more expensive. sometimes it does not even work as well. but they know the effect on the economy. they know that their labor rates would rise and they would get more taxation because of these people are employed. in germany they get paid $12 an hour more than american factory workers. what they've done is make it a priority to manufacture and and to export. there's a job shortage. people compete to get employed.

host: now a call from oregon, an .ndependent, caller: how come you don't let people create their own jobs and work on their own without stepping in and bothering people. for instance, young girls that try to sell lemonade and the cops made them dig down their stand and everything like that. everybody that tries to help themselves and to share with other people. they do get successful and they are stopped in certain ways. why is that? host: while we have you on the phone, its use of these labels we are talking about in the store, if you could tell how much of a good came from a country, would that change your buying habits? caller: sure. i'm an artist and i do artwork,

but nobody really supports people that are really talented in this country that could make their own living. through living they are always stopped in certain ways. host: let's get a response. guest: i agree with you. i have seen art in the furniture stores painted in china. i think you should buy local, support local people if you want to keep this kind of thing going. that's the kind of attitude we need to change and there's no reason drafted by copy of a painting painted in another country when you can buy local art. host: an earlier caller spoke about regulation and he was talking about kids try to eliminate sales. is there a risk of overregulation? guest: what i'm trying to do is replace regulation with consumer information. we want to not just throw

numbers. the food labels give people information about what is in their food so they make the choice. host: the u.s. customs service requires imports after be marked with the country of origin, where they're coming from. guest: the problem with that rule is you can put it together. an example, right now everyone is after apple and is made in china. it is assembled in china. as more american content and content from other countries in the iphone than there is chinese content. but you see the made in china label because the rules are like that. what i want to do is have a percentage of cost, so it ties into what their income taxes are and their financial statements, so you can not cheat on it and you really know the breakdown.

but now the label does not really tell the story. it has too many loopholes. host: here are the top 15 countries the u.s. imports from. his book looks at the breakdown. china is the biggest, 90%. we also see canada and mexico at 15 and 12% respectively. other countries include japan, germany, the u.k., south korea, france, one. -- taiwan. why do these numbers matter to you? how do you think it helps consumers make smart choices? guest: it is not the trade that hurts us. it is the trade with countries that don't buy our stuff. more than half my sales is exports. i create jobs by exporting out of the united states. you need to get rid of the unemployment problem and get rid of the trade gap. indeed a combination of selling

more overseas and buying less from certain countries that don't buy american products. an example, when i sell to canada, it does not really hurt the economy to buy anything from canada, because canadians conduct trade with us. in theory, you can make everything right here and shipped to canada and they would make everything and they would ship to us and we have balanced trade. it's when the balance gets off and that's why the label need to have a percentage of trade as far as a balance. that's what creates our trade deficit. host: looking at the u.s. trade deficit for march, the commerce department we can take a look at. guest: we need to change is so

that it's more exports than imports. germany has made it to national obsession and they have a trade surplus. even though they are competing with the chinese and everyone else in the world economy, because they made it a program to do well with this and have maximum employment prevent the kind of thing america needs to do. our focus right now is on the backwaters of political discussion. host: let's hear from stan lee, a democratic caller in erie, pennsylvania. go right ahead. -- stanley. caller: hello. i'm in 59 years old, on disability. during all my years, everything that we have comes from china. the matter if i go someplace else or whatever. like you said about apple and

the cell phone and everything else, you would think that they would actually bring half the jobs back that they give to china, bring them back over here, you would create jobs that way. just sell over there what they want to sell over there. guest: you have the percentage of content. you cannot say made in the usa unless you have a certain percentage. the american content is about 10% for apple. right now it is invisible. there's nothing on the sales side to make them want to do this because it would not help them sell any more units. maybe people would pay a little

more and that would drive demand to change this. that's what i'm trying to get done by giving you more reformation. host: what if you go to the store and everything you see has labels that don't fit your fancy? our caller just talked about buying apple products. but what about some of the cheaper goods that are made overseas or assembled overseas that there's not a creation center in the united states? guest: that's the point with the trade ratio. say china is 25% and south korea is 78%, so it makes a huge difference to our economy if you buy a television from south korea or some other country that buys a lot from us. if you switch all the chinese staff to agree and stuff, it would create millions of jobs in the united states.

it is the numbers. what will happen -- i would like to see china to ease their habits because they are suddenly being punished by consumers and then they would say let's start buying some things from the united states. that would help the whole supply chain in the u.s. with employment. host: letter from david in alexandria, minnesota, independent caller. good morning. caller: how are you? when i was a kid i lived in duluth and we lived under the iron ore docks where all the iron ore that came out it up a plant that builds all the cards it in the united states and build war machines existed. my mom always told me when i was a kid, by american -- buy american. these people in congress must

have never read. the communist read in their it says the manipulation of money is one of the chief things the communists used to overthrow the capitalist world. we have china now -- and this man is right on everything -- china is doing 70% and we are getting only 30% back of every dollar. we are so indebted to china right now, it's pathetic. guest: we're not that indebted. china actually outbid everyone to get those dollars. i think it's partly to control -- if i was sitting in china and saw what happened in the soviet union, the first thing i would do is build my economy and try

to reduce the american economy if i wanted to be the world's superpower. i think there's a little bit of that going on with the trade, because it also helps their political power. americans have to know that. host: we have an anecdote on twitter -- guest: assembled in china. again, we don't have the percentages. most components it are made overseas. but if you have the components, then you would it be tabled soon -- if you have the assembly done in the united states, then you'd be able to see that on a label. once you see the percentage, you can move up the small percentages and goes all help to bring technology back to the u.s. and help employment.

host: data is on the democratic line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wholeheartedly agree with your program. i would love to see a labeling system like that so we would know where our money was going. i told a lady in the interview, i don't see anything wrong with buying at wal-marmart. if you purchase their, you are essentially buying from the chinese. by happenstance, i ran across a good way to work with those people over there on coffee makers. in the last five years i have bought a copy maker every year

-- coffee maker. they are all made in china. the thing of it is by purchase the high end that's $99 and i pay $5. host: are you buying a new one every year because they are breaking? caller: they will not last. guest: one of the side effects of buying coffee makers from china is u.s. manufacturers live in a society where people use this stuff and even the people on the assembly line and engineers know that it does not hold up for five years. people making these things in china are typically assembly lines. they don't drink coffee over there. they're just putting stuff together. they have no idea what they are selling or how long it will

last. there's no long-term consequence. if you are mr. coffee at your business is coffee, you know this person will not buy another one of my things for 10 years if this does not hold up. in order to maintain your business, you need to have something durable. exporting jobs to countries that don't use this stuff reduces the quality and now you are buying stuff all the time the ends up costing more than if you pay the cost for something to hold up. host: alan uke is a business owner. guest: we make half the world opposing underwater at lights for scuba diving and we make industrialized. underwater world's lights. we have a high-quality product

that is a risky situation product, so they have a tendency to do what it takes to make sure it works. host: our guest is founder and former president of the midway naval museum in san diego and former president of the san diego taxpayers association. he is the author of "buying america back." is a question on twitter -- guest: i don't think it will cost anything and ultimately. if you are buying higher quality products and their lasting longer, the percentages matter. if you are buying a piece of electronics and it has japanese components and chinese, you'll probably get something to last longer. the chinese are not in the business of making haft these things, but the chinese are. by buying fewer things over time that hold up better and may perform better, you are saving yourself money. that is what has happened in germany. the stuff lasts forever because it's really well made.

the end up with more money, the individual. in germany the individual has less personal debt than the americans do. it's a long-term strategy and they get it. host: bill is a republican down in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i go back to the cartridge television invented by sears which cost $1,500 to make here. and so they sent all the technology to japan so they could make it faor $200. i want to ask about the marshall plan. every time we wipe out a country with bombs, the marshall plan was to rebuild germany, japan, some of the countries that we destroyed in world war ii and so they could be democracies. what is your theory about democracy but versus communism?

guest: the thing is what happened with the marshall plan is we wanted to stabilize our economy so we did not have another world war. a large amount bit if things have been peaceful with all those countries since then. the proof lies in the history. host: here's a question about the intersection of policy and -- guest: you can buy something that is made in a country that has equal trade. if you buy canadian item, the economy. even south korea is 78%. it really is the policies on the other side where they do things to prevent buying our stuff. or people refuse to buy anything coming from here unless it is so much cheaper or so much better that they have to have

it. in france, nine of the top 10 cars are french. eandre not better cars, even the french admit this. south korean cars were not very good until very recently. but they would buy your own stuff because they are trying to help their own economy. there's nothing manufacturers can do to upset it. that's where it takes the general public. they are two thirds of the economy. if we start acting differently, we can move the needle on the whole economy. host: now this call from new york on the independent line. caller: the morning and thank you for c-span. i agree with your labeling. i really would like to see that type of labeling. china is taking over our economy. they will run us into the ground.

we tried to tell the clintons that back in the 1990's with fta that wasnd kcat going to destroy this country and it's coming to be. we need to increase our jobs by selling our products in this country. nobody stops and realizes purchase power is the king of everything. guest: you are absolutely right. looking at the situation of organic food, if you went in the store and people said i don't care if this is cheaper, i'm going to buy something that is grown on a farm? so they did not buy anything and they went somewhere else so the store pot that a loss in sales, so now this organic food. even wal-mart sells organic food at a higher price. people start buying differently and the retailers are only making a margin on whatever they

sell. if they cannot sell anything, they offer something else they can sell. that's where it takes solidarity like we have now with other things like even environmental. it is a summation of everyone's actions. we can change our own future. i want to bring it back to the american public where we know about the stuff and are. acting are its host: a recent piece by bruce stokes is called "trade" -- guest: we have detained that. politicians don't want to talk about trade because they are stymied, so they can talk about

things they can affect. the tools in this case are the general public. they should encourage people to look at. a-- at stuff. we should make the first week in july "made in america week." the original founding fathers were fighting for economic independence. we don't have that, a statement that we ought to have our own financial future in control by ourselves. host: justine, democratic caller in queens. caller: i look for the made in america label for many reasons, a number of my family members have worked in manufacturing. your proposal is a great idea, but there's one problem. i noticed it because i live in

new york. most of us the garment industry is in new york. very often they are sweatshops. they hire people, give them peace work, or they are even. hiring even also, some companies that manufacture here are based elsewhere. the companies, some are still based in japan. i think the labels are great idea, but perhaps there are other things that need to be addressed for the things i just guest: talked about. first, child labor is illegal. if you think that is going on, there are authorities to call. host:, does america have over what happens overseas? there is a plant inspection,

there is a dialogue. guest: less than a portion of 1%. host: our caller talked about slave labor and human rights abuses. guest: >> in other countries. i bought an american and jacket and even my necktie and my shoes. you can still get american made and this stuff lasts a long time. we all have choices in what we buy. clothing, if i wanted something efficient, i would be wearing sweatpants. but nobody wears that. we make choices every day. part of that choice is i will buy something that helps our economy that's part of the picture. we can do these things. in the garment industry, you could say that labor is a small part of the cost in a lot of these things. host: when it comes to overseas

products, talk about human rights. guest: my book has an index of 60 countries that has their financial information and it talks about the human rights in each one. it would tell you what the human rights history of each country is and what their access to political freedom is. you can reward certain countries. he would make them and think twice about doing certain things and they would no americans will stop buying from them if people find out. it's a great tool for improving things all over the world and to stop some terrible things. you take away power from oppressive governments because they are suddenly broke. maybe things would change. host: here's what alan uke is talking about in his book. you can see the country and travelogue. here's india --

there are independent organizations that look at human rights in the current practices of those kinds of things and countries that are doing well or getting better. you can reward those countries because now you know because you see the content. when people are watching, they act differently. the u.s. economy is huge. we really do affect the world. host: in texas, stephen, a republican. welcome. caller: good morning. i agree with your sentiments regarding consumers.

i wonder how big an impact it would be if our government would change their spending habits. thank you. guest: in san francisco there was a bridge being made in china. i think the government to make an effort to buy our own stuff. all the other countries do. i cannot tell you how hard it is for another country to not buy their own stuff. for some reason the americans have allowed this. what is happening at the federal level is a reflection of people's values. if people demanded that we buy our own stuff, the politicians will follow that. right now the casual attitude that we have it is reflected in the country's action at the political level. so government reflects their own people's values in their actions. we need to make a fundamental change at the individual level and you will see a change at the regulation level of. the of. host: there's a conversation going on at, on twitter right

now -- guest: if it is an american company, you can. a lot of american companies have web sites that you could get replacement parts. you cannot do that with china. it's gone. host: donna is calling for st. louis, missouri. caller: you cannot talk about the real problem. in 2006, bush and the republican congress passed the free-trade deal for communist china. we have lost millions of jobs and trillions in revenue since then. you don't change -- unless you change congressman get millions in campaign money and the media from getting millions in advertising dollars from these large corporations that want to move were the labor is the cheapest, you cannot deal with

the problem at all as long as they're getting all this money. second, because the media has done a great job brainwashing people, if you care about jobs, you have to care about --. guest: if people prefer a competitor because they are trying to buy more american stuff, what can happen is they will follow suit. until something gets sold, nothing happens. you can have a consumer-led revolution where it changes all this stuff right now. i'm appealing to the public to look differently at what they buy and with this information have amazing power. if that goes through, you would actually able to steer things according to your own values. host: connie, democrats line. caller: good morning. did you know that a democrat

said that you would get a tax break for bringing manufacturing jobs back to america, because now people who send jobs overseas to be made, they get a big tax? breaks in this bill it said that if you brought your jobs back, but they would get it. not one republican would vote for it and it failed. i am in my 70's. i have worked with about 25 other women. we would knock on doors every day to get people to vote. this is one of the biggest things that they tell us, that they don't mind paying more for american maize products because they last longer. they say the cheap stuff that they get from china and other places you have to keep replacing, like t-shirts. you wash it once or twice and

you have to go buy a new one. they are more than willing to pay more to get good products. guest: i believe so. actually, this is where if you are more adamant, i've made a personal hobby of mine that my wife and i try to buy american things. we go on the internet if we cannot find them. host: where do you go? guest: a lot of good clothing is made in the united states spirit host: how about alarm clocks? guest: that's gone. but you can buy it from a country with a good trade ratio. taiwan, for instance. 72% trade ratio approximately. that's a 50% change. so you would help the economy and start seeing the kind of the man that would happen especially when you're seeing a little percentage.

now they will know a whole bunch of people are going to buy this one because at least it has some content vs none. but that's invisible right now. host: james, lake charles, georgia. caller: good morning. i have been very concerned about the trade imbalance, but i generally looked at from the perspective of our tax system, which heavily subsidizes imports. most industrialized nations use a back tax which they be paid at the border. in the united states all of our taxes are debimbedded in the price and nothing gets a rebate at the border. we are competing with 15% 25% embedded taxes that raise the price of our goods around world. with imports come into the united states basically tax free, all we do is slap a little bit of a sales tax on and our

own businesses have to compete against that. guest: i agree and i am a manufacturer. i sell the majority of my production overseas to all these countries. it's really the consumers in the u.s. that i'm trying to affect. one other thing is some countries like china have special rules that no one else does. if you get something assembled in china, any part you bring it to china, you pay 90% duty to the chinese government and there's no rebate. for an american going in there, you have to be 20 by% cheaper than the chinese equivalent product because of what their government does. they get all that revenue and for their own industry on people because of this tax put on it. other countries don't do this. americans are to not accept that anymore and forced the chinese government to stop punishing anyone who wants to

get things assembled and sent back. there's a lot of taxation here. host: the country of origin labeling is a requirement signed into the american law under the farm security and grow investment act of 2010. that's the farm bill. it requires retailers to provide country of origin labeling for products like fresh beef, pork, and lamb. the program does exempt processed meat and the congress passed an expansion of the requirement in 2008 to get more food on this labeling system. how is progress going in congress to get the label that you want to see on manufactured goods? guest: i'm working with my local congressman and on both sides of the aisle. it will be rather involved, so it will be a large bill. we will bring in some experts and there's a lot of details. when you buy a new car, there's when you buy a new car, there's a small