questions about the epa kuwait -- epa's clean power role -- rule. host: good morning. it is friday, july 31. the house is officially on often -- august recess today while the senate is set to return monday for one more week of work. yesterday congress approved in other short-term extension of the highway bill while the senate set the stage for a high-profile vote early next week on funding for planned parenthood. in international news this morning, beijing one its stake to host the 2022 winter olympic games. that comes in a week in which boston withdrew its 2024 summer olympics been over cost a certain cost concerns.

we are asking our viewers to call us with your thoughts on hosting the lipids in the united states. do you think it is worst -- worth the cost to cities? if you are in the eastern or central united states the number (202) 748-8000. if you are in you as a victory done the number is (202) 748-8001. and if you are a boston or a los angeles resident that number is (202) 748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media, facebook or twitter. and a very good friday morning to you. beijing celebrating this morning on its olympic bid but plenty of olympic headlines already this week in this country. here are the dueling front pages from the boston globe from tuesday this week, noting that the games were over after boston

organizers were able to halt the bid in that city for the 2024 olympic games. on the same day that that headline ran, here is the front page of the los angeles times. they are at the headline is 2024 games. los angeles is a player again as boston and its bid to host the olympics. other headlines throughout the week about those bids, this from the front page of the sports section of the washington post. economic benefits no longer ring true for host cities of olympics. and one more headline, cities are shying away from posting games. you can see that headline also in the washington post. we are letting our viewers colin this morning to get your thoughts on hosting the lipids in the united states. do you think it is worth the cost to taxpayers? numbers are on the screen if you want to call in, but for more on the boston story and its fallout we bring in george washington

university professor of sports management, lisa delpy neirotti. think the much running us. guest: thank you. host: explain the financial disagreement that led it to boston pulling out of its bid. guest: i think the citizens are concerned due to the media hype and saying how much london and sochi cost. they were up to $50 billion, but half of that was grasped -- graft and half of it was to build basic infrastructure that cities in the united states already have. we already have hotels. we arty have sewer systems. we have electricity. we have road systems. yes there are going to be some improvements that need to be made in boston, for example, but those were needed anyway. the cost of improving your interceptor should not -- your infrastructure should not be

amortized over the 60 days. it should be amortized over the 50 to 100 years that i'm for sector will be used. host: and professor lisa delpy neirotti has attended 22 olympics. she had let students and researchers to study these are issues. going back to at least the 1960 olympics, all olympics has been to or possibly three times over their budget estimate. why is budgeting for an olympics so hard to do? guest: like any construction project, they usually have cost over writers. if the person making the budget does not account for this then there are probably going to be people coming in with unrealistic expectations. in london i know the people on the bid, and they honestly knew

they were coming in under. they just said, we put it out there. they didn't really go out and get the contract bids or anything before bidding. host: for the boston olympic bid eric estimates from anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion. can you talk about what the taxpayers were being asked to pick up, and what the ioc and let private donors were expecting to pick up for that bid was pulled out? guest: just to put it in perspective, london brought in over $7 billion of revenue just from its organizing committee plus another billion dollars from the international olympic committee. then they had the excess that they were not using for their local organizing committee for the infrastructure.

that helped offset public infrastructure. they covered the cost of their games, but in london, they built used london. they did not need these games to build -- bring more tourists to london. they didn't need to increase their image. it london has a great image. what they used it for was to have a deadline where they were going to rebuild. a deadline and the purpose to rebuild these london. in that case they extended their and for sector. their metro. i would transportation. they built housing. they built a new park. they cleaned up and airy a that was still bombed out from world war ii. there were purposes, and the money they spent was not all on the lipid games. host: and i want to ask you about the news this morning

about beijing being connected to host the 2022 olympic -- winter lipids. the washington post, in their story saying that benefits no longer ring true for host cities. they noted the only countries that left standing in the 2022 bidding process were authoritarian countries were public dissent could not crush the bid. talking about china and context on being the two countries that were left. -- cosmic stan -- khazakstan. guest: i don't think you need a dictator. it just need a good leader. these are businessmen that really understand cost analysis. in the united states we have a history of being able to say that's a nice idea. but no. you want gold on our olympic stadium, that would be beautiful. we have a budget and we need to stay with that.

we have not had the problem that other cities around the world have in terms of going over budget. and yes, we went over budget, but we were able to cut our costs. there are always income versus expenditures. host: what are your expectations for los angeles trying to reassert itself in the 2024 summer olympic game did? guest: they are very well positioned and i know they will do an excellent job and make money for the limbic movement, and for the southern california airy up. just like they did in 1984. they had a $250 million surplus. the foundation continues to give money to the local youth organizations.

many of the national governing bodies still have money that they received from 1984, which they are benefiting from. now i think washington d.c. is the only nation's capital of a developed country that has yet to host an olympic games. we are very well-positioned in terms of having the infrastructure. having security already in place. there are a number of benefits to having it in washington dc. some people believe the political aura of washington d.c. may not help our chances but i think the infrastructure and the beauty, and all the other cultural elements of washington dc would be a real asset. free museums. it is a beautiful city. host: that is what we are asking our viewers to call in on this morning. to get their thoughts on hoping -- hosting an olympic city in

the united states. we have lines for boston and l.a. residents, but also lines around the nation. i want to read one facebook, and we arty got on this topic. he wrote, if the ioc was not so corrupt i would be more than happy to see the olympics stateside. however, the purpose and spirit of the games has been lost things to the greedy opportunists and corporations. i hope someday deal a pixel meet what they used to. what would be your response to that? guest: i think there is so much misunderstanding. the international olympic committee is not forcing these organizing committees to build what they are building. it is the organizing committees that are playing this game where we have to one up the previous host. or they are using the lipid games to -- the olympic games to build something that is not

really needed for the olympics. in the united states we use existing venues. we are not there to build a white elephant just for the purpose of the game. fifa -- i am just going to go back to the brazil games -- these that gets blamed for brazil winning -- building the 12 venues that they did. in actuality fifa has a minimum of eight venues and cap telling brazil, don't build 12 venues. i'm not sure you are supposed to be blaming the international organizing committee, whether it is the ioc or feedback. -- fifa. it is keeping in check the local organizing committee's that just go crazy when they get these games. they just keep building. i am really happy that tokyo has actually cut out a lot of what they put out in their initial bid.

it is showing and organizing committee that it is fiscally responsible, and saying you know, we put in this big stadium but it is coming in way too high. we are not going to do that. that is good leadership. host: professor lisa delpy neirotti studies these issues and her position as the professor of sports management at george washington university. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: we are asking our viewers to colin. we want us to get your thoughts, specifically if you live in boston or los angeles. give us a call on hosting deal of experience do you think it is worth the cost? wheel to have live for other regions. if you are in the eastern or central united states it is (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific regions (202) 748-8001. some comments already on twitter. edward wright in that the cost overruns for the olympics are outrageous and host cities don't

ever make up the cost. and another tweak this morning keep the olympics out of boston. no taxpayer money. and another no, it leaves a devastated economy when it is done. if you have had experiences in an olympic city or visited one of those olympics cities in the united states -- one of the five cities that host the deal lipids and his country since 1950 -- we would love to hear your thoughts. there is a june ap poll on this topic. the question that would -- that was asked -- would you support a bid for them to be held and one of these places jacket 89 percent would support it being held somewhere in the united states, but that dropped to 75% for those who would support it being held in their state. it drops to just 61% for those who would support an olympics

being held in their local area. you can see the opposition numbers rising as well as the support numbers dropping. that is a june ap poll. speaking of the bid in boston, here is a bit from the boston mayor talking on monday about dropping the bid. [video clip] >> we met every demand and every challenge but i cannot commit to putting taxpayers at risk. if committing to signing a guaranteed today is what is required to move forward, then boston is gnome -- no longer pursuing the limbic games. host: of course the immediate aftermath of those statements and the action by the ioc. here is the story from los angeles. los angeles mayor eric garcetti said he is eager to resume talks with the olympic committee on the possibility of bringing the 24 games to southern california.

after they severed choice -- ties with their first choice boston. he said he had not had conversations with the committee since its decision to end ties with boston, but -- i continue to believe that los angeles is the ideal olympic city. the mayor said, i would be happy to engage in discussions with the usoc on how to present the most strongest and most fiscally responsible bid on behalf of our city and our nation. those are the words of the los angeles mayor. we want to hear from you this morning. live and i said, central and mountain, and that specifically for those living in boston and los angeles. we will start with dale this morning, washington, dc. caller: good morning. host: your thoughts on hosting the lipids in the united states? caller: i think it's worth it. especially in d.c..

one unique difference with d.c. is people come here anyway to see our national monuments, our parks. we have lots of things that people do. it would be a win-win for the region. i think some of the events would probably expand to maryland. there are stadiums in the washington metro-area, like the redskins. they actually play in a suburb of d.c.. university of marriott -- maryland. i think it would be awesome for d.c.. i really wish our city would push for it. it would be an economic boom for d.c. host: one of the big concerns, if you want to stick around, is that these stadiums are built and then they don't get used.

and the cities get stuck with the cost of upkeep. you don't think that would be a concern with washington, d.c.? caller: no, absolutely not. we already have lots of venues. we have stadiums in the metro-area already built and ready to go. there is one in louima, maryland . like i said there is the university of maryland. we have the nats stadium. we have venues here that we can use and we would not have to build or improve. i agree with the woman that was on, russia in sochi they didn't even have running water and some places. we just have the technology and the skill. we are a world power. i guess i would want people to sign onto it. host: that is dale in

washington, d.c.. shania is up next in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't feel like the olympics are really worth the cost anymore. it is just so not what it used to be anymore. host: what do you mean by that? caller: it's like, it's just gotten so competitive and angry. host: do you think the olympics have lost the olympic spirit? caller: yeah. host: shania, have you ever gone to an olympics or do you mostly watch on tv? caller: i mostly watch on tv. host: what is your most memorable moment from an olympics that you have watched on tv? caller: well, my most memorable

moment -- i was really watching the summer. i don't know. host: that's all right shania. we are talking about olympics this morning on the washington journal. talking to viewers about the cost of deal of fix. do you think it is worth it jacket a lot of news -- do you think it is worth it? one of the groups that was leading the effort to get often to pull out was a group called new boston olympics. they sent out a fact sheet about what messages as could buy with the various amounts of money that had been estimated at the cost of holding analytics. the $5 billion estimate would be, according to their analysis,

the minimum cost of the boston olympics. state assistance for local roads and bridges for the next 15 years. it can also buy 15 thousand 621 homes at the january 2014 median ma housing price, enough to house every homeless family and the commonwealth. massachusetts could wave all tuition and fees for the umass system for the next 10 years. or they could eliminate all of the transit authority's outstanding debt and have enough left over to build south coast rail, the green line extension to somerville and medford, and by new rail cars. they also have estimates for that high estimate, $20 billion. some have estimated that was the top number for boston. we are talking to our viewers this morning. ginny is up next, lancaster ohio. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i don't think we can

afford it. we are almost $20 trillion in debt. why do we have to spend more money like that, that's silly. host: what about the investment in the infrastructure that would happen, that would last longer than that 60 day -- 16 day olympic event? do you think cities in ohio could use that kind of investments? caller: turkey. you are tricky. i don't know. host: i'm not trying to be tricky, but we appreciate your call. caller: i have not had enough coffee yet. i guess i should've had another cup of coffee and then call you. host: i am working on my coffee too. we go to robert in arlington heights, illinois. caller: good morning. my comment is this. that left when he was talking about china and $20 trillion.

you are talking about more taxes and more money. in chicago illinois, our taxes are going to 10.25% because politicians here wants to grab the money every time we turn around. this is just more money. all politicians love money and love contracts. they want taxpayers to subsidize the whole thing. we have new tolls for roads that were supposed be paid off 20 years ago. a negative into a know on the olympic bid. host: a new tweet, he says corporate america should pay for the lipids, not taxpayers. he goes on to say, if corporations favor the limits and you don't like the lipids, don't pay for the corporations products. one suggested being moving the olympics back to greece, saying

that it would neuter the ioc's power. that would be doomed -- civic leaders look for reasons not to bid, athens is a prime example. there are the decaying stadiums. the line that connects the 2004 games to greece's current financial crisis. bringing it back home could help the greek economy lean towards recovery and send a clear message that the lipids are more than a tool for dictators and contractors to consolidate their wealth and power. robert in arlington heights, illinois. go ahead. oh, we talked to robert. let's go to coral in ashford, virginia. -- carl. caller: i would love to see the love expressed to the d.c.. .

just the idea of the olympics being in america, the united states, is just so great. first off, i have a fear of flying. but besides the complex -- besides that, the d.c. syria has increased dramatically with what we have to offer. the metro has expanded to so many areas. as a c-span host, i'm guessing you are a resident of the d.c. ariel bank -- area as well? host: we will go on to mike in springfield, virginia. caller: thank you. the olympics bring harmony and peace. we have to get the federal

government to support something like that. i wish d.c. would take this and that the federal government will have to. we need something that will bring people harmony. when you look at it, you see how difficult that would be. another city withdrawing, let's go in for this. host: alexis is up next, in boston, massachusetts. alexis, how closely did you follow the debate over the 2024 olympics jacket?

ok i don't think she is with us now. jim is with us from melrose massachusetts. caller: good morning. i will tell you my views on the olympics. i am pleased the mayor declined the invitation due to his reasoning that it would require taxpayer money. my own personal views is traffic. boston is already chaotic. i can't imagine what it would be with an olympic series of days. that is my view. there are is a -- other reasons as well. host: thanks for the call. south fork on twitter says if your city is able to fund feel ebix, go for it. just don't use my tax dollars to pay for it. we gain nothing from the games. and rick writes, the lipids are the only peaceful multinational gathering.

facilities are built already and if new ones are billed it creates jobs. and here is something that appeared in one of the boston papers this week in light of the decision by boston's mayor walsh. this is the boston herald. christopher manney noting that it is unlikely boston's budget would skyrocket the way beijing or so jews did -- sochi's did. but polls have shown the majority of taxpayers were not comfortable with any public dollars being used to finance the game, and the mayor listened. this will be john starting -- jump starting a conversation about improving infrastructure and transportation. one of the many articles written about this decision. george is up from south carolina. the morning. caller: good morning. my opinion is that the united

states should hosted at an american city. however i think it needs to be a city that already has a good deal of the infrastructure, stadiums and so forth. it is a great experience. i got to go to the athens olympics in 2004 with my mom. she was from grace. we have family there. it was a great experience. i got to go, in 12 days i went to 18 different venues. we just had a blast. i could also see where they were beginning to have problems with the crossed -- costs. i kind of predicted that greece was going to have a problem paying for those. i think that has come true. i do think that whoever host has to have a good plan. you can't just hit the taxpayers up and by the same token i think, as i said, you need to have the infrastructure and so forth. i do think that the idea of moving the games to greece --

i'm biased obviously, i'm greek-american. but i do think that might not be a bad idea, or maybe every other olympics or something that. to go back to the country of birth. but again, my thing is i think it is a great spectacle to host, and i personally had a blast as i said, going to all of those different games. track and field, basketball, volleyball. you name it. it has to be done in a smart intelligent way. a thoughtful way. so that it does not end up, in the end, causing major economic problems like what actually happened after the 2004 olympics in greece. host: is it one of those things where you would supported in the united states but maybe not in your local airy? if it came near spartanburg would you be in favor or less? caller: if it came to

spartanburg, but obviously spartanburg is way too small. the closest to spartanburg would be, well, charlotte is about an hour away. and then atlanta is about to have hours. those would be the venues that would be the closest to where they might could host something like that. charlotte is probably not too big. i think a city like los angeles has the experience, has a good bit of the infrastructure with the highway system and so forth. hotel rooms. i don't know if they would build another stadium, because of course you have the los angeles coliseum but whatever you build you have to maintain it. that's the thing about it. going to one city and then all of a sudden after 16 days it is gone. like what happened in athens apparently is the stadium is not in good shape.

there are a lot of factors, and i think you've got to do it in the right way. host: we appreciate the call. we will get back your calls and just the second on this topic of the olympics in the united states. one programming note for you, this weekend our c-span the city -- c-span city tour travels to a gusto, georgia. we explore the city's history and literary life. hardy davis junior talking about augustine's role in the civil rights movement. >> augustine georgia -- augusta georgia is the home of james brown. we have a rich history that is woven throughout the entire state of georgia right here and i guess that -- in a guest at -- augusta. augusta played a vital role in the civil rights movement.

not only that, but the late governor carl sanders was born here. instead of doing what governor george wallace did when he stood at the doors of the university of alabama, governor carl sanders allowed desegregation to take place in our university system. that is something that i am a beneficiary of. that is something that these young people whom its regulated through our schools of higher learning, in the state of georgia. it started right here with a native augustan, governor carl sanders. that is something that we can all be so proud of. host: and you can find out more about augusta georgia this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. we are talking about the history and literary life of that city. and this morning on "washington journal" we're talking about the

olympics in the united states. is it worth the cost to taxpayers? the sochi winter olympics upwards of $50 billion spent. london summer olympics, $14 billion. vancouver 2010, $8 billion. beijing in 2008, 40 $3 billion. and now los angeles looking to pick up the ball from boston to be the city in the united states that can offer up an olympic bid in the 2024 olympic games. as we noted earlier in the show, the 2022 olympic games were awarded to beijing. we are talking to our viewers. emmanuel has been waiting in los angeles. we want to get your thoughts on bringing the games there. caller: good morning c-span. thank you for taking my call. listen, 1984 olympics. i had a great time. they proved to me that it can be done.

what i am saying is this, if it is planned right it can be pulled off. some of the venues, because i went to several events. one was the basketball stadium in englewood. the other was the coliseum. however, these venues are still all caps. intact. the cost can be kept down. you don't have to rebuild everything as far as the infrastructure is concerned. going to the coliseum, that venue in particular, i grew up in that airy a, in that -- in that area. i grew up in the neighborhood. that neighborhood is pretty rough. when they had the events los

angeles proved to me that if they want to there was so much they could do to improve our city. although some of it may have been temporary. it just proves to me that with the right kind of planning we could build a better city. los angeles with a beautiful place to go up. but many of the ares were run down. going back to that, i was one of these people that just could not believe it could happen. when the 1984 olympics came, i was like no way. the traffic conditions, the freeway, the state. i just could not see it happening. i did not think it could be done. but we proved that it could be done. what a wonderful time it was. i enjoyed every one of them that i went to. host: and you think it is worth every dollar that was investigated by -- invested by

the taxpayer? caller: absolutely it was worth every dollar, it did improve infrastructure somewhat. some of it was temporary. but it did prove one thing, that with a little money -- and california is a very rich state -- it gets a lot of people to buy into this, and maybe it might reduce the cost to the taxpayer. or maybe it may generate some revenue. host: the online publication slate had a column by henley -- henry graber who said the olympics needs nla games. he agrees with your thoughts about bringing games to l.a.. we are asking our viewers to call in. mike is up next, and indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you have to talk and your phone and turn on -- down your television.

caller: ok. well i think you brought up some specifics before that said a lot of people could be put into college for this. my question is, is the money being appropriated correctly to do that kind of thing? host: so it's a matter of combating the fraud, waste, and abuse with all the different parties involved? caller: yes sir. i'm looking at earlier expenses in this country and i just don't see it. that's my question.

how is the money going to be appropriated host:? mike in indiana. as you said, los angeles officials already advocating on behalf of their city for 2024. here's congressman and right, a statement he put out this week. he said los angeles is a proven host of the olympics and houthi and research are necessary to host a successful games. we hope -- witness the spirit of international unity that our city can bring forth. i am hopeful that the u.s. olympic committee will reconsider los angeles for this honor. that was congressman royce. several members congress making statements, of course the los angeles mayor's office as well. we will get to a few more of your calls. we also wants to update you on some of the stories we have been watching here, specifically highway funding bill that has been so much in the news. congress advanced and passed a

34th short-term extension of the highway funding bill. here is the story in usa today noting that the senate voted yesterday to keep the highway trust fund running for another three months. it will keep the trust fund solvent through october 29. the house passed the three-month bill on wednesday. the senate also voted to pass a six-year highway bill that they plan to use in negotiation with the white house this fall. house leaders have said they are committed to a six-year bill it have concerns about how the senate wants to pay for that legislation. and on the campaign front headlines about jim gilmore, former virginia governor becoming the 17th republican to make a presidential announcement and throw his hat into the ring. governor gilmore was elected governor of virginia in 1997, during his final year as governor he also chaired --

served as chairman of the republican national committee. he resigned after one year. there were reports of tension between himself and president george w. bush. in 2007 he declared he would seek to thousand eight presidential nomination. now he is seeking the 2016 presidential nomination. time for a few more of your calls on the u.s. olympic committee decision, and the bids this week from boston. and the efforts in los angeles to reenter the bid conversation. sean is in madras -- nebraska. caller: i grew up in the boston-area. i'm glad boston didn't the bid. when they had the big dig project, 20 years ago, when they had to we the highway system. millions of dollars ended up in the contractors pocket. and it's going to be a city here

it has to be a city that has the infrastructure, such as l.a.. other places you could consider would be places like denver. it has to be a city that can already support the infrastructure that is not going to push the money onto the taxpayers to pay for it. that is all i have to say. host: let's go to ted in raymond, new hampshire. caller: how are you? my idea is to have participating countries put money into a pool that no one country would end up having to pay for the whole thing. that way there is little problem with the finance. then all you have to do is pretty much find a city that could accommodate it and no one gets hit with a definite bill themselves. we would host to a route the

other country would be and vice versa. it would be a smaller budget to have to come up with the cash from that individual country. or, if possible lottery system. tickets could be sold like we have here in the united states -- in the state of new hampshire that creates millions and billions of dollars through a lottery system. that could help fund some of these towns and cities. it can help alleviate the cost. that is all i have to say. host: i appreciate the suggestion. the system that is in place now has chosen the four olympic games. the brazil olympic games happening next summer. south korea having a winter olympics in 2018. japan in 2020. and we know beijing now, 2022. that 2024 bit is what caused so much heartache in boston this week and so many opinion

pieces. boston pulled out of that bid. here's the editorial board of the wall street journal, saying that the boston bow out is a victory for fiscal extreme and self-government. they said the residents determines the risk was just too great. putting on the world's biggest sporting event could be done more frugally. the game could be shared over multiple states. a multicity proposition would also allow more spectators to participate with less economic disruption. this option would displease the international olympic committee who can always take their monopoly over the selection process and broadcast rights and jet off to the next done -- destination. the 11 guard expression of human achievement and patriotism, it is should embarrass the organizers that their stage is increasingly unaffordable for democracies. victor is up next in pittsburgh, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have several comments. i have to agree, i think the olympics should really be for all people. the major corporations of the world have consumed, just like the nhl and the nfl and all the major sports. they have consumed all the boxes and everything else. if you look at the chinese olympics i remember a lot of the showings where about three quarters of the seats are empty. i believe that the common person is missing out. host: victor, how do you fix that? if these things are becoming so expensive, how do you pay for that?

but also allow the common person to have access to it? caller: i believe major corporations should foot the bill. they have been writing on a free bill. they have been using olympics as a way to sell product and advertise off of these things. host: so in addition to buying sponsorships and commercial rights, you think that corporations should also just gives money to the x to help offset some of the cost, without asking for anything in concern -- in return? caller: absolutely. if you watch the nhl or the nfl the majority of the stadiums were built by the city's taxpayer money and the people

and the fans -- the olympics are the same way. i think it is x -- as extensive as the world's fair. the world's fair, they tied in the world soccer thing every four years. maybe that would be an idea to. host: victor in pittsburgh, missouri. we will try to get in a caller from glendale, california. caller: what they should do, is actually the government has spent the taxpayer money on much worse ideas than this. this is actually not a bad idea. you will have tourists coming in from all over the world. there are going to be hundreds of thousands, possibly one million people coming from all over the world to spend money. i honestly do not think it is going to be a lot. that's all i have to say.

host: eric in glendale, california. our last caller, but up next we will be joined by an american action forum president douglas holtz-eakin two discussed a new report that found that american health -- health care spending will outpace economic growth over the next decade. and later gene karpinski of the league of conservative voters will be here to discuss the epa's regulation. that is all coming up later this morning on the washington journal. "washington journal" is experiencing technical the police. >> c-span's road to the white house is providing live coverage of the two-hour forum.

the new hampshire union leader, along with tb organizations from the early caucus and primary states are answering the foreign. following the life for you can provide your input by joining our call in program, or adding your comment on facebook and twitter. road to the white house 2016, on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> >> this weekend on the c-span networks. politics, books, and american history. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. a discussion on illegal immigrants in the enforcement of arizona's immigration law. and sunday at 6:30, new jersey governor chris christie on national security. on c-span two, saturday night at 10 across eastern, michael tanner talks about the growing national debt and looks at restructuring entitlement programs as a solution.

and sunday afternoon at 3:00, glenn beck present his thoughts on islamic extremism. and on american history tv on c-span3, sunday morning talking at tech -- starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern, we commemorate the 50th anniversary of lyndon johnson tanning -- signing the civil rights act. and lbj's 1955 each at the u.s. capitol, and the signing of the bill. also this weekend, saturday night at 7:10, university of california at berkeley professor brian delay looks at the history of done production in europe and how farming contributed to an american victory. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: douglas holtz-eakin is the former director of the

congressional budget office. he is also the president of the american action forum. he joins us this week to discuss a report that finds health care spending has jumped up from the historic lows of recent years. is that jump something americans at should be concerned about right now? guest: absolutely. if you look at the foundation of our federal budget problems, if you look at the concerns about wages and not rising in the united hates, all of those are linked to health care spending. the big federal spending programs are the affordable care act. the biggest compensation costs employers have are there health programs. if premiums go up they can't pay as much. to see the spending jump back up and the way that it has is really concerning. host: was this jump expected as a result of millions of people joining the ranks of the insured through the affordable care act? is this something that was budgeted for, or unexpected? guest: it is the classic

horserace. the affordable care act is something that unquestionably was going to cost money. it covered a lot of people. that was the real point. the point of getting people health insurance is to allow them to spend more on health care. that was going to push spending up regardless. it is also true that the affordable care act was enacted at the bottom of a bad recession. inevitably as the economy got better people were going to spend more on everything including health care. but they put some things in there they were hoping would keep health care less extensive. and that would outweigh the expanses in coverage. it does not look like that works. one of the architects of the avaca who is now up at the university of pennsylvania, has said we have to go back and do that job again. host: here is the wall street journal chart on health care expenditures that we are talking about. after historic lows of recent years on health care spending,

it jumped in the previous year. what led that jump in health care spending? where their specific aerie is where people were spending more? guest: a great use of irony here is that there was a jump on prescription drugs. you hear about hepatitis c thousands of dollars per dose. prescription drug spending is 10% of health-care spending now. it was 10% in the 1960's. despite all the. it is not prescription drugs. it is the meat and potatoes. hospitals and doctors. we spending more on those services. host: and the projected chair of the gross domestic product health care spending is expected to be upwards of 20% of gdp by 2024, outpacing economic growth. explain why that is a problem. guest: historically if you look at the horse race between costs what we spend on health care, and income, gdp, costs are

beating resources by about two percentage points a year. that is a projection in this. if you go up to 2021, we are going to percent faster on cost than on resources. you can't continually outstrip your budget and expect things to add up. it is a problem for the nation as a whole. it will turn out to be problems for individuals. it turned that to be a big problem for the federal budget. host: if you want to join in this conversation as we are talking about health care spending with douglas holtz-eakin. you can join us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. i want to go back to that chart that showed health care spending

at his story close in recent years. what is the reason in your mind, that that spending went down? with it due to the affordable care act? guest: there are a couple things going on. we have the recession. people don't spend money on anything ending off some health care spending. number two, we had the phenomenon of employers really changing their coverage, and pushing off to employees, more cost, more data couples. people react to that particular. they spend less. that was going on before the affordable care act. a lot of the slow it -- slowdown happened before the aca. the aca put in place some additional things. cut to providers. it also has these organizations known as accountable care organizations. hospitals, doctors they say go take care of people and we will pay you a fixed amount. that was the biggest attempts to

control costs. i don't think it worked out very well, but the bigger pressure came from the employer side. host: before we get to calls your thoughts for controlling health-care spending going forward. what would be the single most effective thing to do in the future? guest: for me, start with reforming medicare. it is the big driver of both how we spend money but also how we treat patients. the number -- the issue with medicare is we don't have the budget. if you have a program that basically says, you can spend all you want of someone else's money, you are going to get a bad outcome. host: let's start in randallstown, maryland where ray is waiting. our line for independents. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: how are you? caller: i am trying to understand about the aca. people call it the unemployable care act.

i would just like to know, how is it paid? some people say we take it out of medicare. some people say we have got taxes on devices. and then there are all these fees and things like that. how is it being paid and how are my deck -- tax dollars being used? guest: good question. it turns out all the people you're talking to our right, at least to some degree. there are eight taxes. there is a tax on medical devices. there is a tax on health insurance. there is a tax on very high health insurance plans called the cadillac tax. there are a whole series of taxes that were put in the aca as a part of the bill. the remainder was intended to be taking out of spending for medicare. the all-in-one insurance program, the medicare advantage there were cuts on the possible providers. that combination of spending less money on medicare and adding taxes was supposed to cover the bill for insurance

subsidies and the medicare expansions in the state. host: and with medicare expansions in the states, where are we in that process? how many states -- you don't have to give me an exact number if you don't know it. guest: a quiz excavation! we still have 11 that are complicated -- considering it. after that as it is because about 10% of the bill. some states, for political reasons, are not ready to consider. some are just worried about the financial cost down the road. there is a very healthy skepticism that the united states will just change the rules. they will say, you know we promise to pay 9% of that, good luck with the rest. host: we are talking with douglas holtz-eakin.

he is president of the american action forum. what is that you -- for viewers but don't know? guest: it is a center right think tank. host: bruce is in jacksonville, florida. why for independents. caller: i have one little pet p. that is when you put medicare and medicaid together in the same sentence. i pay for my medicare for 35 years. medicaid is free. now you're cutting medicare benefits, taking the money from medicare when you are expanding medicaid. i live in florida and we spent more on medicaid than we do on education in the florida budget. i just don't understand where the money is supposed to come from, all the young people that were supposed to join that

haven't joined. the subsidies that the government is giving away, and you estimated your income the first year and the irs is handling this. doesn't the irs know exactly how much money you made the year before? i don't understand. i will shut up and let you answer. guest: there are a couple different things going on here. first, on the medicare fraud, it is true that individuals have played -- paid payroll taxes and premiums. but in the end they do not pay the full cost of medicare. it is 75% subsidized for general revenue. over lifetimes the estimates are most people will take about $200,000 more out of medicare than they spend -- then they put in. everyone has paid for some of medicare. no one really pay for all of medicare.

medicaid, financing is split between federal government and the unites -- and the states. the florida problem is a very familiar problem. medicaid has grown, and the cost has grown so rapidly that it is taking out big chunks of most state budgets. the states really do three things. they do education, health care and prisons. there is not room for much else. that is why it people are so concerned about the resurgence of health care spending. there is big pressure at the state level as well. the last thing the caller mentioned is the notice -- notion of subsidies. that is neither medicaid nor medicare. that is the new affordable care act, individual purchase of insurance. subsidies are geared towards people's income. they have to estimate your income. they say this is what i think it is. eventually you said, if it was

higher, you had your subsidies taken back. if it was lower, they give you more subsidies. i will call that a highly imperfect process. it is really hard to do. and our earned income tax credit, which asks one question, how much did you make? payment error rate is 25%. host: under or both? guest: both. in this program, we don't have to ask what c-span page view, we have to get information from c-span about what kind of health insurance they offered, whether it is affordable or not. matching of this information in real-time turns out to be horrifically difficult. it is not happening right now. guest: waiting in illinois on our line for independents, good morning. host: we are talking about health care costs and taking your questions on it. caller: i have two questions. one is regarding malpractice. how does that add to the burden

of costs on health care? not just with regard to insurance that people have to carry, the health care providers have to carry, but also how they practice medicine. the other question i had was are people looking at all of the new rules that are coming into health care and all of the administrative salaries that are having to be paid for people to become reimbursed? i am talking about on the health care provider site, people are hiring more people, coders etc. , for people to collect. i think that is probably also adding to the burden of health care costs. that may be unanticipated. guest: the questions. on the first -- most people will -- most doctors will cover -- carry malpractice insurance. a policy against being sued or otherwise being accused of you

miss using their expertise. that is an expensive policy. that gets put right into the cost of health care. the bigger piece, as the caller mentioned, it changes the way people practice medicine. defensive medicine let's use an and i are -- mri just to make sure. an expensive thing to do. it adds to the cost of health care. there is a lot of evidence that tort reform, it can lower the health care bill. different states have added caps on the damages you can impose on doctors. there are health care mediations where if you follow health care practices, you are exempt from the prosecution. there are a lot of things to be done. it is a promising area to reduce the cost of health care and still get high-quality medicine. host: talking about the growth of health care spending, some of the numbers from the report that we haven't talking about, health care of a share of the nation's economy has been projected to

grow from 17 .4% in 2013 to 19.6% in 2024. accounting for nearly one dollar of every five dollars spent by 2024. we have seen a lot of stories about mergers and the health care industry. is this growth and health care spending a factor in those mergers of these companies getting together? guest: unquestionably. the first question is that the numbers are always so big and the economist and he wants to caution everyone -- it is not that we are spending 20% of our gdp. it is that we are not getting our money's worth. it is fine to spend a lot of money on something if you value it and you get it back. we do not get the quality of care that we should for the money we spend on health care. the issue is not how much we spent, it is a low value system. overuse, underuse use, and misuse of these fabulous medical technologies that the u.s. is the world leader in developing.

we are not getting quality health outcomes area that is the challenge. consolidation has come in two forms. for years now, we have seen the consolidation in the providers. the hospitals merging, hospitals buying up physician groups so that they become art of the hospital practice. a real concentration of market power in each of the local areas. there has been a concern by many, myself included, that this will lead to them having the ability to jack up their prices and make health care more expensive. recently, we have seen a different kind. large insurance companies merging. aetna humana, cigna getting together so that we have three large national insurers. that is not trouble me on the face of it. we still have 800 odd insurance companies across the country. the competition will be in local areas. in buffalo with hospitals and

doctors consolidating and insurers trying to negotiate. if the consolidation helps to negotiate, that could be a good thing. the jury is out on net how this will play out. it is worth looking at. it is an important issue and how this will play out. there is no bigger domestic policy issue that how fast the health care spending grows. as i said earlier and leads you to all of the problems we worry about. wage stagnation, state budgets are under pressure. federal budgets which are politely, i disaster. host: john an awesome wash wisconsin. line for democrats, good morning. caller: i wanted to make a few comments. he said that he was working with center-right groups at washington. we know that washington is completely corrupt and overpopulated with special interest such as douglas

holtz-eakin, who is probably working on behalf of the republican party and koch brothers and the rest of the right-wing organization. host: while we talk about how his group is funded and then he you can ask your question you? guest: we are funded by private individuals who believe in the mission. they are grounded in the facts and not ideology. we take pride in the fact that everything we put out is filled with data on a particular problem. we have a preference for market-oriented solutions. and efficient government solutions that will now be get between the revenue coming in and the spending going out. we are not allied with any of the groups that he mentioned. i started the think tank five years ago. largely because i was unemployed and not is what unemployed people do. i am very proud of it. caller: can i respond to that?

the funny thing is that we have been hearing the same dialogue coming from vested interests for years. at the same time, these people are telling us they are not increasing wages in this country. they are shipping jobs out of the country. they are getting the government and trying to make people believe the government is a bad thing. yes, people are willing to trust corporations over the government. the government is allegedly us the american people. what we are doing is seating all of our authority to corporations. we can't pay more taxes to finance all these programs in this country. the answer seems logical. the people at the top-tier income have to pay more taxes, corporations have to pay more taxes if they care about this country. guest: i can't speak for the entire business community. i know i have done. i started out with myself and i have 3400 employees.

-- 34 employees. we have 15 employees -- and turns at any one time. we pay them as well as we can. you want to grow your business. you want to make sure you have a working environment that is productive and enjoyable. guest: edmund's on her line for independents. host: good morning. caller: good money. my question is about health care costs and the dissection of pricing. in the health care system i'm a patient but also a consumer. my question is that whenever i ask the question of a medical procedure that i will receive, i will ask how much will this cost? the person at the hospital or doctor's office looks at me like i am from mars. what do you mean how much does this cost? your insurance will cover this. as a consumer, it is no different than when i apply for a mortgage. and why not entitled to a

estimate of how much these procedures will cost? can you comment on that? guest: i think that is a good point. i had my it -- hip replaced recently and i asked how much that would cost. i understand the reaction. host: did you get a price? guest: i did get a price. there is a lot going into understanding the cost of things. if you are a private business, being concerned with your customers as part of the business model. the ability to give individuals the choice to go somewhere else is a key part. for government money, once you take taxpayers money, you all a level of transparency that is well above that. you have to say exactly how much something costs and why. we do not get that. that is an important thing we need to keep pushing on in these federal programs to get some transversely. that is exactly right.

-- try to get some transparency. it is a very contentious lot to say the least. my take on what is happening in the health community is that it sends a wake-up call. people now wonder how much things cost. never before when i went to doctors do people say, there is something we can do that is cheaper, too. that was never part of the conversation. that is a good thing. host: does encourage shopping around? guest: there is a limited ability to shop around. we know that. it has changed the way that doctors, hospitals, nurses, they didn't think how much something cost. they were trained not to think about it. the medical training was all about the medicine and the oath, and doing harm, and extensive testing, making sure you do things. now we have to worry about how much it will cost. someone is going to pay this bill, and some of it may be the person sitting in front of me. that is different. host: a question on twitter.

how aggressively does medicare renegotiate for medicine and services? guest: it doesn't negotiate. medicare has an elaborate vice -- price-fixing scheme. it is not a negotiation at all. the only place where you get negotiation and medicare is in the vantage program. traditional medicare, and then you can opt into a one-stop shop where you sign up for the medicare vantage program, pay your fixed premium, the government pays a fixed amount, and because they have a fixed amount, they have to negotiate with every hospital and doctor for the least cost. that is the only negotiation going on right now. host: to new mexico where jed is waiting on a line for republicans. caller: [indiscernible] host: you're going in and out.

we will come back to you. but so do melvin, indiana, line for republicans. caller: my question is on medicaid. how much of the state policy medicaid funding is provided by the government? guest: it varies by state. something called the federal matching rate. the average is 55% federal and 45% stake. that has been true for a long time. the exception is the new medicaid expansion in the affordable care act. the government takes a 100% of the cost for a couple years and after that, 90% forever. host: our state ready to revert to the 10% from what they are paying in right now? thinking ahead of that to budgeting? guest: i hope so but i don't know. some of the governors have been more cost -- cautious. some have worried that the deal will not stick and they will

worry -- a will and is paying more than 10%. a third of fact because of the advertising of these new categories of eligible medicaid, people who were previously eligible and did not sign up suddenly show up. when that happens, the state is on the hook for the for sure. -- for the full share. there are hitting costs showing up. that is an issue. host: is on the line for independents. mike caller: i was talking about the problem that lots of people have. the last job i had for 25 years -- i lost it, nobody was hiring. i was too old. i was about to get medicare. i have health conditions and as time progresses they will get worse. i was wondering how that care will be covered, and will be covered, and the quality of the care. iq. guest: if i understand the

question right, right now, you could go to the exchanges and buy coverage right now. if you have health conditions where failure to treat will worsen your health and make it more expensive in the future that would make a good thing for everyone if you do that. you would get subsidies from the federal government to afford that insurance. once you become medicare eligible, you will get the full range of benefits for medicare beneficiaries. presumably, that will cover your conditions. i don't know the details. host: they say health care for all should not be a budgetary issue. close one or two of the 300 redundant bases around the world and fund health care. is it possible you will be of doing that? guest: the largest budget item in the federal budget is not the pentagon, it is health care costs. it is not feasible to close redundant bases and they are

federal health care bill. we have to deal with the cost of health care itself. people are always uncomfortable with the notion that we have to do that. presumably, it means we will do center county and cuts to the actual -- we will do for cody and cuts to the -- draconian cuts to the care we have. under uses valuable preventive care that will make cost lower. we have to do better. that is the key. host: after washington, stevens is a early with us this morning. line for independents. caller: one of the questions that i have is that we look at some of these dates that completely embrace the aca early on. a good example is oregon. their complete implosion of their system -- how does that

affect costs for health. guest: the big implosion in oregon and many other states was the issue of building the exchange. the electronic work in place where insurers would provide their product. those who wanted to buy insurance with federal subsidies would go and take among policies . in principle, those electronic exchanges were supposed to coordinate that activity. i give my income, they send it to the irs, they do the checking, they take that information and send it to the insurance companies. the insurance companies know what is going on. they get their premiums. we know what happened with healt hcare.gov. it was worse for some of the states that if it themselves. oregon was a disaster. hawaii managed to sign up 1600 people for a cost of $60,000 per person. a lot of bad examples.

that is a big expense of these days. one of the things going forward is will the states managed to maintain exchanges or will they get together and regional groups, although to be federal exchange? the jury is out on that. this has not been a good story out of the aca. host: have given success stories? guest: there have been. it is like most things. you get successes, you get failures. the failures were not only costly, they got in the way of the program working. host: to delhi in detroit, ohio line for democrats. -- debbie, good morning. caller: a quick comment. someone earlier talked about the koch brothers. they have created jobs for americans. no one talks about george soros who is in bed with president obama as they are communist. we should not be having this

discussion. host: your question -- you're calling in on our line for democrats, are you a democrat? caller: i am a democrat, but i am not voting for democrats or republicans. they have sold our country out. we are screwed. this should not be a conversation. who are they to tell us that we have to go do anything to get their health care? it is all a big plan. as anybody knows, as in full you are screwed. planned parenthood taking out baby parts and selling them. r the republicans nor the democrats will do anything about it. we talk like we are some educated people and that we really care about who is sick and who isn't. who is getting the care and who isn't. host: deadly in detroit, ohio with her thoughts. john and philadelphia, line for independents. caller: how are you guys doing?

i have a quick question. is that all right? host: go ahead. caller: it is about aig and obamacare. i was curious. personally, you are a good guest so far. you know how aig got bailed out recently, a couple years ago? i was curious what your mindset was not how i got bailed out but obamacare -- obamacare is now working on fixing medicare, and it is cheaper. i am curious -- what is your mindset are not that part, personally it is on the tip of my tongue. medicare is now down in price and all of this stuff. my question is, what do you think -- not just obamacare --

medicare medicaid, i am 87 years old. i have a grandson named billy. my question is -- host: are you asking whether there will be a health care bill out at some point? caller: yes. that is what i am asking. guest: the aig bailout from the financial crisis -- aig was a horrifically managed enterprise, as it turns out. i was on a financial crisis commission that congress created. we listened to testament from the aig executives. they do not even understand the contracts they entered into. when push came to shove, they did not honor those contracts. it was disgraceful. i do not think we should ever were that kind of behavior. medicare and medicaid are different issues. they are government romance. i admit those programs have also

to private physicians, hospitals, nervous -- nurses device companies. we are not relying on any single one of them to provide medicare and medicaid in any way that will ever require bailout. our biggest program -- problem will be keeping those programs funded adequately and making sure they are operated efficiently. the big problems are at the state and federal level, and not the individual companies providing the care. host: flag is on the line for democrats. good morning. mark, good morning. caller: i have two questions. you were talking about the price of medication. i believe it was in 2005. somebody stuck in a bill, a spending bill, where medicare couldn't negotiate for prices.

va does, i am a veteran. i think that is a raw deal. the second question is insurance companies make 20% off of premiums. it seems like if we got rid of insurance companies, we would save 20% right there. with negotiating prices, a raw deal for all citizens, people should be really upset about that. the 20% that was given away to big corporations, apparently there are only three of them now. the insurance corporations. we are getting a raw deal in

this country as far as insurance. guest: two things. the first is the medicare prescription drug program passed in 2003 while i was the director. there is a provision that precludes the secretary of hss -- hhs from negotiating on per -- the half of the prescription drug program. the logic is that these prescription drug programs will have five or 6 million seniors in them. if you can go to a drug company and say i can get you 6 million customers and you need to cut me a good deal, that negotiation can keep costs down. it has come in 25% cheaper than we projected at the time. there is an enormous amount of competition, great levels of satisfaction among beneficiaries. it is our most successful entitlement. i would not want to change it one bit. it would be a mistake. we have seen the success, and we

should try to make everything else look like it then change it. as far as insurance companies -- they are everybody's favorite group to beat up and health care. there are lots of reasons why they have earned that spot. it is not 20% profit margins. they would love to have 20% profit margins. if they had that, every one of us would have our retirement savings and health insurance companies. we don't. margins are a lot thinner. they are not the hot -- the cost of health care systems. the cost is hospitals, doctors the care it sell. insurance companies are a tiny are on top of that. host: line for independents good morning eric. caller: how are you doing? health insurance is screwed up. nobody wants to pay for. my question is, how do you have money for wars and you don't want to help -- help anybody in

america with their health? i am veteran. i've been in the war. you rich people -- you don't want to pay anything. all you want to do is drill for oil. go to war. you don't pay taxes. host: do you use the va system? caller: i use it, but it is so backed up. you would go to -- you would die going to that. they push you off for a year. host: do you want to talk about the va system? guest: i did not come on the show to defend the system in any way. it is disgrace to our veterans to have a system that is so dysfunctional. the administrative failures get in the way of people getting the care they have earned and deserve. i am not a va expert, but we hear horror story after horror story. host: you are the director in 2003 -- guest: this is not a new story.

this has brought tension and dollars attached to it because of the recent influx. we have long documented the inability to process applications, the fact that they are behind an electronic records. the number of reforms -- of forms they have to fill out to get care. there is a whole list of things that is wrong with the va. it is one of the stories that sent like a culture that needs to be revamped. host: john in florida on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. one quick comment. then i will listen to your reaction. as we all know, the irs is involved in the aca. i was totally amazed when i filled out my tax form -- only one line that asked to you have health insurance? yes or no and then you move on. they do not ask for any validation at all.

you get your registration and they asked for your insurance company and number. they don't ask for anything. what is stopping someone from lying and moving on. thank you. caller:guest: going forward, there will be a matching of the income. there is the initial part of that was whether your employer provides your help and for -- insurance that shows on your w-2. now you have the obligation to be insured. that is an individual mandate. there will be more checking to make sure subsidies and incomes are right. we know that. host: a couple minutes left with american action forum director douglas holtz-eakin. line for republicans in new jersey. caller: thank you. it is interesting. you said a little while ago that it is not how much we are spending on health care but what we are getting for it.

this is precisely the argument that republicans used back in the 90's when they said in order to block health care reform, why are you messing with something that is 1/7 of the economy, what it was at the time. now it is approaching 1/5 of the economy. i imagine the argument on escher get stronger. why do you say what you really think which is that they want to block reform because they don't want big donor basis of the republican party, the health insurers and the big chain hospitals, to lose a vital source of revenue? guest: i guess i would question your reading of the history. my experience, for example, in 2007 i was the policy director on the john mccain campaign. every republican candidate in that cycle had a health care reform plan. the notion that somehow republicans have come up a long time and to this day opposed

health care reform is wrong and counterfactual. you know there are five or six health care reform proposals. competence of reforms -- -- comprehensive reforms. they are different approaches to the same problem. my view of the problem is that republicans and democrats agreed there is a problem. health care they just have different routes to those ends. host: if you want to read more about his work, you can go to a website at american action forum.org. always appreciate your time on "washington journal your." up next, gene karpinski is going to join us and talk about the environmental protection agency's and later, we will be joined by

john kingston from new york on the falling prices of crude oil and the impact on the energy sector. during theduring the 60th year, roll call has been talking about the story that the paper has done. we're talking about the fbi sting operation of the 1970's and early 1980's that came to be known as apps game. -- abscam. [video clip] >> that is where the codename come from, arab scam, is the most corrupt scandal in the u.s. congress. it broke in 19 85th by may of 1981, 7 members of congress were

convicted and then by march of 82, they were all out of congress. a huge sweeping and movie where the scandal could some have heard of abscam if they watch the oscar-nominated movie "american hustle." the real story was pretty movie worthy as well could it was the first scandal of the television age. the was actually videotape of some of these members taking bribes. it was one of the members that was convicted was literally videotape stuffing cash into his pockets and asking an undercover fbi agent, can you see the bulge in my pants? it was over the top stuff. not only was it on tv, simply the scheme, they were posing as arabs shakes and going to

numbers of congress and offering them wads of cash to help them speed up the process. this scandal engulfed seven different members, like i said a minute ago including the first democratic senator forced to resign rather than be expelled pete williams of new jersey. it included five house members one democrat and four republicans . there was the chairman of what was then called the labor committee. two of the house members were also chairman. it was big fish caught up in this. that fueled the public's attention as well. these were not obscure members. these were big deal members. it shocked washington. two people who were not convicted and thrown out of office work mentioning -- worth mentioning was a guy who went on to be a prominent senator and

briefly ran for president, a republican from south dakota. he was famously take by the fbi flatly turning down a bride. he became a national hero briefly. a real prominent member -- john murtha, who many c-span viewers have seen. he flirted with taking a bride and sad at the end, i'm not interested for now. the ethics committee ended up giving him a pass. >>announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: gene karpinski is back at our desk and joins us ahead of the next week major ruling that seeks to help address climate change. explain what this clean power plan is going to be/ . guest: climate change is the biggest crisis we are facing in the world. the president has taken many steps to help fight that challenge a couple of years ago back in 2012 he finalized a

deal to cut carbon solution from trucks and automobiles and make a big cut in carbon pollution. the single biggest source of carbon pollution is coal-fired power plants. the rule that is going to be announced as the final little sometime early next week has been years in the making. in fact, there have been over 8 million public comments from folks who say this is a great idea. it has been a large conversation. the final rule will come out on monday or tuesday. we do not know all the details of course. there was a proposed rule about a year ago that basically said from 2020-2030, power plants have to cut their carbon solution by 30% between 2020-2030. it will be a similar proposal. it will look different in many ways but the bottom line goal is that this is the single biggest up this country has ever taken to cut carbon pollution. it is a critical time at a critical moment.

we know climate change is real and we see more of it sadly all the time. this is the single biggest step. it is a huge step forward and a great idea. it will be the final rule. and then goes to the states over the next several years to put together plans to meet the rule state-by-state. host: this plan is looking ahead to 2030. whaten will individual power plants have to implement these changes? how much time is giving to these power plants? guest: between 2020-2022 plants will begin in these changes. each state has a different goal. the overall goal is a 30% cut by 2030. each state can put a plan together. they will work utilities. each state has different goals. hopefully, they will put plants together. some say the states could ignore this, but they can't. each state will put a plan together.

many utilities are already making major progress. solar and wind power is a bigger source and paramedics and we need more of that. a lot is happening, but over the next several years, the next plan would be to put it together state-by-state. host: these new regulations expected to pass. right now, coal-fired power plants making of 39% of the u.s. net electricity generation. can renewables or other sources pick up such a large percentage of the electricity generation in this country if coal power plants are the ones being targeted here? guest: that is the single biggest source of pollution. guest:yes, it will take time. we have to ban that carbon pollution curbs. that is what we need to do over the next 30 years. we need to be carbon free by 2050. that is an important but ambitious goal. each step is critical. we have made major progress on wind and solar over the past few years. california in this country has been leading the way. it has been a year by year, step

by step process. we need to back out from coal-fired power plants and replace them with -- number one, more efficiency. existing plants can be more efficient which cuts down pollution and saves consumers money. we need more electricity meant -- mix from wind and solar going forward. host: some are concerned that it will raise the cost electricity across the country. just yesterday, a republican from north dakota was talking about this. here is a bit of that interview. [video clip] >> the plan that he is putting forward as a huge problem with the coal industry because they do not have the technology to meet the requirements of the way that the administration has designed that plan. the way that we get good environmental stewardship is by developing and deploying these new technologies, but you have got to have a regulatory environment that enables the energy industry to do it rather than putting the regulations that will actually shut plants

down. and that hence our families and our small businesses rightly pocket. higher costs for families and big-time costs that businesses will have to pass along to consumers. host: gene karpinski, i want to give you a chance to respond to that. guest: these are some of the same old arguments that we have heard decade after decade when it comes to making progress on clean air. this is about our public health. yes, we need to make steps forward. you offered here from the industry and their friends in congress talking about increased costs, cuts and jobs, we really can't do it could but this is about good old american ingenuity to make the progress that we have made. just like we did on automobiles we have done that so far with renewables. this is a major step forward. there is incredible flexibility. every state can make their plan to make the place more efficient. they can look to other sources. they can increase renewables. a can trade with other states that are doing a better job. all caps of flexibility in this

plan to make sure we meet those important goals. you've got to protect our health and cut carbon pollution and in way that is smart, efficient and effective. it could create new jobs in the future. the future is clean energy jobs. that is where we need to go. host: to join the conversation, democrats can call (202) 748-8000. help and can call (202) 748-8001 -- republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independence can call (202) 748-8002. those outside of the u.s., (202) 748-8003. on the line for republicans, wayne, good morning. caller: the talk about climate change stirs my neck because it's one of the biggest lies told in the country. a conspiracy theory that they want to tell. obama's behind it. all these scientists are behind it. a bunch of hypocrites. it is all computer readouts.

if you listen to rush limbaugh they will tell all of this. i listen all the time and what he says is true. and i see it. i'm tired of living this life about climate change. you are a liar, mr. good i don't care what you say. host: let us give gene karpinski a chance to respond before you call him a liar. guest: i appreciate your comment. understand that where people get their news and who they listen to is important. but let us be clear. i want to give you a different example. if you are sick and you were feeling hot and warm and dizzy and not feeling well for a while and you went to a doctor and the doctor said, wayne, here's your problem and here's what you need to do. and you go, i'm not sure, maybe i should talk to another doctor. and you did that over two or three months and you talk to doctor after doctor after doctor. they almost all said the same thing. after you talk to 100 doctors, they said, wayne 97 of them

said, you have a problem. if you do not do this, your problem is going to get worse. your future will be worse for your kids and for your grandkids. that is where we are at with climate change. you listen to the scientist. i'm not a scientist. i listen to the scientist. scientists are very clear. it is a very serious problem affecting our health. it's getting worse. there is a solution right in front of us. we have to be smart and do it the right way. but that is what this is about to the science is clear. 90% of those doctors would say wayne, do this. if you want to do something else , you can get healthy. that is what this climate change conversation is about. the scientists have it right. the pope has it right. we need to do it now. it is right in front of us. i appreciate your comments and your thoughts, but this becomes clearer and clearer every day how serious this crisis is and how we need to make process. -- progress. host: on the clean power plan

what may or may not be in it. originally there was an expectation that the of limitation process would begin in 2020. he said it could be 2022 at this point. is a concern that the of limitation process could slip further the father we get down the line of regulation? guest: we do not have all details yet. guest:but we are still very confident. he saw the chief of staff make public conflicts on wednesday that the final rule will be about cutting emissions and as strong as the proposal was paid we will see the details. when you get to 2030 and the mix of how much your electricity comes from coal versus natural gas and renewables, and sounds like they are beginning to say publicly an even larger mix will be renewable energy. that is usually important. the bottom line is that we need to cut back from pollution and do it in a way that enhances and brings to bear more efficiency more renewables. that is the smartest way to go and we are confident this plan

will still meet that very important task. these are reports that you read in the paper. they actually may do it in a way that increases the mix right 2030 of that clean energy from renewables and wind. we are very excited about this. it's a huge step forward. we do not know all the details but it is still a huge step forward and what we need to do. host: let's go to maryland cliff is on a line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i appreciate your program. i agree totally with your first caller that the global warming is nothing but a pr tax sc am. if global warming was actually real, a solution would not be to create carbon credits to be traded on the world stock exchanges. that is not a solution. that is a scam. second of all, you cannot have a viable debate about global warming without addressing the

global chemtrail spraying program that has been in place for more than 30 years. host: we will hold off on the cap trails question. gene karpinski, do you want to talk about global warming? guest: hopefully you heard my answer to wayne in terms of the science being very clear. 97% of the doctors would say to do x he would do x. you have seen this -- 2014 was the hottest year we have ever seen. the 10 hottest years we have ever seen were all from 1998 and beyond. we are in this moment right now. you see more of the arctic ocean, less of the sea ice. it's a problem there. you see sea levels rising. we have to be serious about it. we got a call from the pope, very powerful. the science is clear. the moral imperative is there. this is not just about our

future, but it is about right now and this is a time. we think it is a slam answer to the concern that you raise. it is a critical problem we need to deal with now. host: on a life for democrats, luis is waiting for good morning. -- on our life andine for democrats, louise. good morning. caller: there seems to be a theme for republicans. it is profit. whether it is health care or pollution, the bottom line is how much i'm going to make? how much am i the individual going to have all my bottom line? if we have pollution, we have poor health care. we have all these things. it is not going to matter what your profits are. i just do not understand. i do not trust anything republicans are saying because it is all about the bottom line.

i don't know what can be done about that, but thank you for hearing me. guest: you make a very important point. i would separate for the polluters that it is about the bottom line. you see the koch brothers all in and challenging this. you see the oil industries" industries challenging this. -- and coal industries challenging this. it is about the profits and their bottom line. that's unfortunate. too much of the leadership in the republican party's hand in glove with those big polluters and that is unfortunate. there are some republicans around the country and if you in congress who stepped up on this. we need more of this. the vice chair is a former member of the house of representatives and he used to chair the science committee 10 years ago. he held hearings on the climate change crisis. it is not about party, but it is about the polluters and the profits. they are trying to protect their bottom line. too many of the leadership in

the congress listen to those polluters who fund their campaigns and put them in power. that is the challenge we face and we need to break that. the good news though -- as you know, the public is on our side on these questions. more generally, they want cleaner air and cleaner water for the health? absolutely. do they support this rule coming out? absolutely. more than two to one. host: what polling is that? guest: there are national polls and state-by-state polls. they are specifically asking the question -- the support cutting carbon pollution by this much in by these days? and there is very strong support. the public understands that climate change is a problem. they have seen this happen. the have seen the and a clean if it -- they have seen the arrogant cleaner. host: i want you to expand on

what you do. one of the things on your website is tracking what republican and democratic candidates on the presidency are saying on the issue of climate change. viewers can go to the website and check out some the statements from all the various candidates. guest: the presidential conversation is a hugely important one. we have volunteers and organizers on the ground in places like new hampshire and iowa and south carolina, where candidates are going all the time. which i do get into as many of those meetings as possible. -- we try to get into as many of those meetings as possible and try to get to the center, governor, what is your plan? we want to have that conversation and be part of the conversation. there is a republican debate coming up next week. it is part of the conversation. it's important to get people on the record and see what they have to say. on the website people say very different thing.

some people lean into the issue and say it is a serious problem. hillary clinton has talked about it this week. some say it is a problem we need to agree with. some are in the hoax category. we think that is wrong, but we mean to make sure the public understands where the candidates stand. both the public themselves and these debates need to make sure that they are up on the record to make sure what candidates are saying. host: the field is now 17 republicans who have entered this gop primary. is there somebody saying the right things here? guest: we are not endorsing candidates in the primaries now. one example -- senator lindsey graham from south carolina is one of those is pretty consistently active in the last dozen years saying that climate change is real and we need to do something about it. back in 2009-2000 and10 when there was an effort to pass a bill, he gets it and understands

it. he is one of those who stands out in particular who says climate change is real and we need to do with it. host: kalamazoo, michigan is up next. chris is on a line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. go ahead. caller: i'm tired of the talking points. we have talking points here where we are going to save a bunch of money. i watched the c-span thing the other day and they were asking the epa what was going on. and we are going to spend billions of dollars to save millions. i live in the midwest. i live in michigan. the coal plants -- if you guys are going to be shutting these down without voted elected officials deciding this, the epa going to set us down, our electric bills are going to go insane. i understand global warming and i want to help that. we do not have the technology. what you guys want to do is take away what we have that gives us heat and electricity.

in michigan, we get really cold in the winter. i do not want any kind where everybody its blackouts here in there because we cannot afford that. if we do not have the technology to help right now, do you really think that in a couple of years you're going to force it because we have no other choice as we don't have electricity and we can't afford electricity? guest: you obviously raise good concerns. guest:i want to back up. at the end of the day, this is president obama's plan. he was elected as a president and actually campaign on this as an issue to make clear that he cared about and what -- wanted to make progress. when reelected, he wanted to work with congress to get legislation passed. congress decided not to do anything. he decided, i'm going to use my existing authority with this clean air act to make progress. in terms of your particulars about the concerns, we are going

to hear and we are hearing all these arguments from the polluters and their allies in congress about what this is going to do the economy or a rates, etc.. it is just not true. we have seen time after time that when new clean air act protections were put in, back in 1970, 19 77, 1990, the same arguments. it turns out the costs were much less. the health benefits were even greater. it did not have the impact that people would claim. that is going to be the case here today. when you lift the numbers that the epa has run -- and again, you have to look at what they have done on this. this benefits in terms of costs in terms of public health benefits and in terms of the less you are going to pay for electricity as you get more efficient of the unit -- this next window of time. it is likely a positive and not a negative. people will hear differently from the big polluters, spending

a lot of money telling a big lies. we have seen this and heard this in the past. they have always been wrong and they are wrong in this case is what it -- as well. host: we were talking about presence of candidates. on c-span2, several presidential candidates are participating in the national urban league including hillary clinton, jeb bush, and bernie sanders. it is being held in fort lauderdale florida on c-span2 right now. also we should note that monday c-span is involved in the voters first forum partnering with the new hampshire union leader and other media organizations in the early primary states, including the v gir a.m. and the cedar rapids gazette. also, w l tx tv for that voters first four. it is taking place at 7:00 p.m. eastern in manchester. you can see that live on c-span and hear it on c-span radio and

watch the debate on c-span.org. plenty of opportunities to see the presidential candidates speak. we are talking with gene karpinski for the next 20 minutes or so. morlan has been waiting in coffman, texan. -- coffman, texas. caller: this is the biggest hoax fostered on the american public it in the 1970's, they came out with the communist and the environmentalist joined together with this great fear of nuclear freeze. well, that did not happen. the q2 it was higher taxes. then, they came out with global warming. that has proven to be not true because we are on a 10 year cooling cycle in the world right now. the ice pack is 30% larger this year than was last year. that is another lie you just told, mister. the noaa was just caught fudging the data on the temperatures. there have been showing colder

temperatures lower than what they actually were recorded. and the newark temperatures are higher than they were actually recording. so there fudging the data. host: gene karpinski. guest: i'm not sure where you get your information about fudging the data. from a lot of different sources 2014 was the hottest year we have ever seen. if you take the 10 hottest years to have ever seen, they have all been from 1998 and beyond. i've heard this talking point from folks about 17 years. that is because in 1998, in fact, it was a very high temperature spike. for a few years after, they went low from there. the average of those years was still up. the 10 hottest years were all since 1998. in 2014 was the hottest year on record. that is not just one source. that is multiple sources to make

that point. we are not going to agree on this, but the bottom line is we have a climate crisis. the solution that we are proposing is going to be good for health and our economy. they're going to create the jobs of the future. we are all in to tackle this problem. you heard the pope speak very forcefully to this. we're going to hear again back in september. let me just say. you did your local martial affront. i appreciate all that c-span does to make sure that people have this conversation and shine the spotlight on the candidates. it's a great service and it's great to be a part of it. host: appreciate that. we talking about the epa clean power plan, expected to come out as early as monday from the administration. it is a plan that has been in development and the finalized rule expected to be released at some point next week. here's a story in "the wall street journal." epa emissions rule sticks to tough targets -- the headliner. if you have questions on that

rule and how it will impact cold power plants, our phone lines are open. fred is in kentucky. line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am living in kentucky and i'm a democrat. i believe in climate change. but one of the problems we have here in kentucky is that it is all about the war on coal. we even have license plates that are issued that say: keep the lights on. it is such a problem here that kentucky does not believe in it. we even have our democratic candidates who say they are fighting obama on the war on coal. i like to know how we can get more information out there to dispel the myth that it is a war on coal. and that is my call. it is just hard for me to vote

democrat when the democrats are saying the things -- they are saying there is no war on coal just to get votes. thank you. guest: i appreciate your comment. as you know, kentucky is one of the most reliance on coal. it is a big industry there. you know better than i do that your senior senator is actually leading the effort to fight the epa proposal that is going to come out next week. in fact, he wrote a letter to all 50 governor saying to ignore this law. that makes no sense because -- understand at the government decides not to submit a plan, they will have a federal plan imposed on them. if you are governor of a state you would rather put your own play together, working with people in that state, and have maximum flexibility rather than relying on a federal plan. kentucky has some big steps to take. we have seen this and other countries and other states. there is a path forward. it is not to be any automatic and instant.

climate change is real. we need that clear energy future with more consistency and renewables. each state will have a different target host: we have been showing a pie chart that shows that electricity generation by jim -- by energy source in this country, pulling those from the energy administration. coal at 39.3% of energy generation. this plan goes into full effect by 2030. how many power plants are expected to be shut down by this new regulation? guest: that is an important question. until we see the details, we can't say that. we have seen over the last decade or so some coal plants shut down. some have switched to natural gas. some have put in more efficiency. and long history over the past couple decades -- 200 coal

plants have been retired in the last 10 years or so. nobody's lights went out, no rates went up. that is a natural process over time. old, dirty, coal-fired power plants that were the biggest part of the mix are now tied with natural gas. it is a process that occurs over time. some of them can become more efficient. some of the old ones will be replaced by either renewables or natural gas or some combo to keep electricity flowing. host: is clean coal a electricity generating source for the united states into the 20 50's ? guest: two parts of that. we will have coal plants around for a while. there is a potential for new

technology that captures the carbon and stores the carbon in coal-fired power plants. one plant is operating now. other countries are trying it as well. if it could work and help capture carbon, that should be a part of the mix. it is very expensive, it is in the trial. you will hear president obama talk about that. there is money in the federal government to do the research to see if it can work. that is a potential, but it is challenging. we will see how that plays out. there are some pilot projects and experiments going on. host: conroe, texas. george is waiting on the line for independents. caller: thank you for c-span. you are quite right. c-span will help dispel the lies that are purveying our public discussion these days. mr. kerr spends the --

mr. gene karpinski is a shill -- a paid lobbyist for the world global warming scam. he is probably paid by the likes of george soros, al gore, particularly, who is frustrated with the amount of money he has invested in trying to promote the cap and trade scam by which they will pull it back toward tax on the public and dig a deeper hole in your pocket. what we are going to do here not too long from now is put people like gene karpinski and mr. obama and his or al gore in prison where they belong and have them break rocks. host: that is george in texas. guest: the one part of that that i know is true is, yes, i get paid.

not by george soros or al gore. the league of conservation voters has 1.2 million people around the country. you can go to our website and check out what we are about. we also work with 30 partners or any country. i am proud of what we do. i am proud of the role we way. i have been working on these issues my entire life. i continue -- i plan to continue to do that. we disagree, clearly, on whether climate change is real or not. history is clearly on the side of where we are. were many business leaders are these days. where some members of both parties are. where the pope is. this is the challenge of our time. i appreciate your comments, but i just strongly disagree. host: evansville, indiana. line for democrats. caller: my comment is what does the science say about the also

fuels, being that the center of the earth is 7000 degrees. if you take out the oil, will that not raise the ground temperature? that is my comment. host: concerns about the impacts of drilling on the comments on the environment. guest: that is an important point. to be clear, carbon pollution creates a heat trap which causes the earth to warm in the basic sense. on the one hand, we to cut carbon pollution reduce emissions to reduce our change. to be clear, citing the scientists, the large consensus 97% of scientists say not only do we need to make the important steps we are making now with clean power plants, by 2050, at least 80%. in order to that, what i think

you're getting at is that we don't just need to take existing solutions to automobiles and power plants and cut it significantly. from the scientists around the world, we need to keep at least two thirds, if not more, of the existing fossil fuels in the ground. i know i won't agree with everyone on this call, but from our perspective, the effort to block the keystone pipeline coming from canada to the u.s. to go to texas is another important project. that is a place where we disagree with the president is joining in the arctic ocean. the bottom line is we need to cut emissions from existing sources and keep to their is those existing fossil fuels in the ground. that is why we are against the keystone pipeline. that is why we are against drawing and the arctic. host: we will be talking more

about the oil sector in this company -- country with john kingston next up on "washington journal." i want to give you a chance -- you talked a bit about the republican candidates for president and their view on climate change. can you talk about hillary clinton who has been the subject of editorials? or is washington post. she failed to make a specific commitment on greenhouse gas reduction. guest: a couple of things. so let folks know, within the democratic primary, there is a lot of competition for each of the major candidates. hillary clinton, martin o'malley, and bernie sanders.

it is only competition among them. that is great. that is what we want. hats off to hillary clinton for the proposal -- for the plan she put forward earlier this week which is tied into getting more renewables into the mix. one third in the next 10 years. a good goal. we will hear more about that. she was a leader on these issues when she was in the senate. she got these issues when she was secretary of state. we know she supported things like that in the past. she announced a piece of that. the other candidates have been ambitious on this. we will hear more from them which is the conversation we want to have. host: back to washington with alan on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think you guys have a great program. host: i appreciate that. caller: what i hear is a bunch of sheep will -- sheeple

bleating as they go over the cliff. people are focusing on things that are not because of what is happening. you have a situation reaction solution situation going on here. you look up in the sky's these days and you see a lot of aircraft leaving trails that don't disappear. they are called go engineering. it is changing the weather. and it is deliberate. host: that is alan from washington bringing up chemtrail. we want to discuss this conspiracy? guest: i'm not a scientist, but the scientists are pretty clear that the single biggest source of climate change is carbon pollution. there is methane pollution from natural gas and fracking that needs to be dealt with. there is a lot of challenges.

i don't think the scientists are all in agreement about that. then you give you a heads up to your governor who, from our perspective, is the greenest governor in the country. he campaigned on this issue. he won on this issue. this week he announced a cap on pollution for washington state which is great. most importantly he talked about in his book the future and future jobs we need and this country about getting a new clean energy economy. washington state has been a leader in these issues. a lot of people who understand this and are active and it -- hats off to him for being a champion in this. host: a few minutes left with gene karpinski with the league of conservation voters. arthur in texas, line for republicans. caller: i have had a question, actually two. i would try to make it quick. twice you have denied the existence of chemtrail's.

from you and congressmen, i have heard this over and over. nobody will address what chemtrail's are. not only that, nobody will address what the harp project is up in alaska. there happened to be seven other harp installations in the world. host: arthur in corpus christi, texas. we are talking about clean power plants that are getting released by the epa next week. we will hold off on the chemtrail questions for now. we want to focus as much as we can while we have gene karpinski . we'll go to joy and alabama. line for democrats. good morning. caller: in one. -- good morning.

i want clean air and clean water. for the last 10 years, we have subsidized all of these projects. now the tax credits and subsidies are coming up for renewal. you have this push because everybody wants a subsidy and they want the tax credit. we spent billions of dollars over the last 10 years. for the next 10 years we are going to need coal, we are going to need natural gas, and we are going to need oil. what are we going to do if we have closed down all of the coal plants and we don't have all of these wind farms and solar and renewable's? we are going to burn up in the summer and freeze in the winter. there has to be a solution. right now, there is a push because of tax credits and subsidies coming up. all of these lobbyists and people want their billions of

dollars. we are $18 trillion in debt. we cannot afford to do all of this. where is the money coming from? guest: two points. you make a very important point on the subsidies. for folks who have looked at these numbers, the oil industry is by far the most subsidized industry that is using tax credits, tax incentives, taxpayer money for over a century. similarly, the gas industry, the coal industry has subsidies. the nuclear industry has subsidies. more recently, solar and wind have tax credits. they have helped grow the market. you go to california or colorado or ohio with wind power. senator grassley from iowa,

republican, is leading the effort to protect the winds tax credit. he understands how important that is to make sure wind is part of the mix. when you look at the dirtier sources, oil, gas, coal, they are far more over a much larger. of time -- that over a period of time than wind. the concern you raise -- no one is suggesting it is going to shut down all of coal plants in the next 10 years. over time, it is going to change the mix to make sure we have cut the pollution we need to and do it in a smart way. relying on efficiency, increasing renewables. it is a gradual process. we need to get there. when he to do it in a way that will not wreck the economy. it will save you money on your electricity bill. it is a win and all of those rights. it will be a huge win, it will

take time. host: i want to thank gene karpinski and the league of conservation voters. it is lcp.org. host: up next, we will be joined by john kingston of the mcgraw hill financial global institute. we will talk about the falling price of oil and how it is impacting the global energy sector. first, the 60th anniversary of the newspaper roll call first edition. we have been talking with various reporters about how that paper has covered major news events of the last 50 years. here is more with david hawking's who discussed the bribery scandal. guest: the number of individual members that were subjected to scrutiny in the 80's, 90's, and on looks like it went way up after the scan.

because there was videotaped, because it was soap opera worthy , we actually used a whole new world -- word. criminal behavior, over-the-top stuff, members of the public started paying attention to what had been somewhat of a wild west closure of ethical hader in congress. they insisted with their loads and import earnings -- impo rtunings with members of congress to crackdown it. they did for the 80's and 90's. they reformed the amount of that income congress could take practicing laws, doing business deals outside of congress which was allowed up until this. a gave themselves a pay raise, a controversial topic for many people. one of the reasons, some would

say it happened was that at that time, members of congress remaking $61,000 a year. some of the brides they were being offered was worth their entire year's salary. changing the culture -- the idea is that if we paid a more of a living wage, said the leaders who promoted this, they would be less subject to corruption. in other ways are has been a legacy -- a senior member republican in congress, chris smith of new jersey who is still in august today who got to congress because his predecessor was one of the seven. another regional congressional candidate, murphy of staten island who came close to winning a congressional seat whose father was one of the scam seven. his being forced out pay the arrival for frank lautenberg. and the small world

congressional history department, this scandal still has consequences for the way congress is run today. >> washington journal continues. host: john kingston joins us now to talk about on oil crude prices and the impact it is having on the energy sector. he is president of the mcgraw hill financial global institute which has been observing energy market for 30 years. a frequent guest on "washington journal" on this topic. gives a sense of how far crude oil prices have fallen so far this year. guest: the price of west texas intermediate hovered between $95 and $90 for most of last year and the middle of the year. now it is about $48. it is a little lower than that. it bounced up to $60, but slid back down. the international benchmark has run about five dollars above wti, so it has come down the

same amount. it has come from its average price to now, it is a 50% decline, significant. host: if our viewers want a visual of the fall, here is a graphic from the wall street journal from 2014-2015. you can see the price slide here. the question is, why ? guest: the rise in output from the u.s. and canada finally overwhelmed the world supply demand balance. the u.s. has been increasing its apply since the beginning of 2008 and 2009. there have been losses elsewhere in the world. you do not see those impacts in terms of the price. it is argued that if there was an impact, it would be worse if it was not for u.s. output. by about the middle of last year, you beat again -- you begin to get stability in other countries as u.s. increases got even higher as demand find out in western countries.

the supply overwhelms the demand. that is what you are seeing now. i was not the figures from the second quarter of the international energy agency, i multilateral institute from consuming countries. stocks may have increased worldwide by $3 million a day during the second quarter. those are staggering numbers we have not seen in a long time. when the price climbed back up to $60 wti if you want to go, there were those of us that did not think it would last. the supply demand numbers on the map pointed lower, and we are clearly lower. host: let's talk about the impact on jobs. 50,000 jobs have been lost in the u.s. energy sector since april. nearly 150,000 jobs have been lost since fall of 2014. the impact seven hitting internationally. a story from the new york times about shall announcing yesterday it was cutting 6500 jobs amid a

prolonged downturn in the oil prices. new reports today from exxon mobil and chevron. what a we expecting to learn from those major oil companies? guest: isaiah headline that said that they made their profit target but were done on revenue. i don't know if they are going to announce any cutbacks. at chevron, there was speculation that they may not increase their dividend is your. dividend -- chevron is known as a dividend aristocrat that increases its dividend by 20 -- every year for 25 years or more. they may fall out of that dividend aristocrat category this year. you mentioned shall. another company announced 6000 layoffs yesterday. yesterday was black thursday for employment in the oil business. there has been a huge number of jobs that have been lost in the

industry. it is really tough area at the same time, there has been a benefit to the broader economy from the loyal -- lower oil prices. overall, it is not good for norway, north dakota, saudi arabia, but for the rest of the u.s. it is when you have this decline in oil prices are in is stimulating the overall economy. host: a special segment for "the washington journal" for those who are or recently employed by the oil and gas sectors in this country. that number is 202-748-8003 otherwise for democrats 202-748-8000, republicans at 202-748-8001 and independence at 202-748-8002. i want to ask you are in the rafters of the economic -- turned on in this country, the energy sector was the bright spot, correct? guest: no doubt about it.

if you look at the numbers in 2009, layoffs everywhere. some industries contracting. the oil and gas industry was surely growing as the fracking revolution treated new opportunities, the introduction of crude oil and natural gas. as a result of that, you were hiring a lot of people. i tended to look at the obama administration and the oil industry over the last seven years as to scorpions in a bottle. the scorpion that get on the turtles back and goes across. they needed each other. the economy under the obama administration has certainly benefited from this decline in the price of oil. i don't think they like to admit that. at the same time, the oil and gas industry has benefited from cheap capital. i don't know if you want to say that is an obama policy or a neck yellen policy, but there is no doubt that the amount of capital that has been driven into this to create this boom is

the result of low interest rates. these two sites snipe at each other. they kind of have needed each other for the last seven years. it has been interesting to watch. host: we are talking with john kingston, the president of the mcgraw hill financial global institute. he spent 30 years working for platts a unit for mcgraw hill financial global institute. they have been helpful on twitter for finding out information on this topic and others. you can go to their twitter handle as well. we are taking your questions and comments. joe is in minnesota on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i like you hear my gas and oil investments going up and value. it means more money for me. i also -- and the last segment about climate change -- i worry about my children and grandchildren's futures.

i have to believe that i would trade my future money, if you want to look at it that way, or investments in oil, for my grandchildren's future. i think too many people listen to channels like fox news where they are going to continue to talk against climate change. i have to believe that -- i believe in god. if they believe in god and they truly do, and why don't they believe in climate change change? can't we take a chance and do what we can do to save the future of our children? host: she brings up investments in oil. the wall street journal talking about major oil companies and

their earnings reports over the past several years. this is exxon mobil, shell chevron, and bp all seeing their profits fall over the past couple years. his oil still a good investment? guest: she said her investment have been rising. i can't believe they have been rising lately. over the last seven or eight years it has been a good investment and they pay a fairly healthy dividend. i think -- i am not an oil equity analyst and i'm not sure where most of the industry is. the buy side analysts believe in this sector long term. on climate change, the biggest contribution to lowering commissions from the u.s. is the fracking resolution. the huge supply of natural gas

lower prices, and the displacement of coal. some people in this debate do not like to admit that. they would like to think that the rise and windmills and solar panels has to do with that. that is not backed by the evidence. the u.s. has had a significant downturn in its carbon emissions, and natural gas is the reason why. host: we have a special line for those who have been employed in the oil and gas sectors. clarence is on a line from casper, wyoming. an independent. thank you for client as calling. caller: where i used to work for, they are standing around these days doing nothing because of downturn. our hours were cut from 50 hours a week to 32 hours a week. it has had a bad effect. guest: no doubt about it for people in the upstate -- if you are in wyoming i am sure you are in the chilling sector. that has been a significant downturn. i would say a couple of things. if there is any kind of rise in the price of oil from 60 or $70

while that are jeweled by a combination of horizontal drilling and fracking can come back on very quickly. this is one of the biggest differences between the past. you can bring these fracking wells on very quickly. that is number one. number two, all of jobs that have been lost and you quote a lot of numbers. remember that the u.s. is in a processing business. whether it is oil refineries or chemical plants being built primarily by the cheaper price of natural gas and the u.s.. those are new jobs that are created. this is why the u.s. despite all the changes is still a net importer of 4 million barrels of oil a day. this is overall a positive change to the u.s.. this gentleman from casper has seen the downside of this. i feel for him. i would say that over the long run, people like him will be needed and there will be

brighter days. i can't tell you when. host: in these downturns who are the first to go and the oil and gas employment sectors check sectors? who do these companies hold onto and who do they come first? guest: the first people to be cut are the people out in the field, the landmen who go out and secure visas for oil companies. the people working the race. these are really blue-collar. it would not be management being cut. those are the ones. the ones on the ground. on the ground in wyoming or north dakota -- those are the ones being hit first. host: eagle river, wisconsin. line for democrats. caller: i wish someone would expect to be why you know the price of oil per erol has dropped -- perp barrel has dropped and causing all of this

unemployment rate it is a controlled environment by oil companies. we are not having layoffs because of shortages of oil. we are having layoffs because there is too much oil. for me, i am looking at almost $2.60 per gallon when the price of oil has dropped more than half? why does the price of gas come down the same? guest: the decline in the price of oil has outpaced the decline in the price of gasoline. gasoline in the last six weeks has held up because gasoline supplies has been tied. in the form out of the last five weeks this nation's refining sector ran at 95% capacity or more. that hasn't happened for more than two years. there are starting to make lots of gasoline -- the price of gasoline will catch up to the

decline in the price of crude. it doesn't happen overnight. if you took a rolling average comparing gasoline to the retail price of crude there would be a tight correlation. i think at one point you are seeing it. at the real high efficient smaller cars. ford and gm are making lots of money. americans are reacting to the price of castling. caller: i was calling to see if any thought has been taking in into -- taken into -- if this iranian takes place, there is

something like 250,000 gallons of barrel on the market per day. testing the arabians are talking what million barrels per day. their exports did drop because of various sanctions. iranians have been boastful about reclaiming their market share. there really isn't room for them unless something else gives way. opec is not going to give way. they are not giving way for americans. will they give way for another member? the first thing iranians are going to do is they have about 40 million barrels sitting in floating storage they can put on the market right away. this is the big question mark. when you shut down an oil

industry for a significant amount of time you cannot just flip it that con. -- flip it back on. it takes time. how much damage has there been to the reservoirs and industry as a whole in the years iranians have been under sanctions? we don't know. 250,000 barrels per day would be on the low-end end. the iranians in a few days ago -- iranians a few days ago said they were going to come back with one million barrels per day. it is the american consumers of energy who will be benefiting from that. host: is there a shelf life for storing it, for waiting for a good day when better prices are? guest: crude oil does not go bad. that is why yorkie -- why you are able to keep it in strategic reserves. there have been a couple strategic reserves, one built in

the northeast. you do have to turn over the inventory because that will go bad. hanging on to the oil and some of the price goes better everybody talks about the price of oil because they hear it on the radio and on tv. then they think there is just one price. the fact is there's is a very active forward curve. if you think the price is going to be higher than you can sell it in the future. there is no point in hanging onto the oil physically. i know back from the 70's i first got my license to drive during the 1974 oil squeeze. one of the first things i did was get on a gas line. waiting to bring oil in.

host: let's go to nashville in santa maria california. good morning. caller: i wonder china has any oil in its own country? host: they are in the top 10 to producers. it is 3 million barrels to 4 million barrels per day. you're only interested in them as an import. a big net importer. they do produce oil. several years ago there was talk they could become an even bigger producer. obviously becoming a big higher. husband catherine is waiting in

alabama. good morning. caller: during the 70's i used to pay $.20 per gallon and $20 per barrel. it is the same thing happening now. iran came in and flooded our markets and ran people out of business. what people don't seem to realize this we do have a lot of oil fields in the gulf of mexico . it is time for the americans to wake up and realize we need to stop buying 50 pairs of shoes. host: most of the u.s. oil does

not come from overseas. u.s. consumption is running probably about 20 million barrels per day. the united states produces about 9 million barrels per day. you are talking 2 million barrels per day out of canada. i don't consider that an exposure. the u.s. in 2005 at its peak had a net imports around 30 million barrels per day, plus those numbers around 40 million dollars per barrel -- $40 million per barrel per day -- this is one of the reasons why the dollar has strengthened. as a result of that the dollar is stronger, that pushed down the price further. i do think she identified one

key area. everyone thinks opec who stood up the price. they have taken on the role of swing producer. they will cut back production when they think the market is oversupplied. they will increase it when they think it needs to be increased. and a perfect world you would have the highest cost producer. opec has abandoned that role in the last six to eight months. what we're doing is giving a bigger market share. the americans have cooperated in the sense that production is up in texas. this is why we have a weak market here. the swing producers in north america are finding new

efficiencies and new ways to keep their production costs down. host: talking about total petroleum and production on -- production in different countries around the world. the united states at number one on that list. also want to follow up on the senate this week. they moved a bill out of committee that would lift the ban on exporting crude oil. can you talk about why that band -- that ban was in place in the first place? guest: u.s. was an exporter crude oil in the 70's. until 1975 when the first oil crisis hit congress passed the stamp. it was an empty gesture.

there really wasn't a chance that u.s. was going to export crude. basically it was a nice boat to take that didn't have any meaning. with an increase in u.s. supply, they remain a net importer. in some cases it is better to do in court oil depending on the geographic market. the fear that is going on in the industry's you can have u.s. prices get stranded, get stuck here. i can get into that later. let's allow them to export. there is this fear that if we start exporting it could increase the price of gasoline. the u.s. price of gasoline is

basically tied to the world price of gasoline. the u.s. export gasoline depending on where you are makes sense. the cheap price of crude in the u.s. is simply on true. it is a windfall for u.s. refiners. you are going to pay gasoline price tied to the world price of gasoline and by extension the world price of crude. as far as the export ban, i'm going to go to my friend who follows washington energy products -- energy policy more closely than anyone. the fear that you vote in favor

of it and later you could a slice in the price of gasoline, if you are a politician you are going to be held responsible. the obama administration has not shown his hand on this. the energy secretary for a spot up that you of lifting the export ban at an event a couple of years ago. i think the chances of it happening are nonexistent but they are still pretty low. host: we are talking with john kingston, president of the global institute at macgraw international.

allen is waiting on our republican line. scottsdale arizona. good morning. caller: i have studied this quite a bit. i like your last comment regarding the united states being on the world market. saudi arabia sells their gasoline at $.21 per gallon. they are the lowest in the world. guest: venezuela is even lower they are $.17. caller: i was looking at wikipedia. if we can get our natural gas as the number one supplier, here's the analysis i would like you to touch on, and that is why do we

have to be on the world market? if we double or triple the volume of natural gas that we have right now open up more refineries so we can refine more gasoline, i think the key is natural gas. it is less abusive to the environment. it can heat our homes and can run boot energy with a biogas producing electricity in front of ebay, walmart, fedex. they are using natural gas or even landfill methane gas. we can produce our own electricity. that technology is almost here on the horizon. guest: there is no doubt that the natural gas boom has been far more important than oil. you mentioned venezuela and saudi arabia, they don't really

say much about the international market. in 2008 natural gas prices were 14 or $15 and the price of crude oil was $140. i think it was july 3 or. crude falls to 40, natural gas falls. the price of oil starts to rise in the price of gas in the u.s. did not. the ability of the u.s. to generate energy by natural gas becomes far cheaper than anyone else in the world. you have industries started to rebuild. they are coming back with vast amounts of investment in the chemical industry.

there is a product called chemically induced iron. that have moved offshore in the 70's. i used to be involved in the middle industry. you are seeing this great benefit the u.s. has from cheaper natural gas. it is more than it used to be. because you have these big giant tankers, it doesn't all balance out. we need to do this right. probably the greatest boon to the manufacturing sector. if people tend to focus on oil because they see their price on the car all of time, i think the natural gas is just as important to the long-term economic strength. host: j, you are on the washington journal go ahead.

caller: the department of energy and myra presented and said that every job of oil is going to be gone in the year 2050, which isn't too far away. i would like to know what you think. should i buy a horse and buggy? guest: it is predicted the u.s. will be out of oil in 2050, it is the latest of a long line of predictions, all of which have been wrong. i think when you look forward you look at a u.s. population growth, i think the u.s. will be -- the world will be challenged to buy that oil. the idea that the world will be of oil by 2050 is a fear instilled by many people for

over 100 years. it has been wrong over and over again. it is amazing people still give this credence. caller: i used to watch the energy tv program. what happened to it? caller: -- guest: we had a great time doing it. all good things must come to an end. i do want to point out the host of energy we does write a column on energy on usa today in the monday paper. usually posted online over the weekend. thank you very much for your viewership.

host: type about the global institute and what you do there at macgraw hill international. guest: we focus in on several areas. demographics, aging, energy, capital market, working in capital market. we provide such a corporate voice to engage in public policy issues on those particular areas. we have been doing its now since february and had a great time working closely with others here on mcgraw-hill. host: here to answer your questions for another 10 minutes, john is in kansas on the line for republicans. caller: there was conversation about the case don't pipeline. to me the amount of oil that

comes out of the ground has nothing to do with how it is transported. i think what comes out of the ground is due to price. without the pipeline is being transported by train and trucks. it is better to have thousands of trucks and hundreds of trades rather than the keystone pipeline. i don't find where that has any effect or even has less effect on the environment. guest: is stone pipeline. the controversy is keystone xl. the opponents will tell you we want to make this oil, we want to get it so's stock up that the price will be low. it will get itself out by rail. this has been one of the great success stories.

i guarantee 10 years ago if there was anybody who knew much about rail there wasn't too many of them. being able to take oil from stranded properties. at the same time the fracking industry was helping to kill the railroad coal business. you are right, it is not going to get stuck but it is going to hit -- going to get moved by sufficient means. to build a pipeline from the oil stands down to lake superior and put it on shifts's there. it is not as efficient, more expensive, somebody is going to pay for that. i give the keystone xl components credit.

nobody ever envisioned becoming such a hot button issue. yet they have succeeded. hats off for their political organizing skills. it is a capital investment. it is an infrastructure that will last 40 or 50 years. i don't know what the lifespan of a pipeline is. the price of oil could go up and down one dozen times. host: jaws on the line for cleveland tennessee. good morning. caller: in two thousand 12 --

i hope you know what is going on with that. guest: i guess they are looking to turn it into a terminal. i would say it is highly unlikely they will operate as a refinery again. the u.s. refineries can use gas as a fuel to power the refineries. hold and so, they all had to deal with the same economics. they had to burn oil to refine oil. that really hurt their cost. of they simply couldn't compete. it would be to have for the caribbean refineries to ever get going again. refining is a global business.

capacity reflects refineries elsewhere. i think it is being turned in. it is likely to operate as a refinery again? i would say not. i feel for the workers who lost their jobs there. host: our line for democrats, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for putting me on the line to speak with him. during the period of president nixon someone asked him if guess is going to be one dollar, he said it is not possible because you are talking about a loaf of bread as one dollar.

and we are paying very high prices. the petroleum company making $40 billion per year, that is a hell of a lot of money. what do they do with the money? who then if it's from it? not the public. the politicians and the shareholder. they never need the money for the public to get benefits from it. guest: you have to put it through an inflation calculator. if you put the price of gasoline from a mid-seventies into an inflation calculator, you are not going to be that far off from where you are today. when the price was running in the $350 level, that definitely

was in the high-end of the traditional curve of where retail gassing prices is. what you put in your car today is infinitely cleaner than 40 years ago. it was dirty, it contained a lot of sulfur, a lot more in scene lot more lead. the air is significantly cleaner. what is coming out of your tailpipe is 90% or more cleaner than what is coming out. even after paying all that price most of the refiners paid that in the 90's. the retail price of gasoline is certainly a little higher but not a lot higher.

host: john kingston trying to get through as many of your calls as we can before taking you to a booking institute defense technology panel discussion getting ready to take place this morning. let's go to bob in union kentucky. caller: i have a quick comment and quick question. i would love to see mr. kingston on a future show with the gentleman on before about climate change. my question is what would be the effect that the united states were to deal with saudi arabia independently and do it as a business, since begin such a small percentage of our crude

oil from the international market? going to hear your answer. host: you want the united states not to deal with opec countries anymore and deal with them individually? caller: correct. we could probably sustain ourselves. i know it would have an international impact. i feel that would be interesting to deal with it independently and probably get benefit for the american people. caller: -- guest: that's what happens now. united states is not an entity that deals with others on this transactions. as a result of the surge in u.s. output we have had a lot of countries that used to be suppliers to us that no longer

are or are significantly diminished. there is still legislation in place we do not buy oil from iran. we largely iced out nigeria as a supplier. saudi's have long-standing investments in the u.s.. other companies choose to buy from the saudi's. we've significantly reduced our dependence. ultimately we are going to pay -- paid a global price. you can make a political stance. it doesn't change the price. there is no way to escape the global market. the matter how many rules you

still have to pay global price. it is not as mobile, the market doesn't normalize itself. we do get a significant benefit on natural gas prices. host: call of in las vegas nevada does on with john kingston. caller: the man was making a statement about how it takes a well for gas prices to come down to make a change. when they go up they go up real fast. in oil companies, the way to prices, real quick it takes him a long time to come down. guest: i know we are running out of time the price