their faith in the -- alaskans to lose their faith in the justice system of america. so the tracks from the goodwill that our governmental institutions have, it takes away from their legitimacy when the courtystem comes in and bails out a big player. an exxon or a bp. and that is not healthy for america. host: what was the pvailing argument with the majority of baker versus exxon? guest: the prevailing argument was that the award was just too big. host: on what ground?

their faith in the -- alaskans to lose their faith in the justice system of america. so the tracks from the goodwill that our governmental institutions have, it takes away from their legitimacy when the court system comes in and bails out a big player. an exxon or a bp. and that is not healthy for america. host: what was the prevailing argument with the majority of baker versus exxon? guest: the prevailing argument was that the award was just too big. host: on what ground?

teachers in our borders will lose their jobs. families will pay more for their first home. -- teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. they deserve a boat that is being blocked by the republican leadership in the senate. right now, the law places a 7 $5 million cap on the amount that oil companies must pay to families and small businesses who suffer economic losses as a result of a spill like the one we are witnessing in the gulf coast. we should remove that cap, but the republican leadership will not allow debate or a vote. as we speak today, 136 men and women who i have nominated for key positions in the federal government are still awaiting a vote on the floor of the senate. all are highly qualified. very few are controversial. the vast majority already have support from both parties, but most of them are seeing their nominations intentionally delayed by republican leaders or even blocked altogether. they cannot get a vote. what this means is that at a moment when our country is facing some each challenges, time will we

still losing your a big check.. host: we got a look at the plan ouse.r of the they will pend anothee week%% districts,ir home washington. a shortened work. . what does that mean? what does it mean for them back home? do democrats need to get back and start campaigning? guest: yes and no. they will not be having as many town hall format. they want to be home in campaigning. they do not want to create moments summers ago where there were heated town halls. %%i think it will be interestin. they will be home. as campaigne that ammunition. tax rovisions in this tax extender bill. democrats need to make a decision on what of the bush tax they going to extend? if they pass anything as far as are making, then it the pre-bush tax cuts. that is a huge decision democrats have. will have toey decision. that is one to watch. will have to say, do you with president obama that make over $250,000 should havee their increase, but not for level.elow that some in the senate feel the number should be higher. that is the debate. %%st: r

we lose this production and we lose these jobs. it's at a critical time for louisiana and for our nation. we can't afford to do this. >> ifill: kiernan, what's to say that a temporary moratorium does not become a perm net one? >> well, it may become a permanent one, but we as a nation have to go through a process of rationally figuring out what is safe, what risks are we willing to take? there will be an answer at the end of that. to simply say let's keep doing the risk while we study it simply doesn't make sense. to ignore the tens of thousands of people that lost their jobs this month due to b.p.'s oil spill, the billions of dollars that have been lost this month due to this spill, the tax payer money, small business money, and say we're going to ignore all that. we're going to put all those people at risk because the only thing we care about is oil jobs, that is bad public policy. it's just unfair. >> ifill: a chance to response. >> no one is talking about putting anybody at risk at all in these. we're talking about how to move

you saw -- very popular a year ago, lose and a primary. saw charlie crist being pushed out of the republican primary and accused of being too moderate. on the republican side, that is what i am looking -- are you going to see that trend continue, where the so-called derate candidates are losing d, the tea party-fuelde conservative candidates are winning? i think that is what you would expect. on the democratic side, you are seeing that with the blanche lincoln race and arkansas. you have labor unions and people on the left are very frustrated with her as being too

if we do not change quickly we will lose a war we cannot afford to lose. i think we can win.america can win. if america loses, this is a nightmare that none of us will be able to live with very long for the july, 2011 policy is confusing. it on the cuts the war effort. it empowers our enemy. confuses our friends and i think it needs to be re-evaluated. general petraeus said in an open hearing that he believes he had the ability to go to the president in july, 2011 or earlier and tell them that things are such in afghanistan that it is not wise to withdraw troops. we may need more. he felt like he had the ability to make that recommendation. my question for the country is, will the president listened to that recommendation? i would urge the president to keep on the table the ability to hear the general out and that the general recommends that if we cannot withdraw, to keep that as an option now matter what general petraeus may recommend, we are going to leave in july 2011. we're going to lose this war if that happens. >> do not use the same words but it sounds like you have th

it does not do any good if we're going to lose.e have to give the majority of democrats because i do not think any republican is going to vote for it, i am sure. we have to get the majority. and we do have this fiscal commission in place. it " be interesting to see what the fiscal commission can achieve because there's a lot of diversity and big bird is a nation in it. -- and big participation in it. >> isn't it true in your own caucus members just do not have the political courage to take a tough vote on a budget that has trillion dollar deficits in there? you have basically truncated that piece of legislation. you do not have to say they were voting on trillion-dollar deficits. is in the taking the easy way? >> the president, as you know, requested a freeze, for three years on the discretionary funding account. will be voting for the and we will be voting also to set the target of 50% of gdp. you can say that is a lack of courage, but i am pleased with where we're coming out because it can be extended over time. >> on friday, we

that means that they are losing skills, losing contact with the job market, and as things go on if theyst sit at home they will not find good work. even now, is more important than ever that we make available in every way that we can, not just k-12, but for working americans to get decent paying jobs. >> is it likely this country will ever have much leverage in negotiating with china? >> you just came back from china. >> i just came back from china. i attended what is now called the strategic and economic dialogue, which is strategic -- i am perhaps the only american person on the american side to have been to all of them. this meeting was created by secretary paulson and the previous administration and has just continued into the current administration with some modifications. essentially, the entire cabinet of the united states, plus the fed chairman and others in china is that this media recognizes the wide differences when we talk about comments and concerns. we do not just talk about the troubling part of our relationship, but about the ways that we can cooperate on energy, investm

.- that benefit, the taxpayers coull lose self -- could lose. then they get a lower mortgage which is a very good. we may end up paying a lot of that back. >> spoke about ssme of the complicated parts in the current bill. i wanted to focus on one which is the provision by senator blanche incoln on derivatives. it would force banks to move their swaps desk outside the federally insured part of their business was our number thoughts on that are >> there will have to move them to an exchange. the exchanges are operated by the four largest corporations in america. financial firms, they basically control laad business. you remove them from what is almost a monopoly right now beeore you can have a company, say john deere, and they could execute an agreement with another private party. i do not see a problem with that. -pno one got in trouble doing that. as john deere, caterpillar come at aay of those firms, ford, ibm, you name it. every company hedges of their expossre. the airlines had that on a lot of your international's have currency hedges. i do

equity holders will lose everything. the creditors will lose everything. we cannot put into place laws that will do that and not to do what we did in tte place which is act quickly and help bail host: is it fair to say it is a bailout? one person writes that it is not fair to call it a bailout. seven and $2 billion was not given out, even though that was -- $700 billion was not given out. the money went for loans not preferred stock. most of the banks have pill -- paid it back. is it fair to call it a bailout? guest: the fed in washington bureaucrats said we will look to this financial institution and give them a great deal, which is what it was. we will look over here and say to you, we do not think we will help you out with a loan. we will let you fail. that is basically what happened. look at bear stearns, which made a lot of bad decisions in the housing market. the fed said, we will deal with the equity holders and creditors and help them out. we will not help out lehman brothers. they are not around anymore. it is a bailout when you pick winners and l

there are people losing their homes. and i cannot see, if somebody is losing his or her house, there will not cooperate with documentation. that is their house. that is the part i do not quite understand. >> a couple of examples might help. there are a lot of customers in fear of losing their home. we are doing everything we can to make sure that does not happen. documents that are troublesome -- the hamp program does require a tax return. that conjures up fears that it will trigger an irs audit. those fears are real. the hamp modification agreement itself is an intimidating- looking piece of paper. it is five pages, single spaced, and intimidating process that people are reluctant or fearful of what else might happen here. i do not think it is the communication between servers are an homeowner that is at issue. i do not think there are additional things you should and can do. this is a matter of working very diligently and very hard with every single customer to make sure that disclosure -- that foreclosure does not hap

in some cases, parents have enough money to pay the teacher if they don't want to lose ms.ones who's been the favorite art teacher for 30 years. >> brown: that leads me to another question because a lot of people wonder this. when budget cuts come is it programs hit first, is it afterschool programs, you just mentioned the arts teacher. arts, music, is it sports or personnel or both? >> some sports will be trimmed. if you have a club team in golf, you might take that off. often they will cut afterschool and particularly summer school. summer school is being cut in a lot of plays and that's a real problem, particularly in inner city schools where we know that summer learning loss is a huge factor in student achievement. so that's a real blow if they do that. most of the time the smartest districts just raise class size slightly and that doesn't appear to affect achievement very much. >> brown: in a place like california which we mentioned as particularly bad, is it more than just raising a few kids... the class size a bit or what are they looking senate. >> that seems to var

will he admit that there are families on a joint income of 30,000 pounns who will lose all their taxdits? >> the point that the honorable lady has got to address is who left us in this mess. who left a budget deficit of 155 billion pounds, with absooutely no proposals to deal with it? who put forward -- [unintelligible] >> order, order. i apologize for interrupting the prime minister. this level of barracking is unacceptable, and i can tell the house that it is detested by the electorate. it must stop. prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. who put forward 50 billion pounds of cuts, without outlining a single penny piece? the whole country can see what is happening here. one party put us into this mess. two parties are working together to get us out of it. >> harriet harman. >> i think that what the electorate detest is broken promises, and people will want to know how his budget will affect them. he was not straight with pensioners. he was not straight with families. he was not straight on vat. when the chancellor got up to present his budget, he proclaimed, "i am not going to h

time and we not lose focus during a transitional period. it was evident there was only one officer who was in the position to move in with hardly a missed a beat and take on this campaign. the president has established the strategy. from my perspective, general petraeus will have the flexibility to look at the campaign plan, the approach, and all manner of things. >> the only thing i would add is bench strength is something that a lot of attention to. when you look at the number of general officers who have now commanded in combat over the course of the last several years, it is much deeper and stronger than it was. i think it has a very positive strength in the future. >> you both know that some troops in afghanistan are concerned with the rules of engagement, feel they are out there with one hand tied behind their back given the rules of engagement on the ground and in the air. are you satisfied that those rules should stay in place? should petraeus have the flexibility to change them? >> any new commander, petraeus included, will go in,

don't lose the jobs. don't lose the industrial base. don't increase the costs for our military and let us move forward in an organized, rational approach rather than this helter skelter idea that takes place at a particular time. mr. olson: one thing i was concerned about as my colleague knows the fact that this administration is making nasa a partisan issue in many ways. i'm not sure who proposed this budget or who put it together, but they did not -- it seems like a small group of individuals at the white house over at o.m.b. who made these decisions to have dramatic impacts for our nation. i don't think they talked to any of the defense contractors, particularly the ones that develop the missiles for our strategic nuclear did he ter ants. . . i represent dejohnson space center. we asked, did you find out, pete, i found out about it when you did, i read the paper yesterday. that's another point. congress has the oversight. we're the power of the purse. i'm not aware of any outreach from the administration to any member of congress pri

foreclosure is a losing proposition for everyone involved. the homeowner loses a house. the bank loses a big chunk of its investment. the community loses a family with a stake in the community. what i'm asking the banks to do is to help us find an effective way to stop these foreclosures. i want to thank our witnesses today for appearing and i look forward to your testimony. i now yield five minutes to the committee ranking member. let me just say this before we move on. we are going to get five additional minutes on each side. after york opening statement, 5 minutes on the democratic side and five minutes on the republican side. that can be split up as many ways as you want to. you have five minutes. mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding today's hearing for examining the administration's continuing failure to respond to the foreclosure crisis. the committee will not hear from the treasury today. since the last hearing on hamp three months ago, treasury has continued the pattern of secrecy, dishonesty,. and. -- dishonesty, and failure. it misrepre

. >> now, was it unusual to lose a staffer? >> i've had staffers come and go like a revolving door. >> i'm the poster child for the revolving door. >> the revolving door between government ann k street is an essential part of the washington game. >> there's a law that states you're not allowed to lobby your around the one-year ban and then i just flat out violated it. . signup for our scheduler e-mails @ c-span 2 or -- at c-span.org. >> white is interesting about what happened over the last 13 years is that elections used to be determined by a few officials in the home office. now they spend millions of pounds every yeer and employs dozens of people, hold huge and greg reviews, spends gobs of money on advertising. >> from london's, the prime minister's questioos from the british house of commons. this week, david cameron feel the questions on election reform. the prime minister also responded to calls for tougher gun restrictions. in the wake of the recent mass murder of 12 people in northwestern england. prior to this week's q

if we do not change quickly, we're going to lose a war we cannot afford to lose. do i think that we can win? yes, america can win. if america loses, it is a nightmare that none of us will be a will to bear for long. the july 2011 policy is confusing. it undercuts the war effort. it empowers our enemy. it confuses our friends and i think it needs to be re- evaluated. general petreaus said in our hearing that he believed he had the ability to go to the president in july 2011 or earlier and say, mr. president, think that -- things are such its troops. he told us he felt like he had the ability to make that recommendation. my question for the country is, will the president listened to the recommendation? i would urge the president to keep on the table the ability to hear the general out and that the general recommended we cannot withdraw, keep that as an option. but the president says, no matter what general petreaus may recommend, we're going to leave in july 2011, we will lose this war. >> you did not use the same words. there's frustration with the civilian leaders

they lose jobs or their income goes down. but they were really the banking system and not just the banking system but all the mortgage lender that were not even bank the shadow banking system that we call it. they really stopped sticking the standards that had been around for decades for. hundreds of years off good banking and that's why this all happened. congress did play a role by pushing them to make more loans but still, it >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," colin bradford on the g-8 summit currently under way. kevin taryn talks about general david betray as who has been picked to command troops in afghanistan. and recent poll question that citizens from 22 nations about their attitudes towards president obama. we will talk to richard whike. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, senate leaders harry reid and mitch mcconnell talk about unemployment benefits. then a house oversight committee on preventing mortgage foreclosures. and a panel at the center of progress discusses how insurance

host: 1 the were said he should lose one star. what does that mean? caller: that is a loss of pay great. host: is that a big deal? caller: it is a pretty big deal, especially at the rank of general. you are talking about 10 years to get a star. that would be 10 years of his career that he would be set back. host: charles on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: we do not even know what this man said the second time around. people are trying to compare him with truman and lyinccln. that is ridiculous. at least they called the enemy by name and they delegated that they wanted to win a war. this man has not shown me that he wants to win a war. i feel sorry for our service men. it's my understanding that they get orders from their platoon sergeant when they go on a raid. they also have a lawyer that tells them what they can and cannot do. to win a war that the way -- we would have never won world war i aoor world war ii under this man's direction. with truman in japan -- you do not win a war this way. ho

people are losing their homes. cannot see that a person using their house is not going to cooperate with documentation. they are asking for help. that is what i do not quite understand. >> there is a lot going on when a customer is in fear of losing their home. a couple of the documents that were troubles some is that the h.a.m.p. program requires tax returns. that enhances fear. it is a very scary process. people are reluctant and fearful. what else might happen? it is not the communication between the servicer and home owner. this is a matter of working very diligently to make sure for closure does not happen. >> mr. jordan. >> i believe h.a.m.p. has actually harm families. it has derailed private-sector efforts to help. it is not a failure to help. it also causes harm to the very people they are trying to provide help to. i have 900,004 cities and 846,004 j.p. morgan. 900,000 modifications you have made. >> since 2007, we have helped 900,000 homeowners. recently, we offered h.a.m.p. to 50,000 customers. >> a sma

what does it is a if blanche hundred con loses here?>> i think the most important thing it is as is that labor has really flexed its muscles in arkansas. certainly there is an anti-incumbent issue involved in this. and an insider-outsider. but as amy said it is the outside influence of the labor unions in particular in some progressive groups. i mean labor has put close to $9 million into this state, into this race s away way to send a message. and when bill clinton, former president, went down to campaign for blanche lincoln he said that the labor unions are trying to make an example of her. which is exactly what they are trying to do. they are trying to show that those democrats who don't advance the issues that they want and in their estimation aren't working for average working families, ought to pay a price. and they're trying to make an example of blanche lincoln in this campaign. >> woodruff: dan let's pick up on this outsider theme and talk about california. you have got two races for the senate and for governor, both instances

we may wind up losing it all. >> "washington journal" continues. host: simon lomax a bloomberg bloomberg news, the president last night talked about now is the time. last night your web site had this headline that the climate bill lacked momentum. where does it stand now? guest: one year ago the house of representatives passed an economy white cap and trade bill. cap and trade is a policy in which you try to limit greenhouse gases from power plants and refineries. the legislation basically slow down in the senate last year. senators kerry and lieberman had been waiting to try to revamp the legislation and build a basis for new support in the hope that it could get past this year. going into the speech last night a number of senate democrats that we spoke to said thee were not convinced that the oil spill in the gulf of mexico had put enough momentum behind some sort of legislation to regulate greenhouse gases. what will happen this week in the senate is they will get together and discuss not so much whether or not to do an energy bill, not whether

. >> now, was it unusual to lose a staffer? >> i've had staafers come and go like a revolving door. >> i'm the poster child for the revolving door. >> the revolving door betteen government and k street is an essential part of the washington game. you're not allowed to lobby your former bosses, and i tiptoed around the one-year ban and then i just flat out . ú? >> what's interesting about what happened over the last 30 years is elections used to be determined by a few. we now have the vast electoral commission spending billions of pounds every year, employing dozens of people on huge reviews, spends far too much on advertising, and then -- [cheers] >> now from london, prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. this week british prime minister david cameron fielded questions on election reform and the british mission in iraq and afghanistan. the rime minister also responded to calls of tougher cannot ricks in the wake of the recent mass murder in west cumb the house observed a moment of silence to the victims.

we will lose somewhere between 5007 thousand educators between last year and this year.talking doesn't do it. -- we will is somewhere between 5007 thousand educators between last year and this year. this has to be a priority -- we will lose somewhere between 5000 and 7000 educators between last year and this year. >> you say low-cost power is critical. you mentioned alternative energy and conservation as part of your plan. he did not mention nuclear energy. given that half of the south carolina energy comes from nuclear power plants, i think we have four, are you in favor of expanding our use of nuclear energy? >> i am. i voted against the budget for south carolina this year that was passed today. that is one reason i stayed. it was important for us to vote against that and i apologize i was late. i support increasing opportunities for nuclear power. we have a good track record. it is important that we pressure the federal government to find out where the waste will go. >> nuclear power is a mediumm term after prolonged term, we need to work on their renewal bills that w

you have people losing their jobs. you have to improve this system and you have to move right now. >> her time has expired. the chair makes a request that3 questions, for the record. and without objection, so ordered. this has been a very historic hearing, we are in a very historic time. this is the single worst environmental disaster in the history of this country. the american people want to know how this happened, and why the response is so inadequate, and what we are going to have to do to make certain that this never happens again. that is why the attention of the american people is riveted on this issue, and you gentleman, who are the ceos of the largest oil companies in this country. you said that you are not -- you cannot deal with these sorts of oil spills. with all the billions of dollars that you make, you apparently pannot afford the experts who can tell you, collectively, that walruses and seals do not live in the gulf of mexico, and also those who cannot stop this oil leak. bp has 47 leases, and exxon mob

we cannot afford to lose the majority. we just cannot.taring at the fake tan for the next two years will not do it for me. >> not so beautiful on the speaker of the house. >> we have to be willing to lose a couple of seats. not the majority, but a couple. we have to win those seats in lose some incumbents but when some progressives. there are districts where there are real progress as running who have a shot. a balanced tally. the second is disrupting the existing rotation. we need to make this election a referendum on corporate control. not on tea party politics. changing the national conversation. it is a victory if we are prepared after this election. that sounds silly, but out of the gate, in 2009, how long have we been prepared to have an energy policy in this country? it was a surprise that they were taking up energy legislation and we had no position on it. we cannot afford to make the same mistake in 2011 when it comes to the economy and corporate reform. we have to let this legislative platforms ready. of districts that progressi

so with that arrange, the taxpayers to lose. for years they got a fourth or 3/8 lower mortgage, which was very googe, but we may end up paying a lot of that back. >> you talked about some of the the bill, and i want to focus on one that has goten attention. one is a provision by senator blanche lincoln, which could move the swaps desk outside of the business. what are your thoughts on that? >> they would have to move them to an exchange, and the exchange are operateded by the four largest corporations in america, financial firms. they basically control that business. so you would move them into what is almost a monopoly right now before you could have a company -- say john deere.. they could executt another agreement with a private party. i don't see any problem with them doing that. john deere, caterpillar, ford, i.b.m., you name it, every large company, they hedged on their exposure. the airlines hedge it on aviation fuel. a lot of your international companies that do business overseas, they have currency hedges. i don't see w

we will lose the estuaries.even begin to say the problems we will have. >> i cannot wait until august. i cannot wait until august. dredge, dredge. we need to dredge now. >> dredgebabydredger.com is the website. it is imperative that we get out there and dredged the barrier islands. $350 million is a drop in the bucket when you talk about the type of destruction that could happen. this could affect our way of life and the city of new orleans. thank you for coming out. thank you for being with us. you are listening to the mighty 690. i am with you until 3:00 this afternoon. i would like to thank those of us -- those of you watching us on c-span. we will be back after this. ♪ >> d want to move that shares a you can get comfortable? how are you today? >> good. i will go to the phone lines in a little while. i want you to spread the word on what is happening in louisiana restaurants. let people know how you are -- how the fisheries are going out and making sure that every area in which seafood is harvested in louisia

. >> when did she lose her hearing?ridine very young, when she was 2 years old. >> was the her home? >> she is a single mother and she lives down the street from me and so i see are a lot. they are in challenging circumstances. she is single, a death mother, she adores her daughter and understands that education is the key to our daughter success, like all the families had sought. she does her best to provide her daughter a better school than that was being offered in her district. >> what did she do for a living? >> she does not work right now. >> and that little kid, i've seen the whole documentary, she does a lot of signing. >> she was very helpful. it is not been a year. >> how much shooting did you have to do with each family? >> we saw last year from february to may. the idea was to get to know the families and their lives in their circumstances and their dreams. in the months leading up to the lottery, but the lottery being the climactic event that brings all these disparate people together. and it very, the amou

if you do, then death loses its terror. it's part of life. >> we're back.on that channel june 28. kevorki kevorkian's attorney. we remember him well. welcome back to the show. how long have you represented kevorkian? >> about 16 years. >> were you involved in the documentary? >> yes, i was, very much so. in fact, i originally discussed with steve jones who did the documentary and signed the contracts. >> is it balanced? >> i think so. very much so because the documentary, really, is true to light. it shows dr. kevorkian from the time after prison till today. it shows what he was doing, his run for congress. >> what did you think of the movie, "you don't know jack?" >> i liked it. i helped in the scripting of it, helped in the filming, the staging. i thought it was very, very good. al pacino was grade. we had spent quite a bit of time with pacino. >> i know. he told me. what was it like, jack, to see someone play you? >> i was in the car with neil nicole, my friend. he was sifting through photos he took off the internet or someone had sent him or something.

they were put away without losing a penny and had a profit for the taxpayer.we moved away from the extraordinary steps we took in the crisis. i view each step as a step toward a more more normal policy. >> six months ago, people were betting that you would raise the rates and now people are betting at the end of the year or towards the beginning of next year. do you think the criteria you outlined helps? >> my colleague used to read the paper and try to predict? [laughter] >> several questions have been raised and people have said to abolish the fed. ron paul was one of the early ones. what would happen if in fact we abolish the federal reserve system? >> that would make us the only country in the world without a central bank. the question would be what would you put in place? >> i would let the money grow at about 3% at the rate of the increase in population. >> there are serious alternatives. milton friedman gave that particular idea and there is a gold standard and other things. i don't know if i can test your patience but for various reasons, my own resear

teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. families will pay more for their first home. all we ask for is a simple up or down vote. that's what the american people deserve. just like they deserve an up or would hold oil companies accountable for the disasters they cause a vote that is also being blocked by the republican leadership in the senate. right now, the law places a $75 million cap on the amount oil companies must pay to families and small businesses who suffer economic losses as a result of a spill like the one we're witnessing in the gulf coast. we should remove that cap. but the republican leadership won't even allow a debate or a vote. and as we speak today, 136 men and women who i've nominated for key positions in the federal government are awaiting a vote on the floor of the senate. all are highly qualified. very few are controversial. the vast majority already have support from both parties. but most of them are seeing their nominations intentionally delayed by republican leaders, or even blocked altogether. they cannot get a vote. what this means is that,

they will not have as many seats after november, whether they lose control of the house or lose several seats in the senate. this is the last gap of their political capital right now. after the august recess, they will be focused on reelection. very little what did -- will get done. they're mapping out their political capital right now. your attitude is, let's get as it is one of those weird canards that happened during the health care debate. most of them were actually tax bills. the republican congress and the omnibus beijinbudget. this does not hold span in the long water of history. >> what you're calling the dems passing whatever they want -- they cannot do that until they get rid of the 60-vote rule. they have momentum. rahm emanuel has encapsulated a political maxim more succinctly than anybody before him. this is done by administrations and politicians of both stripes. i think back to president bush trying to pass -- introducing his energy bill amid the california energy crisis, saying, we need to do this because of the california energy crisis. even more suddenly -- substantive

that you can lose economic growth and on average, history tells us you can lose one percentage point a full third, congressional budget office is expecting 3% economic growth, it could be 2%. the united states gross debt is now at 89% of g.d.p. and the american people now know it's either youcut or your children may one day face bankruptcy. spending is out of control. our children are facing a future with fewer jobs, shrinking paychecks, smaller homes, an american dream that is constricted and diminished. we are on the verge of being the first generation in america's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. just this morning, on the budget committee, chairman bernanke said that it is important that the congress act today on the government sponsored enterprise. it's important that the government act today on enacting a budget. it's important that the government act today to reduce the national debt that has an impact on economic growth in jobs today. but we have no plan, at least listening to the gentleman from colorado. if we had a plan to deal with the g

your office will lose the capacity restructure programs, or deal with the programs. i will be very glad to see tarp end, but i realize that the time is running out to make sure that we have used the money to assure the stability of our financial system. time is also running out to make sure that tarp money is used to help families and small businesses the way it was so quickly used to bail out wall street. counterparts on the penultimate opening remarks. mr. mcwatters. >> thank you, elizabeth warren. it is my hope that secretary timothy geithner will assist the panel in addressing a number of significant questions, inccuding the contemplation of the application of additional tarp funds to new programs, or the application of additional tarp funds to existing programs? will they be applied to any financial or non-financial institutions such as aig, gm, chrysler, or anc? will the investors received dividends in cash? what is the exit strategy with respect to these institutions as well as the other tarp recipients? has tarp enshrined into our law of the concept of too bi

we are losing them in ninth grade. we need to look at what is happening in eighth grade.e need to the vocational programs in ninth grade and strengthen our technical schools. they are not getting the funding they need. we need to hold institution of higher learning accountable. right now funding is happening based on the number of lobbyists in the state house. that is not how we need to be working. if you look at the funding they get, it is not violence. we need to make sure they strengthen the schools so we are helping small businesses and recruiting for the state. >> you talk about technical schools not being funded correctly. we know thhir budgets have been cut by nearly 50%. you were part of the legislature that allow that to happen. do you bear some of the responsibility for that? >> as governor, i would show the importance of why we need to strengthen that. yesterday when we dealt with the vetoes, those were three i over road. that strengthens jobs. that will help our unemployment rate, so i stand by making sure technical schools are strong. >> we have the same ques

we are losing about an acre every 38 minutes. don samples stumbled upon this grass and researched it. he found out that this could be a short-term answer. we do not have enough time to open up the mississippi river and allow the natural hydraulics. we have less than 10 years to build a plant and plant this crest to hold the soil together. we need a fast-growing plant. right after katrina, don samples was a champion for this grass. >> from what i understand, you have been in contact with the parish president. he is aware of the grass and the uses and its ability to withstand the hydrocarbons and the inundation of oil and the ability for this grass to grow very quickly to hold a land mass that we would build along louisiana coastline in place. >> i met with billy a couple times. if the first time i met with him was about three months ago. it was about two months before this incident. billy knew about it. he is on top of things. he is really doing his homework. we were talking about putting the root system down to preserve the levie

we will be trying to recap some of the money we lose every year.ut in terms of the big reforms i'm talking about, i think washington is scared of doing it. and i'm not sure how to get congress and the executive to pay attention to the real savings around opportunities that are in reform packages, and i'm not getting a lot of investigation -- invitations to lay this one out. that's why i'm on c-span, because i realize you reach a certain amount of policy makers. will will by cutting the contracting work for us, we will talk about that after columbian kentucky karl on the rep can line. go ahead. caller: hello. i m am a veteran have fete i'm also a retired registered nurse by the way. i have also noticed, just as a patient, the amount of management within the v.a. system as opposed to actual health care workers, and i agree with you on the amount of management that it's simply unnecessary and confuses everyone within the administration. and actually hinders health care. in addition, i also, on a different note, but also pertaining to bureaucratic spen

i do not want to see anybody losing their job, but we are losing lots of jobs in the private sector. we have lost over 7.5 million jobs since 2006. vice-president biden said a few days ago those 8 million jobs that we have lost are not coming back. i think that is the wrong mindset. we have to do what we can to help the private sector create jobs. that means less tax burden, less obligation. i spoke to some people in my area at home of a few weeks ago and they have no idea what is coming down the road. they are concerned about taxes, what health care is going to do to them. they do not want to hire more people that they will just have to turn around and play golf. the uncertainty is gripping the country. host: angela in maryland. caller: i am not necessarily for the war, but if you are going to have a war, joe biden recommended a strategy -- i cannot say this to accurately -- but a smaller counter terrorism type of group. let them come back into afghanistan, find out where they are setting up, and attack them that way. right now, they are all over the place. we need to get them back

have we will -- we have to be willing to lose a couple of seats. we have to win seats in contested districts. those are purple, republican districts where there are real progressives running who have a shot. we need a balanced tally. the second is disrupting the existing conversation. i talked about that. we need to make this a referendum on corporate control, not on two-party politics and not on obama overreach. we need to change the national conversation. the third one is a victory if we do not [unintelligible] out of the gate, in 2009, how long have we been prepared to have an honest to god energy policy in this country? yet, it was like a surprise that they were taking up energy legislation and we had no progressive position on it. we cannot afford to make that mistake in 2011 when it comes to the economy and when it comes to corporate reform. we need a legislative platform that is prepared. i want to interject on the notion of -- >> i want to interject on the notion of progress since and where they can win -- on progressives and where they can

if you cannot, do you not lose? >> i would refer to them not as usurpers, but rather as founders of new lines in the french dynasty. [laughter] [crosstalk] >> that is very creative, but we're bound by the facts as told by william shakespeare. pepin and ugh capet or both usurpers. those are the facts. >> with regard to the former two kings, they laid claim to the throne through female ancestors. they made much of those claims to justify -- >> that was an ad hoc rationalization, designed to justify the usurpation, was it not? but it is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight -- >> it is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. >> ad hoc is always with the benefit of hindsight. >> touche as my french colleagues might say. [laughter] the french never saw to apply that alex law in a succession until ttey saw -- the phallic law until they saw to get rid of henry's ancestor. there's a foundational body of law for the french. it is a fairly random body of six century law which the french took from above to barbarians wh

while it's difficult to divert from the here and now, we cannot lose sight of the need to help shape the country's future energy and climate policy. b.p. is committed to working with the congress and a broad cross section of energy consumers and other stakeholders to address the challenges of climate change and the context of increasing u.s. energy demand. we appreciate the opportunity to share our views on energy and climate policy. as well as a chance to discuss the major role of natural gas, that is can play in needing emission reductions in the power sector, delivering the greatest reductions at the lowest cost for consumers using technology that is available today. b.p. has advocated for uite some time an all or above approach in tackling climate changes. in meeting the nation's growing need for energy. we support policies that encourage conservation. energy efficiency and greater production of domestic energy including alternatives oil aad gas and nuclear. our views on climate policy flow from the fact a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon whether it comes out of a tailpipe or smo

your office will lose the capacity restructure programs, or deal with the programs. i will be very glad to see tarp end, but i realize that the time is running out to make sure that we have used the money to assure the stability of our financial system. time is also running out to make sure that tarp money is used to help families and small businesses the way it was so quickly used to bail out wall street. counterparts on the penultimate opening remarks. mr. mcwatters. >> thank you, elizabeth warren. it is my hope that secretary timothy geithner will assist the panel in addressing a number of significant questions, including the contemplation of the application of additional tarp funds to new programs, or the application of additional tarp funds to existing programs? will they be applied to any financial or non-financial institutions such as aig, gm, chrysler, or anc? will the investors received dividends in cash? what is the exit strategy with respect to these institutions as well as the other tarp recipients? has tarp enshrined into our law of the concept of too bi