at a: 30 a.m., ross eisenberg of the national association of manufacturers and michael livermore, associate pastor at the university of virginia law school discuss the costs and benefits of federal regulations. ♪ ♪ host: good morning. here are some morning headlines. usa today that the government can't record of telephone calls newly a decade before the september 11 attack. they amassed laws of all telephone calls in the united state in 116 countries eared the u.s. is getting more involved in the situation in yemen expediting delivery of weapons.

we will begin with the news out of south carolina where a white police officer was arrested for murder of an unarmed black man running away from the officer. the video from a bystander led to the arrest of the cop. what are your thoughts on this? republicans guest: (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000 independents caller: (202) 748-8002 we do want to show you the video at the police officer shooting this man. some of you may find it disturbing. turn away from your tv now. [video clip]

[gun shots multiple] [end video clip] host: officer is charged with murder of a black man shot in the back.

host: what do you inc. all of this?

martinsburg, west virginia and engine. you are up. guest: good morning. i saw a police officer shoot and unarmed black man in new york 29 years ago. i still remember it verbatim. i think when they start charging these police officers with these civil suits this money come out of police officers pocket. for all the people who say to vote democrat and you get a better city council and what have you, no. they are the sa the republicans on these kind of issuesme. . the fbi agents kill unarmed

people. it is the whole system. it is corrupt. they have crawled and to their police department. when will people kill my will, they kill more dogs. people cannot take this. host: i want you to listen to this part of the open washington post" piece. police shoot hundreds of people each year. only a handful --

your thoughts not only on the police officer being charged for murder but what do you make it videos? should he be able to video? your thoughts on all of this. caller: i commend the person who took this video. we saw a lot of things. everything is lack and light. -- blac citizens have to be

encouraged to takek and video pictures white. in any confrontation between police or public to i wonder how such a person who is a cold-blooded killer can be a police person. they need someone who respects people. christians celebrate easter. the sea have any belief --does he have any belief? it is a learning process. for the good of the community we can make a difference. this is north america. it is sad. we are talking about terrorism and where else but this is a part of terrorism, killing someone who is running for his life.

finishing him off [indiscernible] host: alright, ted. senator tim scott had to say on twitter. after watching the video comment the senseless shooting and taking of #walter a scott's life. ray is a police officer in atlanta georgia. what do you think? caller: one of the big things about it is as police officers we do need some type of video camera. it gives us an opportunity to make a clear, decisive choice of what exactly we are doing when it comes to enforcing the general public.

a lot of things that we do our capabilities as an officer. some officers have not dealt with in the food -- a multitude of people. they generally go as force -- to force as a means to handle the situation. from my perspective, i think if i'm camera deftly benefit officers as well as the general public. host: you are ok with the general public getting their cell phone out and recording what they see happening between police officers in the community? caller: absolutely. as officers, we should be held to a higher standard. as police officers, we hold the general public to a certain standard and we should be held

to that high standard, too. at the end of the date doesn't matter who is watching it you are doing it right. host: the police officer felt threatened your he saw him reach for his taser. in the video to see him fleeing the police officer, running away from him. what do you make of that as a police officer? how are you trained to deal with a situation like that? somewhat is fleeing you. what is your training tell you? caller: it goes back to the officers capability a lot of times. facially when you see someone fleeing. we see that consistently. you have a radio. kathy of the run. that is why we have fitness standards and things of that nature. it should have given him the thought process of being able to go chase another officer to get

some kind of resolution to a situation without using mac force. host: ok. from the washington post, lester four out of five officers were white. they announced -- host: maria, your thoughts on this. democrat. caller: there are some great police officers. i commend them. i would like what you kno to know what is going on in this country to send are going in the this. what is with the blackmail that they are so heavily targeted? -- with the black male that

they are still heavily targeted? i think he. host: washington, police officer . go ahead. you are in yakima washington? what are your thoughts. caller: the only reason police officers, no matter what you the recent issue track i is when fact i asked chad and it is that simple. it is not meant for that matter if they are white or lack when people act in the criminal style to matter where they are at, and deserve to be apprehensive. if they're not going to be apprehended, they need to be shot period. host: you think this man running away, the officers justified in shooting him? caller: yes. host: why is that.

some might say he is unarmed and fling the officer. he was not a threat to the officers life. caller: yeah, he needed to be shot. host: independent color. five. 0--independent caller. hi i never did it. so much and to raise eventhough it is an undertone. caller: perception is reality series and a lot of the minds this could never happen. they cannot believe it police officer was actually shoot somebody. this is the most shocking thing in the world. to another set of the will those videos the most common thing in the world. i'm a videographer by trade. i know certain people when they are doing things they do not

want you to record the are i've been a few times when i'm what he meant doing things. host: what do they say s? how did they threaten you? caller: put that down. if you do not put it down right now you're going to jail. that kind is tough. -- kind of tough. i say they work for me. i pay for your salary. then we get back into it. sometimes i cut it off. as i'm sitting here looking at this stuff, and i realize there are good cop there but when he had 80% of the police force and they are patrolling the area and disparity between the races is so great it is a misunderstanding. you have people that do things that are bad. if you are a bad person, say

that you are somebody that wanted to kill people. being a cop is like the perfect job to do it. do you know what i'm saying? besides the military in the police. those are the only two jobs can kill someone and get away with it. this stuff really needs to be investigated. don't take it so serious. people are to the point where they just give cops a pass. there's no way a police officer could kill someone out of cold then you see it on video. the guy who called agrees with this all makes me wonder. host: ok. from the family's perspective, they held a news conference last night. the family is considering its legal options. the video speaks for it felt. essentially, the officer got down unarmed man two is not a threat to the smith or anyone else.

-- an unarmed man who is not a threat to himself or anyone else. [video clip] >> there should be something done to correct how stops are made in certain areas in the city. i do not think you should be stopped just because of the car that you are driving or the color of your skin. i think certain things should be put in place. for the community, you can see what the video shows. all across america, i would say let's let the police department to reform themselves. there has to be changed. needed change. that is what i would hope that is what we could see not tomorrow but today. >> are you implying that your brother was a victim of racial profiling?

>> i don't know. [end video clip] host: the brother of walter scott there holding a press conference after the mayor announcing murder charges against the white police officer that fatally shot his mother after a traffic -- brother stop your a video from a bystander surface. it led to murder charges are at a let's go to washington. delaware, republican and a police officer. go ahead. share your thoughts. caller: i have two things to say. one thing that amazes me is that this has not been sent. you have to respect the people that you served. if you do not, you were going to have this kind of outcome. it is the commanders who dictate what we can get away with. this stuff with shooting fleeing people was settled years ago the

gardener decision. that is what i heard at the academy. every time i had this, it is brought up to us all the time. even with gardner i knew before the autopsy came out his cause of death. here's ago there was some baseball players cousin who was stopped somewhere. when they went to arrest the guy, the officers have their bodies on top of the so-called defendant. he was not able to breathe. training tapes went out to the whole country to inform us to be very careful of putting your body on top of somebody else while you are making an arrest. you need a chest to expand and contract so they can breed.

we are all trained to build that. that is basically what i wanted to say. you have to respect the people that you serve. i have been in the situation people have knives and that all kinds of stuff. a lot of vietnam vets that had their problems from the wars they went to. we have not had to kill any of them because we respect to the people that we served. host: can i read this by you before you go? after reviewing the video, the department of law and criminal justice at john jay college of criminal justice said if somebody is running away from you --

what do you think as a police officer? caller: that is just an excuse. there is genuine fear that these officers have out there. that does not necessarily mean that you have to kill somebody because you are in fear of. it means to be very cautious and the do the job you're called to do. again, i see that as an excuse. there is genuine fear out there of, i am sorry, the minority community by white officer spirit there was a time when young people would approach me and asked me about getting a

job. i would tell them no. i do not want them to go through the stuff that i went through. i went through a lot very negative stuff being in the police department. host: can i ask you, sir, are you black westmark years a from of the white officers? caller: that is correct. it is not easy. then i had to wake up and realize that if we're going to turn this fear and everything else around that we need more minority officers. a lot of times, the white officers take their direction from us here at they see how aggressively are going to be in a situation. if they find that we're not going to be aggressive they back off. host: all right. can he come, independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call and for c-span. as an african american man and

seeing the things that is going on you see how will look at us. it is disheartening for me to see that it is being shot down. greta -- (202) 748-8000host: you are getting confused because you're listening to the television on your tv. let's go to gerard in indiana. how are you? caller: thank you for sticking my call. every time there is a shooting, the people say an officer shoots an unarmed black man but no one has any background.

no one knows how high escalated or if he actually does a threat. it is the responsible people say he shot an unarmed man. until we know the whole background, it is irresponsible to say it is not justified. host: the governor of south carolina put out this statement. this is a sad time for everyone in south carolina. what do you think? caller: i think the commented that the guy may just a minute ago was very accurate.

also, i've several friends of mine that are police officers in virginia and maryland. a bunch of them are good people. they do what they are supposed to do. there is a story that one of them told me one time where there were four lakh guys driving down the street in the car. one has a gun knife, drugs, speeding. if a cop sees them and pulls them over, when they get pulled over and they do not have any drugs or no knives --it is that matter if you are black or white. you're going to get pulled over. what did you get pulled over for? host: it was a traffic stop according to the papers. your point? caller: did he really like? did he tried to run somebody over? what was a traffic stop or? do you know?

host: broken tail light apparently. caller: apparently? host: that is what they have reported. to your point. caller: did he have drugs or alcohol or was it under the influence? host: i do not know the details feared what is your point? caller: the point is if you get pulled over and you're doing something illegal, that is the police officer's job. host: understood. in ohio, democrat. caller: i am 65. years ago but they never shot to kill. they would try to hit them in the leg. i do not remember them ever killing people. the second thing, and i don't know what has changed and why they are allowed to kill.

the second thing no one has ever addressed is a drug issue. there are a lot to drugs out there. people go off because of the drugs. another thing is why don't they put nets over these people? there is so much technology to stop people without having to jump on them. i knew somebody in personnel in the city and they said that some police officers actually had serious mental problems and that they were aggressive. some of them beat their wives. some of them are very aggressive himan beings.

host: from the carrier about the incident that happened that at the time of the to do walter's got was wanted for arrest on a family court warrant. for failing to pay child support. the only accusation of violence came through and assault and battery charge in 1987. two people file complaints against the officer during his time at a wars movie once said the police officer shot him with a teaser for no reason. they exonerated him of any wrongdoing. the suspect was never arrested. those are some of the details from the south carolina "the post and courier." we are getting your thoughts about this south carolina shooting.

the phone numbers are on your screen. we want to share with you the front page story of "usa today." it is no longer operating. it's served as the template for what the nsa has been doing. it says the program has not intercepted the contents of american called it the record of austin to map suspect communication to lead them to other intelligence data. at first they did so with help from military computers.

a second term, a second chance. rob emanuel has diffuse his opponent the sixth or in the runoff in chicago. he could see a challenger thousand 16 election to rand paul officially announced his bid yesterday in kentucky. his first challenge and campaign defeats, senator cruz of texas. one of the best subplots will be the republican party battle between right all and texas

senator -- party battle between rand paul and texas senator ted cruz. a voting block to leave both vulnerable to their challenges. their party began trying to distance themselves from one another. he was in lilienthal shinseki. we covered that announcement. here's a little bit of what he had to take. --s ay [video clip] sen. rand paul: join the fcc can you vision for america. today i announce, with god's help, with the help of liberty lovers everywhere that i'm

putting myself forward as a candidate for president of the united states. [cheers] [end video clip] host: about 1500 people standing shoulder to shoulder at his official announcement. he is going to make a tour around all of the early primary and caucus states. next he will go to iowa and nevada. the wall street journal weighs in this morning. they say he is sound on domestic reform but worrying on national security. it is a theme that has arisen from defense awkhawks and others that were that he is too much a would-be isolationist and they worry that he would not stand up for the united states from the a strong leader.

new york times takes a look at libertarian into the are in this country. he said they are too few to provide a path to the jury for the senator -- victory for the senator. some analysis from the new york

times this morning. if they lay shot an unarmed black man. you go ahead. caller: police officers are the terrorists too young, black men. yet conservativee caollers are coming in feared as a have islamic killing them on a daily basis, they do not understand that. they said maybe this guy did this. maybe this guy did this. he could has stopped a white person and --they do not respect black people.

they talk to is any type of way. a lot of people struggling to understand. we see this every day. it has been going on for years. they are terrorists. when you talk about isis that you're so afraid of, that is what we are rate of feared we are free to you. we are afraid of the police officers. -- we are afraid of you. we are afraid of the police officers. caller: i feel the same sentiments from the guy who just called. i am a black man myself. six years old. racism is a bad thing. in indiana we did not have a lots of major problems. what we have now is cops that, i feel a lot of cops have racist tendencies in their heart.

you are still a human being we still have the racist tendency in your heart. until you get that cleaned up he will always have that bigotry ideology toward other races other than yourself. the second point the guy had a lot of options regardless what the guy did. he did not do anything super violence. he did not taze him because he laid the taser down next to the death body as he shot the guy. too bad. hopefully he will get himself together and make amends with jesus christ before it gets real bad for him and his family. host: line for republicans. gary, mississippi. caller: one of the guys called in with the shooting. wasn't it a police officer? host: he said he was. caller: it tells us what kind of

guys we have on the police force. if you have a police officer agreeing with another one shooting this guy is people running away and then running off, i think last year there were two white guys [indiscernible] that is one of the problems that we have with some of these police officers. we have a lot. this is where the problems we are facing. they need to get booted off the police force. host: we have got about 10 minutes left here to keep getting your thoughts on what happened in south carolina the

news that broke overnight. i want to share other stories. opinion pieces. we'll begin with henry kissinger and george schultz writing about these enron negotiations over there nuclear power. they say the rent deal and consequences and is very illegal. what criteria are we prepared to consist? who bears the burden of proof? the process will meet followed to resolve the matter swiftly? it emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry which provides iran permanent relief for temporary restraints on iranian conduct.

this would not happen immediately. the new york times weighs in on what israel is demanding the put into these negotiations. they called israel's demands " unworkable." more in the papers on that this warning. david ignatius also writing in his column about these itran negotiations. the wall street journal's with this story. activists are targeting senator ron wyden on this trade battles that are going to be coming up in congress this year. why the top democrat in the senate panel is generally in sync with the liberal wing.

bipartisan legislation. a republican from tennessee and hattie murray announcing a way forward on "no child left behind." states are more control on how the results are used to scrutinize schools under this bipartisan perp does so. -- bipartisan proposal. also want to share this with you. many of you probably heard about the blackout here in washington. it was a week power surge that knocked out electrical service and parts of the it happened at the white house. [video clip] >> if you did briefly have an impact on the white house complex. some parts did have to go to back up our.

-- power. on the regular power source. things are surely returning to normal. >> is anything you can say about what the president was doing her way you may have been -- or where he may have been? >> agenda he was in any way affected eye is. i happen to be in a meeting with him feared as any meeting with him in walked out and we were told there was a power outage. i was with the president and he did not notice it [end video clip] host: josh earnest talking about this brief power outage. back to our calls and all of you. what are your thoughts on the south carolina shooting? good morning to you, independent color. caller: i am really calls with these polices that keep killing

our black mens and yougn mng mens. you do not have any black polices going around killing any white men. and when i want them to. i'm sick and tired of every time i turn around they had the gall to kill a black male. i am really just sick of it. i think to put more people in washington that can put a stop to this. every time we turn around we got to hear about our sons and our husbands and uncles or cousins or nephews are getting killed. it is senseless. host: greenville north carolina democrat. you are. good morning. caller: what a sad day for america. we want the black men to go over and fight war along with the white but still they killed them

in america. what is this world coming to? if we cannot be fair here in america, how can we police of the country? thank you and have a blessed day. host: taking your thoughts on what happen in south carolina. a separate line is set aside for police officers. bill in california. good morning. share your thoughts with us. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment. this unfortunate incident could have been avoided if in fact this suspect never attempted to run away and the police in the beginning. never attempted to struggle with the police officer in the beginning. the second point i want to make is this jump to murder charges seems a little out of line.

murder implies some incidental premeditation. none of these things were there. it looks like he did violate his power of authority. certainly not to that extent. host: do you think that the shooting was justified? as a police officer? caller: well information is not all out there. that we do not have all the evidence that led up to the first clips of the video. clearly, what we see on the video is not very settling. there was some breach of his protocol and how to handle this particular solution. host: you make the point they should not jump to murder. it was a point made by a criminologist at protecting.

-- criminologist expert today. caller: that is correct. a lot of media and sensationalists want to come out and not review the facts. murder is not the case in this one. it would be a lesser crime certainly excessive force whatever they can come up with after reviewing all the other information in this case. host: do you know what excessive force or sentencing that can bring versus murder? murder is obviously 30 years to life in prison. caller: excessive force is usually handled internally. it does not have a prerequisite of a criminology. in this case clearly, it would have some degree of criminality from what we have seen in the video.

it is what we see in not we understand that the whole situation. host: the fbi saying they will investigate whether or not walter scott's civil rights were violated. kentucky, republican. hi mark. caller: thank you for taking my call. we're going to hold police to a higher standard below are the penalty for the crime? i do not think so. this is a system issue. if you look at the classifieds for hiring a police officer, one of the requirement or preferred background for hiring a policeman is a military background. they deserve all the respect they can get. people coming back from the military. we know they have a very high suicide rates. they have all kinds of mental issues. even the system for the age of

hiring a police officer. her degree. -- 33. he's not even know what life is about yet and he shot a man in the back. host: he has been with the north trust and police for five years and had no prior disciplinary issues. we are to lead the conversation there for now. coming up we will get a debate over u.s. immigration policy and unaccompanied children coming across the border. later we will talk with ross eisenberg and michael livermore about federal energy regulations and how much they cost. first, the center for strategic and international studies look at missile defense and global threats. here's a little bit of yesterday's event. [video clip] >> russians are not especially concerned about the current

level of the u.s. defense capabilities. they know that 44 long range interceptors are not going to determine. what they are really concerned about is what comes next. the fact that there are no legally binding limitations on numbers. more importantly, the potential for u.s. technology to leap ahead. i remember an interaction i had would a very senior russian general. he was given a briefing showing egypt shooting down a russians are teaching missiles. i looked at him and said that is a very young slide. can i ask you a question? the question is this. how fast are you introducing the missile defense interceptor? he looked at me and said "well

i believe it has the velocity burnout of 10 kilometers per second yourd." there has been none that has a for not acting honors for seconds. i said if you can find me a sea-based missile defense interceptor let me know. i want to buy the stock in that company. his response was telling. "you may not be there today you will eventually get there." that is really the driver of their concern. quite frankly, the russians are much more dependent on the your weapons and doctor and then we are in the united states. -- dr.octrine then we are in the united dates. the objective has been to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our strategy.

it has been the exact opposite with regard to russia. [end video clip] host: if you missed yesterday's event on missile defense, easy go to our website the span.org and watch it there. joining us is mark rosenblum. here to talk about an update on what has been happening with immigration issues. let's first remind our viewers. what did president obama do action on immigration? guest: in november he announced a series of actions. the most noteworthy and controversial one was an expansion of a temporary legalization program for unauthorized children and a new temporary regulation program or unauthorized parents. that was in november 2014.

at the same time, he announced a series of other changes to how dhs does immigration enforcement and how high skilled immigrants and their employers interact and a new plan to promote immigrant integration and those elements of executive action are ongoing. the announcement to expand temporary legalization has been suspended by a court in texas and remains on hold. host: a court decision. which program did it suspend specifically? guest: in 2012 the president announced a program called "preferred action for childhood arrival." 2014 he announced an expansion that would cover a larger number of people who arrived as children and have completed certain education requirements.

in 2014 he announced a new program that covers unauthorized children. the judge ruled in february that he issued an injunction suspending the expansion of doca and dopa, the program for parents. it affects about 1.2 million. it remains in place. it would increase the pool to about 4.9 million. host: what did the judges say? what was the reasoning s? guest: state argued that the programs which cost them money and healthcare services is issuing driver's licenses. all the judges of support that they may suffer. there has not been in the ruling

yet on whether the president has the authority to do this. texas has a standing to russian that doherty. that is where things stand right now. they have asked the judge to overturn the so the program can go on. that has been appealed to the circuit. there's a hearing on that on april 17 on whether or not the program can continue. host: we are talking about immigration in this country. republicans (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000 independents (202) 748-8002

marc rosenbloom's our guest or this morning. the court case is pending. it has gone to the district court. they're going to hear it again april 17. in the meantime, what is the administration doing with those that need to be deported? how are they deciding who needs to stay? guest: what are the other big announcements in november is that the president directed jeh johnson to issue new guidelines for how they deal with enforcement. johnson issued those in november. what he has done is built on earlier guidelines that have been issued in 2000 1090 department 20010 -- 2010 by

the department to narrow down worth the department focuses. they're going to focus a lot of attention on the border. those are eight top priority for being deported. those who have committed serious crimes are at top priority for being deported. those who have been recently ordered to be deported by a judge. people who fall outside of the cap worries are not a priority. -- the categories are not a priority. you are not our concern. the president has asked them to focus just on recent border crossers and serial offenders. (202) 748-8000 april 17 you have the attorney general's republicans challenging what represented by executive action. you have 181 restaurant democrats and 10 date asking the circuit court, putting out a

treat in a back president obama's immigration orders. what do you happens here? guest: all these political leaders in the police chiefs and sheriffs have while briefs saying they think the second of action helps other states and cities and efforts. it allows them to focus on the higher priority cases. it is integrated into the formal economy and allows them to pay taxes and enrolled school and increased their earning. there is evidence from the site. it is possible 00 -- rom both sides.is possible if you be valid. legalization tends to bring more economic and if it than benefits than harm.

host: do you think this keeps getting challenged all the way up to the supreme work? guest: it is likely. the supreme court would tend to weigh in on it. it is hard to see however the judge or fifth circuit rules that the losing side will not appeal. the other side will appeal. it will eventually be decided by the supreme court. host: explain this headline front page. court tosses mississippi's challenged amnesty for dreamers. guest: is your first to a case filed in the 2012 executive action. the original daca. they found the states and law enforcement officers that had filed the earlier action that is

found in presidential authority. issues are similar. it is not harder for them to appeal any ruling that they did not like. host: let's hear from you is an illegal immigrants in michigan. though ahead. you are on the air. caller: i am in a leak appeared i was originally from the philippines. i am so thankful for obama's amnesty of illegal immigrants. i have been here since i was three. i in 24 now. if i were to get shot back, i do not now i. i host: it's of a new comment republican. caller: don't be off. -- cut me off.

there are five on bill. i have been here 50 years. i came here legally. this is the way you have got to go down. anybody hires illegal aliens should get 50 years in prison in prison and a $1 million fine. that was stopped it. it would be cheaper to send them all back. with these people to work. invite people over the world to come open and create jobs. [indiscernible] the whole thing there will be no killing or nothing. that is the best way to do it. nobody wants to i don't know why. do it. guest: i miss the second point

that the other foru pointur points i got. those are certainly right in the center for the immigration debate is. i agree that it is already illegal for employers to knowingly hire an unauthorized immigrants. that has ever been successfully enforced. most come to work. employers who hire them do not get punished for it if you're it is hard to hold them accountable given our current framework. it has been hard to put that in place partly for technical reasons of harley for political reasons. employers to hire them not want this until we have more generous temporary worker programs. or another way to find the workers they claim to be able to --be unable to find within the

u.s. it has been hard to do all of those things at once. guest:host: president obama has severe for the most deportations remained the same, high? or have they come down? guest: they have remained high over president obama and he said the record for the most formal removals which are high consequence deportations. in the last couple of years even before the announcement in november, he has shifted enforcements from the interior to really focus on the border. that is historically where most deportations have occurred throughout u.s. history, what in the last eight or so years, president bush and then president obama, early in his term, but a lot more focus on removal from the interior. targeting unauthorized immigrants. and obama has shifted the focus back to the border.

host: aaron, you are next. go ahead. caller: i agree with him that either side should be enforced aggressively. there is so much suffering in this country. i don't know that our president should be representing illegal people here for from other countries. there are no jobs here for people. the mental health issue has not been addressed. there is a republican congressman in pennsylvania who was trying to help address it. his bill is called help for the families in the mental health crisis act, i believe, and i think that should be supported.

people are dying every day from prescription narcotic pain medication -- host: i don't go too far down there, but i think we've got your point. the president should not be defending or representing people who come here illegally and putting resources for that effort when we got other problems in the country. how much are we talking about? how many resources, money, budget? guest: well, in terms of the specific executive actions, the unauthorized immigrants who could dissipate in the legalization program pay their own way. they pay for the processing. there is probably a net fiscal benefit from them doing that because they will most likely pay taxes, work in the form of economy, increases their earnings, and therefore, pay more taxes. people have looked at cbo in previous legalization legislation and they have found that legalization tends to benefit the u.s. budget because

by legalizing people, paying more taxes, earn more, and there is a really no cost to legalization, per se. i think to a large extent, the question is, well, you won't legalize the some 11 million what are you going to do with them? it's a large population and three quarters of them have been here for more than five years. very few people are talking about rounding people up and deporting them. the choice is to have people here illegally or to have them here illegally. the third option i guess is the self deportation, which i think people have backed host: away from that as a realistic policy proposal. on twitter following up wondering how many of the deportations are border related directly of border turnarounds. guest: historically, that number is about 95%.

in the last several years, it has fallen in terms of formal removal down to about under half . in 2008, 2009, 2010 it was under half and now it is back up to 80% if i'm not mistaken. host: there have been recent stories in "washington times is go with this headline, "illegal immigrant children search across the border at highest rates since last summer's peak." what is happening here? guest: new numbers were just published by cdp on their monthly apprehensions. we know historically that march april, may are the peak months of one we see unauthorized apprehensions from central america and mexico. spring is an easy time to cross. is really the peak. the numbers are up from where

they have been lost six months and down from where they were last year when the numbers were so high. last year, we had about 60,000 people -- children apprehended at the border. this you, we are on pace for about 35,000, 38,000. still be a high number historically, but around half of last or. host: take a lot -- take a look at the chart you put together. in can see the surge in february of 2014 around -- well, march around springtime. you can see the surge and where it is now. high compared to last six months, but not as high as where we were one year ago. guest: what was so usual last year -- we saw that search beginning last year, they continue to increase -- we saw that search beginning last year continue to increase and that

cause lasted to be unusual. we will be watching to see if it follows the normal pattern this year or it goes back down. host: where are these children that give you during this surge? what is happening to them? guest: under existing law there are two different systems. one system for children from mexico apprehended at the border ñ from canada, and a different system for children from other countries, including central america. most of the kids from central america who entered last year have been transferred from dhs to the department of human health and services. they are in immigration proceedings and face deportation before an immigration judge. while the cases are pending they have been placed with family members to await their hearings. the hearing process is backlog, so very few of them have got all the way through that removal process. they're waiting to hear if they will be granted asylum or other relief or if they will be deported. host: take a look at the chart

from the migration policy institute. it takes a look at over the years of migration of unaccompanied children. you can see this darker bar is children from mexico. that is pretty much -- but has pretty much stayed consistent. it is the countries from central america where you see the surge happening in 2014 and the largest amount -- population of children. it is rising again in 2015. guest: definitely. it has been driven by the three countries, the northern time go countries, hundreds, else on the, and one law. host: stephen, california. your take on this. caller: good morning. i have something to say about the mexican immigrants trying to immigrate. i figured they are very endearing people and why not gather some of the people at hundreds of millions of people will -- hundreds of millions of dollars in mexico and offer them

incentives to mexican people because they would be good for working in america, perhaps, they could work for tele-trends or construction or something of that nature. host: marc rosenblum. guest: i think one way to think about the caller's comment is that most unauthorized democrats that leave mexico and central america, looking for work, so there is an argument that we should be investing more heavily in mexico and central america. to create better conditions, employment opportunities reasons people would want to stay at home, and reasons they would feel they had more of a chance -- choice not to immigrate. that has not really been a part of our immigration conversation. it is a little bit of a hard line of analysis for congress to go down to invest in communities so that we have less illegal immigration to the u.s. but sort of from a policy

perspective, that would be a really smart investment. those dollars would go a lot farther and be more efficient then layering on more border security. we spent a lot of money on border security and we don't spend a lot of money on creating art -- creating job opportunities. host: john, you are next -- joan, you are next from tennessee. independent. caller: yes, my comment is that it seems kind of hypocritical to me that the united states goes all of the world protecting or helping other countries protect their borders, but they cannot protect the borders of the united states. as far as praising the immigrants from south america about their industriousness and how they come here for jobs welcome you have african-americans here who don't have jobs.

people will not higher than, no kind of investment or very little investment is made in african-american community. and yet, these people are coming into these country -- this country is being praised. it is good for them that they can immigrate to another country , african americans can't even immigrate across town in order to improve their lives host:. ok, john i will take your point. this is something we have heard a lot from viewers. illegal immigrants will come here and take jobs but take jobs specifically from the african-american community. guest: this is one of the real challenges in immigration policy. one way to answer that question is that most economists would say it cannot correct immigrants tend to complement u.s. citizens and create jobs. the reason is that they come here, they take a job, they are paying rent, buying stuff and they are creating jobs and tend to complement the skills and

demographics of u.s. citizens because they work in different niches. there are americans they compete with and they are low income, low educated americans. i think really the fundamental answer to that question is what can we do to improve job training and raise human capital and the people in this country more employable. the answer to why it is hard for some african-americans to find jobs in the u.s. is not because there are too many immigrants it is because they're not being well prepared to find jobs. that is a huge challenging and important policy issue but does not get addressed by tougher border security. host: is there evidence to support what you are saying? guest: there is a lot of economic resource that shows immigrants create as many jobs as they occupy. through their spending and by growing the economy, one immigrant creates more than one job -- more than the job that they fill.

it is not universally accepted, but probably accepted in economic research. there are distributed consequences. it is not true that every american benefits equally from immigration and certainly not unauthorized immigration. generally, immigrants benefit people in terms of who they are different from in terms of skills and training. with unauthorized immigrants your messy talking about low scale, no formal education and people with no formal education or low skills will benefit less and compete more with them from their immigration. host: does that mean in general, the african-american community? guest: it depends on the kind of assumptions you make about wage elasticity and the ability of african-americans to compete for those jobs in the absence of immigration. if we seal the border and have no more unauthorized immigrants, with the sectors that depend a lot on unauthorized immigration construction restaurant certain manufacturing, how much

of those jobs would -- how many of those positions would find ways to attract americans and how many of those jobs would be offshore or with the economy contract? with there be fewer restaurants ever they find ways to replace the labor? likewise with construction and certain service jobs. we just don't know because we have never run that x airmen. host: salt lake city, lee democratic caller. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: there was documentation about what they are doing to the mexicans, i am latino myself, and what they are doing is using them for profit. they are wrecking them up and charging them and using them for profit. i notice they have a policy with canada and the united states, but i notice they don't support you in canada because of their skin is white and latinos, our skin is brown.

i would like to know if they can change the policy on that because this is our land and this land gusto stolen by the racist immigrants. my people have directed movie are like anybody else and i would like to know if they can change the policy on that. host: all right, we. guest: two points. i will essentially agree with the caller. one is that unauthorized immigrants are disproportionately hispanic. about 75% are from mexico and latin america. they represent about 95% of the deportations. it is true that immigration is distant portion of the focused on latin americans. a lot of that is because it focuses on the border and border crosses are especially likely to be from latin america. there are a lot of unauthorized immigrants that enter legally and overstay a visa and we don't really target them with our enforcement for the most part, so it europeans and other groups that are unauthorized tend not

to cross the border. another part of his call is that there is a huge industry around immigration enforcement. i think he is particularly talking about the detention industry. we spend about $18 billion a year on immigration enforcement and about $2 billion of it is detaining immigrants in jail like settings. a lot of the providers of those jail services are private prison contractors and certainly, those are big contracts. host: we've been talking a lot about resources for border security, etc. the homeland security department on the website has the percentage of their budget that goes to different agencies that they oversee. the total budget authority for homeland security, and that is the taxpayers money, but includes fees, mandatory spending other revenue streams of homeland security department has. a taxpayer portion is about $48 billion or 49 billion dollars.

customs and border control is getting the largest percentage of the overall money. 21% compared to other agencies fema 4%, -- guest: cbp are the two enforcement agencies and they had about $18 billion in total, including fees and spendings. that is more than all other federal law-enforcement agencies combined. criminal law enforcement agencies combined. the more that we spend on drug enforcement plus trade, fraud, customs plus -- everything the federal government does on a criminal law-enforcement, we spend more on immigration enforcement. it is not that we are not trying to secure the border and do immigration enforcement, in fact, there is a lot of evidence that got enforcement has become quite a bit more effective over the last decade or so. still not enough to bring the numbers down to zero. we never will bring the numbers down to zero. host: peter from mount pleasant

for, south carolina. independent caller. caller: i would like to, to marc rosenblum you say specifically that -- these people will not be paying taxes other than social security and they will get all the other benefits, section eight housing, medical care etc. secondly, i have spoken with a lot of contractors. we are in a real estate boom where i live right now and i never see a black on a construction site. i asked them why they don't have locks on the site and a tummy -- and they tell me, illegal immigrants are like indentured servants and they work harder than blacks. blacks are being pushed out of the labor market. the actual labor participation rate has dropped down to 62%. the number of 5.6 million unemployment is not the true number, it is more like 11%. host: ok, peter i will move on to richard andin mesa, arizona.

get another voice and. caller: [indiscernible] as for the guy who called from salt lake city and said the mexicans took there is on it no. the president made the deal from the secretary of state, he bought mexico and he sold it for $50 million and he gave the mexicans $5 million. host: we will let marc rosenblum respond. guest: on the brazero program

this was a formal guestworker treaty that operated between 1942 in 1964. at its thing, it admitted 450,000 workers a year which is large number of low scale -- low skilled workers from my scope. it was terminated in the 1960's the has the worker protection had strong worker protections in the letter of that but they were not enforced. labor advocates in the u.s. found it to be very exploitative. we have existing temporary working programs. it looks a lot like the brazero program. neither of those programs work very well. employers do not take much advantage at the age to a program because they find it cumbersome to use and they find it easy to higher unauthorized immigrants. h2b program does not cover most jobs, but most of the people who are talking about immigration reform whether they are talking about comprehensive cir or a lot

of republicans who oppose cir would still like to see expanded temporary worker programs. the challenge is how to design the programs and away that allows businesses to hire workers that they need that they cannot find domestically while protecting u.s. workers from too much competition. if you have heard from other callers, that is a hard balance to strike. groups or steps in force at the go to and willing to go to will not just co-opt the books. ansys exley put u.s. workers first in line for those jobs. host: how many h one b visas are granted each year and how much -- and how many h1b three says overstays each year? guest: it is cap that 65,000

pieces a year. it is not a firm cap because there are certain h1b employers who are exempt because they are nonprofit. it is in the range of 80,000 a year. that is a three year visa that can be extended to 60 years and then after that, h1bs can stay on longer legally under certain circumstances. there are a large number of these visa holders at any given time. h oneb -- h1b can extend visas and eventually apply for green card. they are not overstate we generally talk about. people who enter on employment-based needs are probably not most of the overseas. most of the overstays are people on tourist visas, visitors to the u.s. who don't return at the end of the visa.

host: we have about 10 minutes or 50 more minutes left with marc rosenblum he is deputy director of the immigration policy program. getting an update for you on what is happening on immigration. etna in texas, a democrat caller. caller: i have two comments. the immigrants, are they going to actually pay and put into the economy of the united states or send their money back to mexico? also, the second aspect is how many of the darker races are not being afforded all the privileges and accommodations that the mexicans are afforded at this time? guest: on the issue of unauthorized immigrants paying

taxes, the earlier caller, peter, made inaccurate point that because unauthorized immigrants are low -- they tend to have low incomes and because we have a broadly progressive income tax system, low income americans don't pay a lot of income tax because they don't have a lot of income and they are eligible for certain tax benefits. with legalization, you are moving people into the formal economy so you are most likely to have those payroll taxes deducted and pain into the social security program. legalization, still, more people pay our taxes prior to legalization. host: if you are an illegal immigrant and in the shadows you can claim an income tax credit? guest: not legally, no. there are text and place to prevent it from going to unauthorized immigrants. a huge controversy over ipc and whether there is a certain amount of tax credit fraud. i don't want to try and site

with the findings are because i don't have it at my fingertips, but it is certainly not legal for unauthorized immigrants to claim an income tax credit and there are measures to prevent them from doing it. host: what federal benefits can illegal immigrants get? one of the callers said they can get health care figure to an emergency room, but can illegal immigrants get other federal benefits, welfare, victims etc.? guest: emergency health care they don't get turned away. the er can be reimbursed at the federal government for some of those expenses. food stamps, welfare, every federal government -- benefit, obamacare, they are not eligible for that. for the most part, not only are unauthorized immigrants not eligible, but temporary green cards are not eligible -- until they have had it for five years. unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for virtually all

benefits. host: children of illegal immigrants can go to school? guest: yes, that is correct. unauthorized children can go to school. not just children of unauthorized immigrants, but regardless of their citizenship if you're k-12 education, it is arise. host: kelly come along longview texas, a republican. caller: hi, my comment was about the earned income tax credit. if someone is illegal and you make them legal and you say they are going to pay more taxes they might pay more taxes than not, but their refund is going to be way greater five, six, seven times greater than the amount of taxes they pay, so you are intentionally misleading people when you say that. and other commenters unauthorized immigrants are allowed to get food stamps because the food stamp

organizations are not allowed to ask if they are illegal or not. host: ok, let's get some clarification from marc rosenblum, who studies the issue. guest: that ag department checks status. unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for food stamps. they do have u.s. citizen children and they may be eligible for food stamps, so that may be -- that does happen. on ei tc, the goal of the earned income tax credit, which i've not been expert on, that is designed to encourage low income people to work and incentivize formal employment. the itc is designed -- i believe that was a benefit that president reagan or that was designed by president reagan if i'm not mistaken. it is designed to incentivize low income people to be employed and -- not suffer by giving up

welfare. it is a refund to low income people to pay some back -- to pay back some of their income tax, so the callers are correct that unauthorized immigrants who become eligible for ei tc will pay fewer taxes because of the itc, but as a country, we decided that we want to encourage low income people to work. host: you are right, president reagan did creative. i looking at eat pi -- api website. that's good to florida. -- let's go to florida. caller: i have two questions. has there been a study on employers of illegal immigrants to determine if they are republicans or democrats? the second question was about how much money is sent out of the country back to the families of these people? guest: i am not aware of the study of the partnership of

employers. there is a lot of research on the industries that employ unauthorized immigrants and on our website, which you can find on immigration policy.org, we have recently published a detailed profile of unauthorized immigrants by state and by county and nationally. you can find it easily on a website. the top industries are service industry like restaurants construction, manufacturing, hotels, service jobs in agriculture, but agriculture is low on the list because it does not employ a lot of people in terms of remittances -- lot of people. in terms of remittances, a lot of the money he sent back to the countries, it is a large flow. i believe mexican immigrants send about 21 million -- 21 billion dollars in remittances

back to their families in mexico. it is a big source of gdp. for countries like el salvador, remittances are the largest. they get it more from remittances then foreign trade. a large source of their gdp is remittances. it is a big issue. in terms of -- it is money leaving the u.s. and immigrants accounted for remittances are still contributors to the u.s. economy. most of their money they spend here in rent, food, and other things that they are supporting their families at home. host: it was first proposed in the 1970's, but under reagan it was expanded. he called it the best anti-property and profamily and job creation measure to come out of congress. just a little clarification for you. our topic this morning is immigration policy and we are talking with marc rosenblum deputy director of immigration policy at the migration policy

institute. john in brooklyn, democrat. you are on the air. caller: good morning, c-span, and thank you for taking my call. quick question about the economy of the united states relative to the immigration. a lot of countries all of the country -- a lot of companies are saying they have jobs aiming to build the don't have the technical people that can fill these positions. the human resources departments of these companies i don't know if they're doing an excellent job of the hierarchy between u.s. citizens, h1bm, green card different levels by which they can maybe train these individuals, give them technical opportunities because as one callers said before, so many u.s. citizens, african-americans, are not even the opportunities to get this kind of training and work and same we are bringing h1bs, which

i'm sure they have great degrees from other countries, but only thousands are being employed, what are we doing in the human resources departments in these departments with immigration to make the hierarchy of the u.s. citizens downward so that we can help the economy of the country better? thank you for taking my call. guest: a recurring theme in our cause, i think it is the sweet spot or a sweet spot in the debate and that everybody agrees we would rather see u.s. employers hiring u.s. workers especially given their are a lot of unemployed people and people who would like to move into better positions. there are a lot of open positions and why they hiring people overseas and bringing people in incident hiring them? i think the answer is that we don't do a lot on drop training and improving human capital in the u.s.. -- human capital in the u.s. we don't have good successful programs to match willing employees with in the country.

many firms find it more efficient to find those well-trained workers abroad and that is to at the high school -- highly skilled level and low skilled level. i agree with the collar and i think most members of congress would rather find a way to mask those -- to match the workers domestically. there are federal job training programs and i think they are not viewed as hugely successful, but we don't spend a lot of money on them either. we spend a lot more time talking about how to secure the border than how to improve human capital development and job matching within the u.s.. that has been part of the immigration debate but it should be a big part. host: we will go to spring, texas, jean, you are on the air. caller: yes, several quick things. the main thing with this immigration of illegal aliens in this country is simply because the law is not enforced.

if we would start finding these companies that hire these people and enforcing the laws got are on the books, we would not have any legal problem at all. but instead the meatpacking business, the drywall business taking care of yards construction. i live in texas. i see it daily. these people are coming over here and take jobs away from american citizens that are mexican. host: ok, jean, let's talk about eat there are and where that stands. guest: the caller is correct that we don't do a good job of holding employers accountable for hiring unauthorized immigrants. part of that is backing up -- part of the recent we don't hold them accountable is that under existing law all employees are required to do is look at a workers documents proving their

identity and their work eligibility. to become a drivers license and social security card. that has been a loss since 1986 and there are a lot of fake ids and it has been easy for workers to show evidence that they are allowed to work your even when they are not and for employers to go through the motions of employment verification without making a serious effort to do it. e-verify is a designed to combat that and it is a system to check people's names and social security numbers against a federal database to make sure that the name on that card it really belongs to somebody he was allowed to work here and they do not go to the free market and get a fake id. e-verify is really good at saying is this a real id and social security number of someone authorized to work in the u.s.? there are a couple of the problems with it, one is that it is not mandatory, so most employers don't use it, but a growing percentage of do. it is mandatory in certain states. a more fundamental limit is e-ve

rify is good at saying if the name and number is in the database but it doesn't say if that is my name or number. instead of going to the flea market for a fake id, i might have to go online and get a fake id that has a stolen name and social security number on it. e-verify is not a magic bullet that will make it easy for employers to verify it. it just ups the arms race. host: one more phone call from dan in mount pleasant, texas hi. caller: i just wanted to say that i wanted marc rosenblum to be a little more honest with his take was that illegal immigrants are contributing because they are actually taking more than they are giving as far as the jobs and income and stuff. he talks about them paying taxes in this sort of thing. free education they blow it your face they are illegal and

the sit there, and because they have children that are legal citizens, they do get the welfare stamps, food stamps. they get reduced rent, they get all these things pretty while american citizens are out here working their tails off and we are paying for all of it. host: ok, dan. marc rosenblum. guest: i've done research on the fiscal impact of unauthorized immigration. if you can account -- if you are going to count u.s. citizen children against unauthorized immigration, that doesn't change accounting and reduce -- and increases the cost because kids are going to school. that is not federal, that is local dollars, my kids are a net drain on budgets because my kids go to school and get services and don't pay taxes. that is to a pockets. likewise, low income people pay

less taxes than high-income. just going back to the point that you were making and that we discussed, unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for benefits and they pay taxes -- about half of them pay payroll tax because they work with the fake social security number and they pay taxes into the social security system and payroll taxes withheld, but all been paid property tax either through rent, all of them pay sales tax when they go to the store, so there are a lot of taxes. there is this mythology that unauthorized immigrants are getting a free ride annexed or benefits that u.s. citizens are not eligible for and that is not true. they pay the same types of taxes as u.s. citizens and their eligible for slightly fewer federal benefits. host: i think for some of our viewers and americans is that americans are paying the full rate, the full amount that they owed to the government and the government says some illegal

immigrants are not paying what they would pay if they were legal. guest: right, that is true. that is the accounting that causes me to say legalization would be a further fiscal benefit. there is no question that unauthorized immigrants pay fewer taxes then citizens or legal immigrants. again, it comes down to either you can legalize them or you can deport them. or prevent additional unauthorized immigrants from coming in. i think it is important to have a separate conversation on what we are going to do about 11 million people that are here and how are we going to prevent new unauthorized immigration? there is a pretty broad consensus that they would like to prevent new unauthorized immigration and disagreements about how many or how we should deal with it, the 11 million who are already here. host: if you want to read more about this and all the research that is done by the migration policy institute, go to the website migrationpolicy.org and

you can find more thereby marc rosenblum. thank you for your time. we will turn our attention to energy regulations. we will talk to ross eisenberg and michael livermore of the institute for policy integrity. we will be right back with our conversation. ♪ >> this sunday on "q&a," senior editor for "the weekly standard" and a ferguson on his writing career, the gop 2016 candidates and what voters are looking for in a candidate. >> they want somebody who looks like he has stood up for them. i am amazed now to the degree to

which primary voters on both sides are motivated by resentment. the sense of being put upon. those people really don't understand us. here is a guy who does understand us and he will stick to them. that happens on both sides. hillary clinton gives her own version of that kind of thing. i don't think that was actually true 30 years ago. resentment has always been part of politics, obviously, but the degree to which it is on was exquisitely the motivating factor in truly committed republicans and democrats. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> each night this week at 9:00 eastern, conversations with a few new members of congress. >> as a result, i tried to have

discipline and my message. i tried to stay between the hash part. i understand i represent everyone in montana and montana is one congress. i represent not only the republican side, i represent the democrat side, the tea party site, the independent site, the union side, i represent everyone in montana. i effectively take that value set forward and congress represents america. i try to articulate the values and the needs and desires of your district, but the purpose is to make america better. >> five newest members of congress talk about the careers and personal lives and share insights about how things work on capitol hill. join us for all of their conversations each night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back.

our conversation for the next 45 minutes is energy regulation. the cost and benefits of them. joining us from charlottesville, virginia, michael livermore and associate professor at the university of virginia law school in studio i have ross eisenberg, vice president of energy and resource policy at the national association of manufacturers. ross eisenberg, let me begin with you. let's talk about how benefits are waiting against the cost of regulations. how is that calculation made and what is the calculation? guest: it is a legal requirement. executive orders from this president and the two presidents before him and then before that, they require that costs be weighed with benefits. when any agency puts out a regulation, the benefits have to outweigh the costs. that is the rule of law. agencies epa, will routinely wait the cost versus benefits

and they will make a determination either the benefits outweigh the costs or upside down or whatnot. frequently, this is the driving force for a lot of the controversy as to whether or not the regulation is worth doing or not worth doing. and a lot of the more recent regulations for the costs are getting extravagant in the billions and billions of dollars, we are now having a pretty robust debate over how the cost analysis is done. on our site for manufacturers how the costs are measured because we are seeing times when the costs are not being done terribly well. as manufacturers, what we want for competitive purposes irritability, certain the -- certainty in the regulatory process, can -- protect the environment and make sure they do the roles right and get the right and best information and doing these inks properly to know much about cost and what the rules are going forward. when they don't, we have a real problem. particularly when we talk about trains of dollars and millions of jobs. host: give us an example.

guest: the supreme court case we had a couple weeks ago is exhibit a in this analysis. the court is appropriately weighing whether epa should have done a better job of this. regardless of how they came out it is pretty clear they could have done a more thorough job on a cost and benefit side. you have a regulation designed to limit arcuri emissions from power plants. what epa basically did was measure -- they put a regulation that were 98% of the benefits are coming from the reduction of rings other than mercury. at the same time, they drastically underestimated the cost. we see the amount of power plants that are on the block for closure are tenfold underestimated by epa. you're seeing 10 times the amount of power plants that are not going to close and they did not measure the energy impact or the environmental impact. they did not do a thorough job. it would have been nice to have that back then and certainly now as the things started out tens and billions of dollars of cost

annually. host: michael livermore, i'm sure you want to weigh in on what ross eisenberg just said. but first, can you talk about how federal energy regulation in general are benefit. give us an example. guest: sure. as ross said, there have been requirements in place under executive orders for decades now. agencies weigh cost against benefit. there are a variety of benefits associated with regulations in general. energy regulations, we are really talking about air quality regulation. that is the biggest piece of the debate that we are focusing on. the largest benefit associated with improving air quality is saving lives. there are friday of things associated with traditional forms of electricity generation, in particular, coal, power plants, of rad of pollutants --

a variety of pollutants, pollution associated with coal fire energy production. it is associated with premature mortality and a robust literature on that relationship in the public health research community to establishing that link. the biggest category of benefits associated with these roles is the life-saving benefits of improving air quality. that is in the role that we are just talking about right now. that is the largest category of benefits. host: michael livermore talk about from your perspective about the supreme court case. what do you think is at the heart of this, what do you think happened? guest: the court has really taken up the question of when the agency should consider cost benefits. one regulating under this specific statutory provision. that is the subject of the case.

one of the things that is interesting and complicated about the clean air act, there are a variety of different programs that the epa administers to improve the air. some of them can't consider cost and the supreme court has held that the statute requires the agency only to focus on public health and not to consider cost when setting the standards. that is not this program that the agency is administrating for the mercury role. the mercury rolled deals with hazardous air pollutants. the question is whether the agency considered costs at the right moment. we know that the agency considered costs and did a full cost-benefit analysis of the role and the benefits outweigh the cost, but the question is whether they should have considered costs in the earlier period of time during this rulemaking. my sense is that the court will come out and uphold that agency's rules. the reason it would have been impossible for the agency to actually consider cost at the

point in the rulemaking process that is being proposed by the folks at challenging the role. the agency needed to make an initial decision about whether mercury was the kind of polluted that should be subject to regulation, and it made that initial decision. they do, when you the regulation and designed the program, it conducted a cost-benefit analysis. with that threshold decision would be very difficult to consider the cost of making that threshold comes as -- decision because the regulation had not been designed it. there is a variety of different ways that the agency -- the told the agency has added disposable -- at its disposal to reduce costs, place cause on different actors in the regulated community, and unless the agency knows how it is going to do that, it can do a cost-benefit analysis. with agency did here was made the threshold decision and then

it began to design the regulation and ultimately, in the course of designing the regulation once the decisions became more clear, it was able to do a cost-benefit analysis. host: let's take a step back for a second. ross eisenberg put together this report looking at regulations. the total cost of federal regulations i type. you break it down. you look at environmental, you are talking about they hundred $30 billion. the total cost of regulation comes in at about $2 trillion. $330 billion though, what kind of regulations are we talking about? and why is this having -- how do you come to this number of $330 billion? guest: that is an excellent question. as michael said, the vast majority that make us up our air regulations. it is getting more expensive. the technologies are already in place. the technologies are just getting more expensive at two

enduring the bang for the buck. we put out a report a few months ago saying the cost of regulation -- we actually use researchers the government had used and they had measured this using to researchers several years ago. at the time, the number was 1.5 7 trillion. we retained the same researchers and said, can you updated for 2014? they basically went through all the publicly available documents and the rules that have a score essentially, that actually the federal government did measure the cost and benefits of them. they came out and about $2 trillion. there is really no other way of putting it. environmental regulations tend to be the most extensive regulation that we are dealing with. it is also why we end up fighting about it because it is so expensive. at the end of the day -- a lot of it has to do it energy, environment and energy go hand-in-hand. when you could costs on feels, those pill costs get passed down to the product that my members

manufacture into the things consumers use and pay for. we all bear brunt of the cost. host: manufactures a that cost and pass it on to the consumer. guest: at the end of the day everybody does. fuel providers go to many factors, they have to internalize cost, our products can more expensive and consumers have to pay for it. we all pay across the board maybe not all the way direct through, but host: there is a real costs. host: we are talking about energy regulations. phone lines are on your screen. republicans, (202)-784-8001. democrats, (202)-784-8000. independence, (202)-748-8002. you can start dialing in now. first, i want to share with our viewers and have both of you respond. the headline in "the washington times," "president obama's new climate effort is stressing health and his staff is calling

it agreement presents -- greenlight policy for this presidency. he was at howard university in talking about the new initiative he is putting forward. here's what he had said. the end of his remarks about regulations and the impact they have on our country. president obama i want everybody to start recognizing the costs of inaction and recognizing the cost of inaction are even higher than the cost of action. the same way that there are costs associated with severe drought or significant wildfires or the kinds of storm surges that we saw in hurricane sandy. we are ultimately going to be better off being proactive then out in front of this thing as opposed to reactive or where we pay a whole lot more in pain and suffering as well as in terms of trying to deal with the backend of the problem. host: president obama yesterday

at howard university. michael, let me go to and have you respond to what he said. also, his staff at the white house made he will have a legacy as a green president. guest: ok, so just on the first point, that is absolutely correct in the climate change context and the public health context that there are costs associated with inaction. for example, if we don't move forward with the mercury role and is the supreme court were to strike a directory role down, we are talking about -- the mercury role down, we're talking about thousands of lives from dirty air. it is important to note that there are costs associated with action. there is no question about that. it takes money to put in technologies and improve air quality. the question i think many people would agree is that due benefits exceed the cost? and that is what epa fines with respect to the rule.

time and change is the same, we can pay now to reduce commissions or pay later in the form of effects and climate change. that is the basic question. what that means is that we should take steps now that are cost-effective that make economic sense given our reality of that exposure. that is the basic question that epa tries to answer through these roles. host: now -- guest: sorry, i was going to the present. he has supported a number of important environmental initiatives. one of the things on both sides of the auto -- on both sides of the aisle, they render extreme the differences between parties. go back to the mercury rule, the original provision was signed into law by a republican president. the regulation was moved forward by the clinton administration

bush junior administration took a crack at the mercury rule, but he recognized the importance of controlling mercury and now that obama is frustration. there has been a decade-long effort of both political parties to address the problem, so it is important to recognize that there is continuity as well. host: i also want to let viewers know we have a line set aside for business owners. we would like to hear from you about energy regulations and how they impact you. 202-748-8003. let's hear from brian in massachusetts, independent collar. caller: hi, how are you doing? i can remember back in the 1970's and 1980's, there was so much pollution and it was unbelievable. please let me say something about the last subject you are on. in massachusetts, 85 percent of people are illegals -- host: i'm not going to let you

do that because we need to stick to the topic. we have to guests here to talk about energy regulation. ross eisenberg, why didn't you take his first point about the need to protect the environment. guest: i think that is a good jumping off point. that is where i was going to come in before the call. in the 1980's there were pollution problems, back in the 1960's, there were pollution problems. at the end of the day, there is a policy that these problems have gotten worse. they have gotten substantially better because of things that manufactures and everybody else is doing in terms of the climate context. the united states has committed more greenhouse gases than any other nation on earth. in terms of ozone, we have reduced ozone levels 25% since 1990. we will reduce them another 25% over the next three to five years. we are doing very good things. the air is getting cleaner. i've go for runs every morning and the air is getting better.

there are -- there is more work to be done. these things get expensive and we have to knowledge we are making progress and we need to slow down and do things with more common sense. host: would you agree that we have made progress and we can take our foot off the gas? guest: well, i certainly agree on the point that we have made important progress on environmental -- certain environmental quality issues. it is important to recognize that we have had incredible economic growth. when you look over the period of several decades and at the same time, we have had substantial environmental improvement. that is a real testament to the american economy and to smart government intervention and a testament to the business community and their response. that having been said, there are certain categories of environmental risk that we are not doing a good job. climate is exhibit a.

the global community of which the united states is obviously a major leader, has dropped the ball. we need to become more aggressive on climate. we are not doing enough, purely looking from an economic perspective, we are not doing enough investing to avoid costs in the future. the reality is that other pollutants, including air quality pollutants, there are still a lot of very smart and economically justified regulations and reductions that we can get going forward. we are not there yet, although we have made progress. host: kevin, democrat collar. go ahead, kevin. caller: the power plant in my area, they went from coal and natural gas. the electric bill has not gone up. you go down to the power plant and where the coal pile was,

they planted nice, green grass and if you go over to the power plant and there is no black smoke. yet, i feel bad about the quality, but we -- but can we get for that coal? my electric bill has not gone up because of it. we are also talking about the cost of electric bills going up for regulations, but wouldn't natural gas burned better? like i said, it doesn't cost any more. my local power plant switched to it and they've got two or three more in natural gas sick -- so couldn't they go to more natural gas and wouldn't that the cleaner alternative and burn better cleaner and what it cost any more? host: all right, kevin.

ross eisenberg. guest: that is a question. at the end of the day, if we have access to everything utilities and the consumer can make the decision based on economics, based on everything in one big calculation. they figured out a way to mix of the rates were kept at a stable rate, that is a wonderful thing. there are tremendous benefits to using natural gas. at the end of the day, we are at it -- in a situation where the price of gas is still low. that being said, there are other states where that is not happening. so when you start closing doors and picking winners and losers in terms of energy, there are consequences to it. i am very happy to hear that it worked out well and i will. it is working out well in other states, but not so well and others. all we are asking is that these costs be measured properly. host: we will go to robert

rochester, new york. caller: yeah, just a few points here. i do want to blame's of fuel -- blame fossil fuels for the global warming we have until we address the chemical trails of morning blocking out the blue sky. until we figure out what the project in alaska is doing blasting the iron sphere. and not only that, why can't we as a country, with an energy-based economy, why can't we figure out commercial hemp? you can't tell me texas tech, m.i.t. can't figure out how to burn commercial hemp. every broken downtown in america can go and have a basis of economy on renewable energy. host: michael livermore, let's take this idea of renewable technology. guest: absolutely.

so you might ask the question, why haven't we developed cleaner energy technologies? or why are we dissatisfied with the correct mix of technologies we have available? a major part of that region is that cost, the true costs associated with energies including coal, are not reflected -- the companies do not bear those costs. the full costs, the full public health costs associated with pollution -- if it was, if we had appropriate prices that reflect a those costs, there would be an incentive to develop exactly the can of technologies that you are describing. but as long as the playing field is not level and there is an implicit subsidy for fuel, then there is going to be less development, left -- of those technologies. the best way for to get those

kind of technologies is to make sure that the price is played -- is paid by polluters. host: james in chattanooga, tennessee. a democrat. caller: hi. i would just like to know from this fellow, ross, if he understands, you know, the cost to human lives when things go wrong like in massachusetts when they polluted the water and there was a huge lawsuit out there. and several of these companies slipped out of the lawsuit with minimal damage. does he understand when people get leukemia and things like that? because people dump stuff in a bad way? i am not saying i am an angel. i have had stuff all of the back of my truck and things like that, but i just want to know from ross if he is, you know, if he has learned anything from these lawsuit in massachusetts? caller: -- guest: thanks for the

question. that is question. i am a father. i have two little kids. i care about their health and their future generations. at the end of the day, we are stewards of the environment. we do it because it is the right thing to do and come at the end of the day, it is a good business. a lot of the things we have seen over the years are not happening anymore. yes, there will be act events -- be accidents. all we really want -- we absolutely believe there should be environmental regulation. we absolutely believe this should be laws affecting citizens, protecting our children and our grandchildren. but at the end of the day, we want to make sure that costs and -- our balance. host: what is the cost? how do you balance it? guest: it is probably somewhere michael and i agree, we should be evaluating the full scope.

is the line drawn at although it out to 2300, which i have done on greenhouse gases and some of the cost and benefits they are looking at a crew hundreds of years in the future? are you advertising technologies well after their useful life? are you looking at full macro economic impacts? so, you know, wherever you draw that line, make sure it is apples to apples. host: so, michael livermore, i want to to respond to that. guest: in general, that is right. we want to weigh costs against benefits. the mercury rule has $90 billion of benefits and it costs around $10 billion a year. it is a huge that benefit. really, the question -- the point of disagreement -- look almost every person would agree

that $90 billion payoff in a $10 billion investment is a great payoff. the question is whether the national association of manufacturers might have a disagreement about how those numbers are cut delighted. -- are calculated. the methodology is grounded in the p or d of literature, public health literature, so these are solid methodologies. that doesn't mean that they can't be improved. of course, the agency should always be checked to improve their methods. but, you know, we need to go forward with this the most sound methodologies we have available right now. and those show substantial net benefits of moving forward with these rules. guest: can i respond? i completely agree -- and that is our issue, the methodology.

and that is a perfect example of where there is not an apples to apples comparison. you have the benefits calculation, which they estimate as high as 90, including indirect benefits other than the pollutants they are trying to control. on the cost side, we don't have the indirect costs. if you make it apples to apples you may have a different picture. at the end of the day, if you just want to control mercury, i have manufacturers controlling it relatively cheaply. but when you bring this other stuff in, it it becomes a completely different situation. all we want is that this is done thoroughly and properly. to their credit, the epa is working with us, listening to us. but at the end of the day, it is a process. host: robin in richardson texas. a democrat caller. caller: i just wanted to mention -- i am retired now, but for the last 20 years, i worked at a large multinational corporation.

and spent a lot of times overseas, particularly in china. and, you know, spent a lot of time wearing my mask just to be able to navigate through the cities and coming back and, you know having to deal with multiple rounds of allergy medication to do with the results of the terrible pollution that they have over there. and also sitting in our meetings many times where discussions were had that we are to do this but there was legislation. i am not demonizing any large corporations. i think people want to do the best for our country, but i also want to make sure that people understand that large corporations are out to make a profit. and if you don't have good, strong legislation, that is what is -- what happens in terms of china and other places. thanks. host: michael livermore? guest: yes, i think that is such

an important point. the way our economy works best is when we have the right rules in place that give companies the incentives to go out, and then the process of making money, in the process of turning a profit, they generate huge benefits jobs, products that we all use and enjoy. they generate economic growth. but in the context of rules that created incentives without hurting people, without causing unnecessary pollution, without contributing to climate change which will cost us a lot down the road. if we get the right rules in place, then our dynamic, innovative economy will achieve omissions reduction and generate all these great benefits. at the same time, if we don't have those rules in place. if we don't ensure the right incentives to control pollution and get over what from these companies, then we are looking

at a situation like china where they don't have appropriate controls and it is a disaster. host: we will hear from wayne in shreveport, louisiana. a republican. good morning. caller: hey there, greta. i haven't talked to you in a while. all this climate change you guys are talking about is a big hoax. there is no climate change. and i -- are you there? host: yes, wayne, we are listening. we will take your point. there is no climate change. what do you say to those who say this is a hoax? guest: we are at a point now where the epa is actively regulating greenhouse gases. we are doing it. at the end of the day, as i said earlier, we produce more greenhouse gases than any other nation on earth over the past 10 years. manufactures, specifically are emitting less greenhouse gases. but the only sector in the american economy and waiting less today than we were in 1990,

so that is a good thing. at the end of the day, the federal government is regulating and we are prepared to deal with those regulations. as michael said earlier, this is a global issue that requires a global approach. unilaterally as he can to sort of funeral auto -- is a can -- is akin to unilateral surrender at this point. it is a cost here. that cost is going to be borne by our local -- global competitors. host: middleton, new jersey. a-day. the democratic caller. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am going to pick up on that woman's comment. if we had a democracy instead of a plutocracy here, if our agencies were financed and staffed, which they are not, maybe we could get a lot more done.

but the fact of the matter is if we stop the subsidies that are going to these fossil fuel corporations, if we stop them from off shoring their profits and pay taxes, we could use that money for r&d. and there are amazing things out there that we could be developing to take us off of fossil fuels that really should go by the way of what the point was, the way of the dinosaurs. we have less pollution. i would like you to come to the state of new jersey and show you a little fight that still has been cleaned up after 10 years. now, we have to do something because we are destroying this planet. these profits of these fossil fuel companies -- i mean, we just lost 20% of the glaciers in canada. what are we going to wait for? 50 years from now, the bottom --

half of -- won't be there. all of us talk about being pro-life. those pro-life people should be shouting loud and strong about what is going on in our -- the only place we have to live on. host: i will let both of you respond. guest: yeah, i think that, you know, the last two callers demonstrate the incredible degree of polarization that we have, which is really unfortunate. the degree to which these issues have been polarized, to the point where even an agreement about basic science is hard to come by. now, how do we move forward? one is, if we can agree that we need to address these issues and we want to take an empirically grounded approach, that we want to rely on the scientific community, that we want to rely on, you know, the consensus of the scientists and economics

community about how to approach these issues, we can make a huge amount of progress to address environmental issues while still maintaining a strong economy. the problem is now we are an incredible situation of gridlock so that right now, the obama administration is proposing a rule that will generate $90 billion of benefits for $9 billion with of cost, and this is incredibly controversial. and folks are fighting it like crazy. when we have a situation like that, it is difficult to make progress on the big issues when we have this level of controversy. guest: the last caller did a very good job of explaining. there are a lot of priorities that the american people have here. certainly, the gallup poll that this show had a segment on a few weeks ago, every year they do a poll on par -- on voters

priorities. at the end of the day, not only has environmental problems gone down for the american public they don't even make the list in the grand scheme of things. at the end of the day, americans prioritize jobs, terrorism, the economy, things of that nature that are also priorities, but they place a greater weight on than the environment. and that is not to say that the environment should not be a part. it absolutely is. but in the grand scheme of things, you start to look at where the president is going and talking about legacy and things of that nature where he is really prioritizing an issue that is not a party for most of the american public, as some of these other things are. it is where it ranks in the grand scheme of things. there seems to be a disconnect here between what washington is doing and what the rest of the american public actually believes on these issues. host: sam and california host: san mateo -- san mateo,

california. good morning. caller: good morning. i am 66 and i have been a tree hugger since the 1960's. but mr. livermore, the problem i have is with their math. it sounds a whole lot like every family is going to get $2500 each from obamacare. the second point -- i live on the pacific coast. and we have done a lot of work to clean up the air here. and we have a tremendous amount of pollution blowing across the ocean. so i really have some objections to the taccone and kind of regulations that obama this time to put on our country when there is a huge amount of pollution coming from other countries. guest: well, yeah, certainly the international pollution is a problem. it is one that is very difficult to address. so, i think i would agree with

you that to do what we can to reduce international pollution is a good thing. in terms of how we calculate the benefits, most of those benefits are in the form of life savings. so what we have is an estimate of the value that people assign to reducing mortality risk. it is not that there's going to be a check that arrives in the mail. what happens is that you will experience lower risk of dying from air pollution over the course of your life. and the epa's methodology recognizes that value. guest: so the issue for international pollution is a really, really good issue to talk about on this. i am so glad you raised it. we are now in the middle of a regulatory process for a new ozone regulation. it comes down from the

stratosphere, from the ozone layer, pollution comes from a lot of things. we are in a situation now where most of the ozone levels are exceeding the amounts limited by law on the west coast. they are actually coming long-range from china. at the same time, the administration is exit putting in front of us unequivocally the most expensive regulation of all times. it would be $140 billion a year to meet the standards they are sending. second place is not even close in this ranking. we are dealing with the most expensive regulation of all time, and places like california may not ever be able to meet it because, at the end of the day, you have pollution coming in from places that aren't the united states. so, why are we moving the chains? those of the kind of arguments we are trying to have here in washington. he sort of see the priorities are out of touch.

that regulation went into place five years ago. we are now at a situation where they are trying to move the chains without even implementing the ones that are in place now to a level that is easily unattainable for california for reasons that have nothing to do with california. these are things we really need to fix in washington. it was a great point. host: ralph. murphy, not kill anna. in independent here at caller: an independent. caller: people don't take to the fact that you have skyscrapers all over the country, all over the world, that radiate heat like you can't imagine. if you put your hand on it, you concede the difference between that and putting your hand on green grass on the ground. i mean, there is a prime example of how we are getting a lot of this global warming between blacktop in concrete and so on. as far as energy, i don't know

why we are not doing solar and wind energy more than anything. it may cost a little more, but in the end, it makes a whole lot cleaner environment. you could force down just to create energy. i mean, we are smart enough to see you energy ways. as far as pollutants, we have more pollutants in this country -- i mean, you take a must any product that you find in your house, it says right on the can, this may be cancer-causing. but yet we let the country's creek -- let the country's -- coutnrie -- countries keep creating them. host: ok, ralph. let me have david join the conversation. go ahead, david. caller: there is a thing -- i

like when people who tell me it is a crisis start acting like it is a crisis, then i will believe it is a crisis. and what i mean by that is there are a lot of chronic things activists, who don't live the lives they want everybody else to live. if you go and google tom friedman's house, his guest house is bigger than most people's houses. we are not at the capital, who is everybody's favorite advocate, flies around in private jets. fly commercial if you really care about the environment. the other point is a lot of the folks that want the regulations that the gentleman from virginia want our people that are of means and can afford a 25% increase in the power bill. this will hit the people on the

lower income scale, in the middle class. this will hit them a lot harder and basically will be a tax on them. if you put the question to the people and say, would you pay 25% more for electricity in order to protect the environment tackle -- the environment? the answer is a whole lot different than saying, do you believe in protecting the environment? host: mr. eisenberg, we will start with you first. guest: that last point is absolutely a dynamite point. we have polled extensively on greenhouse gas regulations. at the end of the day, that is the right point which is, yes people are willing to do something about it. again, it shouldn't be a partisan issue, as michael said earlier. but how much do you want to pay for it?

just tell us how much it is going to cost. one thing that drives us crazy in a manufacturing state's when we are not told the truth as to how much something is going to cost. and when the rules continually change on us every couple of years. those are the things that really make it hard to manufacture and hard to make it profitable here in the united states. just tell us what it is going to cost. give us the real data. let us make a decision on our own that if it is going to hit the most susceptible parts of our population the hardest, at least tell us that. don't tell us it is going to be a postage stamp a day or a gallon of milk a month. tell us the truth and let us make the decision. host: michael livermore? guest: of course, the agency -- when it does its cost analysis, it uses solid methodologies and backwards looking analysis at cost predictions. it tends to show that the agency

overestimates the cost. actually, the cost of complying with the rules that are adopted by epa are lower than their predictions. so the idea that epa is hiding the cost, pretending the cost is zero is just not the case. the agency does a very thorough job of estimating regulatory costs. again, when you examine retrospectively how accurate those predictions are, they tend to be somewhat higher than the actual compliance. -- cost. and that is putting aside the industry predictions, which are much, much higher and therefore, much less accurate retrospectively. and this is an incredibly important issue. and it is one that really is not adequately addressed and we should be talking more about -- how to respond to the distribution of questions that are raised by regulation, and

more generally about equality and other issues. but again, if were talking about a situation where there are huge benefits, billions of dollars of benefits at a fraction of the cost, there are ways to ensure that those costs fall in ways in which to and not falling on the most vulnerable populations. folks are being adequately taking care of through the regulatory design so that it isn't the most fall. -- isn't the most vulnerable who are saying these effects. host: gary, a democratic caller. go ahead gary. caller: yes, first as a comment. businesses are not during the two cost of doing business, and that there's -- there is a lot of reasons for that, but mostly it is a lack of knowledge about stuff. but by passing off the hitting costs and so on, and finding

those costs is difficult, but another aspect that on coal, we talk about merkley, but as a scientist, i know that there are radioactive elements -- uranium it depends on the geology of the area where the call is coming from but very seldom is that talked about. that is scary, but it is as bad as mercury in some cases. that is another thing. but i do think with big data out rhythms now, gain theory, although i kind of stuff being applied -- all that kind of stuff being applied these kinds of things can think through a lot of these problems better than humans.

and applying the stuff, i think we can really clean up our planet and do it in very efficient ways. and that is my comment. host: ok, gary. guest: we agree that a commitment to technology as an answer here. manufacturers innovate. that is what we do. at the end of the day, that is going to solve all the challenges we have. and most of the issues we deal with here in washington. what is really important, the, again is that we make sure we are using a best tools and do the best six that we can possibly do -- and to the best things that we can possibly do so our government can make the best decision. i want to sort of mention the hitting costs that you mentioned. this is one where, on its face, the epa says, just like michael said on mercury, the benefits outweigh the cost. they said the benefits are anywhere from $60 billion to $80

billion, and the cost is on the bill of $15 billion to $20 billion. but 65% of the cost that would be needed to comply with this regulation -- quite frankly, we have been at this for a while -- 65% of the cost would come from what epa calls unknown controls. and that means they have no idea. they are just expecting that we, the manufacturing sector, will come up with them. and we very well might. but when they assign a cost to that, they basically drop a flat line. that is why their numbers are low. if you fix that one piece of it, and there are many pieces of those our grandsons that need fixing -- of those out rhythms that need fixing, then the costs address the -- drastically outweigh the benefits. host: a couple more phone calls.

caroline, alabama. caller: yeah. my concern is that if we keep taxing regulations for manufacturing here in america we may force manufacturing to go overseas. and in the end, we may end up causing more pollution for the planet as a whole. host: michael livermore, take that. guest: yeah, it is a concern. it is especially a concern when you are looking at a global pollutant like greenhouse gases. it is extremely important that the u.s. take a leadership role every move forward with climate regulations here. but at the same time, pursue a global approach and get emissions reductions around the world because, you know, there is a risk that you described but even the larger risk is that countries will -- even countries

like china, india, and other countries -- won't control their ambitions. and that alone is a huge problem. so the united states needs to pursue a leadership role, make sure we are demonstrating our commitment to reducing emissions are at home, while at the same time pursuing a global agreement. i think there is widespread agreement that that has to be the way to deal with the problem. host: dan. littleton, colorado. a democrat. caller: in 2007, i believe al gore is contention that -- is evil. and that's what we're talking about this morning. but the problem is after anyone looks at the issue, it becomes clear that the real science is there is only .38 of one single

molecule of carbon dioxide per thousand molecules of air we breathe. and that is only capable of absorbing a very tiny slice of only infrared radiation from our son -- sun. the bottom-line is, there is no visit will science or elementary math that carbon dioxide can affect any global warming or cooling, or affect any weather pattern anywhere in the world. that is the truth. anything else is just speculation. and it is a lie. and it is the seats -- it is the seat aimed at shutting down -- deciet aimed at shutting down our fossil fuel industry. guest: this is an excellent

jumping off point to the one regulation we haven't talked about today, which is also under consideration by the epa, which is regulation of greenhouse gases. and they are going after the existing power plant fleet could and this is one where the administrator of the epa says it will cost about a gallon of elk per month. some of our analysis we have looked at replacing that at hundreds of billions of dollars total. $366 billion. almost every state in the union is going to see double-digit electricity rate increases. greenhouse gases are being regulated, that is the law we are compelled to deal with. but at the end of the day, they should be doing it in a proper way. and frankly, a legal way. it brings us all the way back to sort of the cost versus benefits wednesday, you know, we did some polling, it was on this greenhouse regulation. the american people to want to

pay $266 billion to do with a regulation like this. they are willing to pay, but not quite that much. all be a looking for is some truth in regulation. we want to makes her we are dealing with regulations, like ozone regulation. to the previous point, we are not being forced to internalize costs that are international competitors don't have heard we want the united states to be the best place for the world to manufacture. and we wanted to be the most environmentally safe place to manufacture. for everybody's environmental legacy. we need to do the obligatory process better than we are doing right now. host: michael livermore. guest: on the greenhouse gas regulation, again, if we look historically at firemen to progress in the united states, where we have predicted costs

for different environmental regulations, which we have done dozens of times the historical pattern is that we have overestimated the cost to that we have actually achieved emission reductions at lower costs than the government predicted. now they're saying that the costs will be multiple full higher than epa's estimations. that has never been the case. there has never been an instance like that in the past. in all my years of controlling emissions. unless there is something exceptional about this particular regulation, i think there is good reason believe that we will be able to achieve a cleaner environment, deal with climate change, and do it in a way that is economically viable. and doesn't impose substantial costs in excess of benefits. and that is the road we are on. we can of course do better, but

the rules we are talking about again, the economic analysis that is done by the agency, grounded in sound methodology shows that the benefits far exceed the costs. host: gentlemen, we'll have to leave it there for now. ross eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the national association of manufacturers. michael livermore, institute for policy integrity. we thank you both. guest: thanks very much. host: coming up next, we will to where we started here on the "washington journal," getting your thoughts about the shooting in south carolina. the news breaking last night that the police officer was arrested for murder in this case . a white police officer who fatally shot in unarmed black man. there are the phone lines. a fourth line for police officers. we will be right back.

>> each night this week at nine :00 p.m. eastern, conversations with a few new members of congress. >> and as a result, i try to stay disciplined in my message. i try to stay between #, and a football sense. i understand i represent everyone in montana. and i represent not only the republican side, but i represent the democrat side, the independent side, the tea party side, the union side, i represent everyone in montana. and i think of we take that value forward, congress represents america. we need to be true to articulate the values and the desires of your district, but the purpose

is to make america better. >> five newest members of congress talk about their careers and personal lives. join us for all the conversations each night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal," continues. host: and we are back. we will finish up talking about the south carolina shooting where that white police officer was arrested for murder yesterday. this story breaking overnight for the murder of an unarmed black man who was fleeing the scene. some of you have probably seen this video that was taken by a bystander. the person remained anonymous. we want to show it to you now but a warning that some of you may find it disturbing. here is that video. [video clip] [gunfire]

host: that is the video that was taken by a bystander. walter scott, 50, had been stopped for a traffic story. here is the story, a white north telstar police officer was arrested on a murder charge after a video surfaced tuesday of the lawman shooting eight times at a 50-year-old black man as the man ran away. walter scott, a coast guard veteran and father of four, died saturday. five of the eight bullets hit scott. the family's attorney said four of them struck his back, one hit his year. the footage by a bystander was posted tuesday from a source who asked to remain anonymous. it was the first piece of evidence contradicting an account slager gave earlier this

week through his attorney. the u.s. department of justice said in a statement that fbi investigators would work with the state law enforcement division. the mayor how the press conference last night, calling -- saying that the officer there made a bad decision. and the story goes on to say that the night circuit will prosecute the murder charge that carries from 30 years to life in prison. the police department, which has 343 officers, has fought off market stations -- off accusations in the past. a newspaper reported in september that 18% of the officers were black, while the city's population is 45% black. the phone lines are open. (202) 748-8001 for for

republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. (202) 748-0003 for police officers. we will take your calls here in just a minute, but first, let's show you what the family had to say. here is the brother of walter scott. [video clip] >> i think there should be something done to correct how some stops are made in certain areas in the city. and i don't think you should be stopped just because of the car you're driving, or the color of your skin, but i think certain things should be put in place. and for the community you can see with the video shows. and all across america, i would say let the police departments

reform themselves. because the has to be changed. and we need change. and that is what i would hope that we can see. not tomorrow, but today. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't know. host: the brother of walter scott there. the family holding a news conference after it was announced by city officials there that the police officer was arrested for murder. the courier says this, though that at the time of the incident that walter scott was wanted for arrest on a court warrant. he had a history of arrests related to contempt of court charges for failing to pay child support. the only accusation of violence against scott during his lifetime came through and assault and battery charge in 1987. it goes on to say about the police officer, that he is a

former coast guardsmen with a wife and two children. two people have filed complaints against the officer during his time with the force, including one man who said the officer shot him with a taser for no reason in september of 2013. this from the south carolina newspaper who obtained the video, along with the "new york times." this from the "washington post," although officers fatally shoot hundreds of people each year only a handful result of the officer facing criminal charges. fatal encounters are becoming pivotal factors in whether grantors bring charges. we want to get your thoughts on that. what do you make of the bystander taking this video? whether or not police officers

should have body cameras to record these incidents. the "washington post" saying that the police department announced in february that it would equip the force that with 115 body cameras after obtaining $275,000 for in-state funding for that. bob in new york, in independent. go ahead. caller: it appears that they are pursuing the correct direction in saying that this police officer murdered this man. why would he shoot eight times? couldn't he have just fired at least one warning shot and say halt? maybe there are too many cops watching television shows. host: let me throw this point and you, though. they quote a professor of criminology who says that if someone is running away from you, it is not like your life is in danger.

i'm what i am seeing from the video, it will be hard to justify the shooting. however, this professor goes on to say that she believes a murder charge went too far. and suggested a lesser charge would be more appropriate. murder should have some element of premeditation. i don't think it officer who, in doing the job, makes an error in judgment wakes up thinking they want to kill somebody. caller: the man fired eight shots. he hit him five times. if he was a good shot, he knows how to fire a weapon, if he shoots him once, he is going to stop. and if he shoots and eight times, why? unless he is tying to kill the guy. host: ok, bob. reuters is reporting on yahoos website -- on yahoo!'s website -- activists had planned to protest in south carolina on

wednesday after a white police officer was caught on video fatally shooting a 50-year-old walter scott. robert in cypress, texas. a police officer and a republican. robert, what are your thoughts? caller: well, i retired and what i see there is totally wrong. [indiscernible] the suspect was running away from the officer. it was totally unnecessary to shoot this man. just totally are called for. i have been in many situations -- that is the last thing you want to do, shoot somebody. he had a fire arm in his hand, yet. but this man was running away from him. host: robert, the video does show that there was a brief scuffle between the pair before scott starts to run away. what does that tell you? caller: that does not give the officer a right to shoot this man.

you can't start treating somebody if you have a scuffle with him. it is totally wrong to -- totally wrong. i felt like in ferguson, he had the right to shoot him. but this is totally un-possible. host: robert, tell viewers, what is your training like for this situation? caller: i have been through several academies. i have been through a lot of training. and it is not only training, but common sense. my gosh, you just don't shoot somebody in the back when they are running away. that is common sense. i don't know why this officer did this. i don't know what led up to it. why he did this is just totally uncalled for. host: frank in south carolina. an independent. go ahead. caller: hey, how are you doing? i mean, imagine if you taste him

-- tased him. i know all republicans are not racist, but you wonder why a lot of minorities don't join the republicans. you see this on videotape and they are trying to justify that. how can you possibly justify that killing? then they say that he did cpr on the guy. he didn't do know cpr on the guy. i mean, this stuff happens -- it seems like it is happening on a regular basis. host: ok. on that, the "washington post" says that several officers gave scott first aid, but it is on clear when that may have taken place. the video shows scott lying handcuffed and receiving no medical attention, other than the police officer checking his neck for a pulse. anthony, baltimore, a republican. caller: actually, i am on the independent line. host: ok, go ahead.

caller: so, what this shows is that, first of all, our legal system these to be reformed. the fact of the matter is that the guy was running away from the officer. even with the scuffle prior was that force necessary for him to shoot eight times echo was the officer -- date times? -- eight times? was the officer in fear for his life? in this country, there are so many black men in our jail cells compared to the number of african-american men that are in college, it just shows that our system is really set up to fail black men in this country. i live in baltimore, maryland and in 2014, there were 211

murders. out of that, 189 were african-american men. now, i will say that most of the murders were done by people of the same race, but my point is, why? we look at the lack of jobs, the lack of social economic standing . number one, our po system should be reformed. number two, those big businesses need to figure out ways in which we can put these people to work so that they don't have idle time to be wasting on the street, walking around, getting pulled over, getting profiled for simple things like driving while black, if you will. i think it is a great thing to start a better discussion on how black people are treated in this country. host: joseph, you are next. a democrat. hi, joseph. good morning. caller: yes. my concern is in almost all of these instances, why do the

police often aim for the upper part of the body? i see that one of the shots that this officer fired hit his year -- ear. my concern is that if they find it necessary to shoot someone why can't they always aim at the lower part of the body? which would, of course, stop someone if they were advancing towards them. but even in this instance when i looked at the "new york times" video, the man was clearly running away. and it justifies logic. to think that eight shots were necessary.

he ought to go to -- that officer should face tremendous retribution. host: they sent since, along with the charge -- the sentence along with the charge, if it is proven -- if he gets the murder charge would be 30 years to life in prison according to the south carolina newspaper. here is the latest from republican senator from south carolina, tim scott. who is the first black senator elected to the south since reconstruction. he put out a state -- a statement saying the horrific video that came to light yesterday is deeply troubling. it is clear the killing of walter scott was unnecessary. my prayers are with the family as they go through this ordeal. with several protest plan today,

i joined community leaders in with charleston and calling for peace. i understand the hurt the anger many are feeling today, but violence solves nothing. we must come together as a community, a state, and as a nation and rebuild trust. david, columbia, maryland. in independent. hi, david. good morning. caller: good morning. this incident is -- [indiscernible] it means the police force are not communicating to the general -- despite of all the problems we are having from florida, from new york, from ferguson, and -- i think it is the lack of information on communication to the brutality of the police.

we are still looking around and trying to find a way to solve the incident in ferguson. that is what i have to say. host: jim. a republican. hi, jim. caller: yes, my comment is i went through 40 hours of training back several years ago. just basic training, police training you'd what i found out -- training. what i found out that it is like this all over the united states. but the training i took, i was appalled at the attitude of the police officers. their attitude is, everybody out there, whether it is for a broken tail light or they are going 5, 6 mouse per hour over the speed limit is a common

criminal. and that is not true. a lot of times they put a uniform on these young kids, turn them loose out there after about four or five weeks of training, and they are not qualified, even though they might have gone to the law enforcement academy. they are not quite qualified. and that is ingrained in their minds. that we are all criminals when they once pull us over. host: we have about five minutes left her for this conversation. coming up here on c-span, we will be taking you to a conversation here in washington in assessing the iran nuclear deal. i had of that, i want to share with you several pieces in the paper this morning about these iran nuclear negotiations. the front page of the "new york times." protesters are condemned. those that see this as iran being weak to negotiate with the west are being condemned.

and it's conservative leadership all falling in line behind what is being proposal far. and then, henry kissinger and george schultz writing in today's opinion pages of the "wall street journal," saying that when inevitable disagreements arrived over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections on what criteria are we prepared to sit? 's evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? and a "new york times" editorial page, israel's demands that were in the papers yesterday are unworkable on these negotiations. and then also in other foreign news, here is the "nerd times" this morning with the story that expedited weapons are being delivered by the united states to saudi arabia to help them with the fight against iran in

yemen, signaling deepening u.s. involvement, according to the paper. then there is this piece tensions aside, the leader of turkey meets with the leadership of iran despite the turkey president being very critical of iran in recent weeks. in the article, it says that turkey and iran have been historical rivals, back to the time of the ottoman and the persian empires in the 15th and 16th centuries, but their shared border has been one of the longest-running frontiers and the world. essentially unchanged by the war in 1639. since then, the two countries have had an unusual relationship. rivals and opponents on another front -- on some fronts, while bitter rivals on others. that in the papers this morning.

for all of you who are following where the u.s. is negotiating with iran, where we are fighting against the country, and where we are fighting alongside them, like in iraq. lynn in columbus, ohio. good morning to you. what do you make of this news coming out of south carolina? caller: i just want to say to the people who are surprised that the people calling in about the justification of the shooting, when i look at the history of america if a justification can be made for the annihilation of indians and for the segregation, how can they not understand that a justification can be made by some people for the shooting of this man? we call ourselves a christian nation, but one of my favorite scriptures is, how can you say you love god, who you have never seen, if you can't love your man

-- fellow man who you see every day? host: janet, an independent color. hi, janet. caller: hi, good morning. and it is a good morning. it is a new day in which we can now see what the police are doing through the smart phones, which are in the hands of so many people now. it is about time. that poor man was obviously running for his life. and he gets shot eight times. it was just appalling. but it is a new day, everybody. thank god for smart phones. host: orlando, florida. independent. good morning to you. welcome to the conversation. caller: yes. i was listening to the story on south carolina on the shooting. you know, this is been going on for so long. every time and -- a white officer kills a black man, we

see the same thing over and over and over. then they tried to find a way to get him out of it here and they are going to keep killing. i don't see where he ever got shot with a gun like a stun gun the shore -- before. if you ever got shot with those things, he was running. huge tried to get away. host:host: and the guy shot him. ok. we have to leave it there. thank you for watching today's "washington journal. we want to bring you to live coverage were the us talking about this iran nuclear deal. thanks for watching. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> do we have? >> good morning and welcome to another of the series of briefings of the national council on u.s.-arab relations on issues of vital importance to the united states and the nations in the middle east.