quarter. later, the borders agriculture reporter charles abbott discusses federal farm subsidy programs and how 0 growers could be affected if those programs are cut. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning and welcome. monday, october 10, 2011. it is columbus day, which means congress is not in session and the federal government is on holiday. the president will go to walter reed national military medical center in maryland today? , where he will visit wounded service members. his jobs bill faces a vote in the senate tomorrow. we would like to hear what you think about one element of it, protecting the unemployed from being discriminated against when they look for job. if you like the way on this,

here are the numbers to call. if you are unemployed, 202- 628-0124. you can send us an e-mail or tweet, or find us on facebook. what you think about the idea of protecting the unemployed from bais when they go looking for job -- from bias. selena katia found a temporary job at a delivery company that master qualifications. but the 55-year-old from cleveland said the reporter from the employment agency if told her she would not be considered for the job since she had been out of work too long.

do you think this is necessary? have you experienced discrimination? let's look at what is happening with the jobs bill. that will be up for votes in the senate tomorrow. the senate looks at taking up that legislation. it has been nearly two weeks

since president obama urged a crowd of supporters in denver to turn up the heat on lawmakers in washington to pass the $447 -- $447 billion jobs bill. let's go to the phones call. and from west palm beach, democrats line, richard, good morning. caller: good morning. why do they give the president sent a hard time to pass a jobs bill? i have been out of work five years. i cannot find a job. host: do you feel like the fact that you don't have a job makes it harder for you to get a job? have employers look at you more critically because you don't currently have a job?

.aller: yes they looked at me like you have never had a job for a while, why should we hire you? like i am a misfit. the job bill would help because i could find a job. i could do construction. i do construction. host: should there be a law against discriminating against those who do not have a job when they go into find employment? has a piece's wire called "will giving the unemployed legal protection get people hired?" jon huntsman says this as the president's 34 alternative solutions to get people back to work. -- john hudson.

let's look at the chicago tribune.

let's go to the phones different tony calling us from new jersey on the republican line. >> good morning. i am calling with regard to the dogs bill. -- the jobs bill. i don't know how the president says this could make jobs right away. building bridges and building schools and building roads.

before this can take place you need plans and a design. the epa would get involved. how long would it take to create these jobs before the environment or whatever and conservation group would get involved? i don't understand how this could create jobs right away. host: let's talk about the idea againstriminating peopl unemployed people. >> caller: they should not be looked down upon. they're not should be a law. if someone wants to hire someone, they can, but not to impose that the government could step in and say you have to interview these people for the job. the government is getting involved in everything we do in this country today. it is absolutely ridiculous.

host: dover, delaware, brandon on our independent line. caller: good morning. i do believe that people that do not have jobs are discriminated against. it is backwards because you get strange looks and funny comments if you tell people you don't have a job. it is backboards. just like it takes money to make money, it is better to have a job when you go look for another job. i think they are also giving jobs to the wrong people as far as illegal immigrants, they are not paying enough for jobs because people are willing to take lower pay. so someone like me, i don't want to work for less than my worth. i have to and i will to a certain extent, but a lot of people back have been to college and people can have skills, they don't want to work for $5 or $7

an hour. we cannot live off of that. i cannot even pay my rent. i could work 40 hours a week and i still don't have enough to pay my rent and my bills. it should not be like that in america. there is no way whatsoever person should have to go to work a full week and still not able to pay their bills. host: let's get a comment on twitter. let's hear from bill, democrats line in princeton, indiana. caller: i have a couple comments about this. the first thing is people have to understand that republicans are not the point to give us nothing, absolutely nothing. i am retired and i feel so sorry

and for the people that don't have a job, because i can remember several times if i would get laid off and how humiliating that was to be able to work and not able to find a job. you have to realize -- they say give us tax breaks. they have had tax breaks 10 years or longer and they still have not gotten any jobs. where are the jobs, republicans? host: what about the idea of protecting the unemployed from being discriminated against? what you think about someone is unemployed, should an employer have the right to say i am not interested in hiring you? caller: if they are qualified for the job, i don't see why they should not hire them. i think the jobs bill ought to pass for the simple reason the people have to be retrained. that ought to be the main thing.

host: we are looking at whether or not you think employers should be allowed to discriminate against someone because they have been unemployed too long. now this comment on twitter. let's hear from andrew, a republican in concord, new hampshire.

caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i appreciate your program very much and have watched for years. my answer to your question as to the unemployed bias coming into the decision to hire a worker, i don't think there is one answer to fit all. many people are let go for the purpose of being able to collect unemployment when the real reason is they were not doing their job. should not mandate that prospective employers hire the inept. how are you going to decide who lost their jobs because there were not doing a very good job? they cannot get a job because

there prior employment history shows them not to be a very good worker. at the same time to require that a baby hired, that does not fit. taking a step back from that situation, is a much larger question. there are many qualified exemplary employees or prospective employees that would qualify for the job. someone in human services someplace is just making a quick decision of the easiest way to avoid the whole problem and not have to go for the workers, distinguishing between a person in a tough spot and an inept person that lost their jobs for good reason, the easiest thing to do is not higher or even interview anybody that's has been out of a job has been out of a job a long time. host: given the pros and cons,

do you think this is a good idea? caller: it is a lousy idea to put the federal government in charge of those things, especially you are going to have a federal employee or state employees or government employees deciding who should be hired by a private company. that does not seem like a good idea. host: this comment on twitter -- let's go to elk grove, illinois, larry on the independent mind. caller: good morning. i am a liberal conservative for progressed. i think the main issue is i have been on both sides applying for jobs and have been in lower and middle management where i have had to hire people.

someone that is hiring someone needs to hire the best person for the job. the government should not be involved in influencing with money. there are proposals out there to offer companies money to hire the unemployed and vs an employed person, even money to hire a returning veteran against person who has been here working in the country or unemployed in the country and for years and maybe needs a job just as bad. i don't think that should play a part. i know that will been looked upon negatively from a lot of people, but you need to hire the person that is best for the job. there are lot of reasons people look at the unemployed versus the employed. unemployed, olongapo? if somebody can explain the reason they have been unemployed for so long. -- unemployed, for how long?

\ this bill would punish people who took a job for a short time or took a lesser job. that does not seem fair. the person who is hiring for company, his job is to hire the best person for that company. that includes skill, consistency, reliability. another reason people might hire somebody who is employed over unemployed might be that person will be more committed to the job because they're willing to leave another job to come and work for you. the person who leaves that job to come and work for you is creating another job that is open for another person to get employed as well. so i think this is another

ploy. the administration doesn't think to increase their voting base. host: ellen on twitter -- helen. you can also join the conversation on facebook. here's what susan has to say. let's go to fairmont, minnesota. betty on our independent line. caller: i am so involved in what you are talking about today because i picked up my newspaper and it was the same article that you were talking about on c-span. your voice is getting out pretty

well. what i wanted to say about this discrimination business, i think that government should stay out of it. they should let the employer decides for himself exactly where this person is coming from and what their qualifications are from the last job that they had and at least give them a chance to prove themselves before they do anything else. i don't understand the one question there where they say that they have to -- they don't want to hire them because of -- because they did not have a job. i am 83. and it is early in the morning, so i am a little tired. the other question that has been bothering me for a long time and i never have been able to get in was the fact that why is

there not someone out there bring back manufacturing companies his country to make more work for people? i just don't understand that. give them a tax break or whatever it is to give them an opportunity to come back here so people do have more jobs. manufacturing is great for jobs. i worked all kinds of jobs since i was 12 years old. i cannot believe that we do no -- get our manufacturing back in this country. i would like an answer to that. thank you. host: that article is from the washington post and has been picked up by the associated press. "unemployed seek protection." a 54-year-old woman said a job

recruiter told her she would not be considered for a temporary job at fedex because she had been out too long. the company and the agency denied her allegations. going on to read some of this article, it says the effort to protect the unemployed has drawn praise from workers' rights advocates -- let's go to columbus, nebraska. carmelo joins us on the republican line. caller: good morning.

thank you for giving me this opportunity, because i am one of those persons that i always want to share the feelings i have been sides when it comes to jobs. i have been in a lot of situations when it comes to hiring. a lot of people give you the runaround in order for you to get a job. get me tell you something. i came to this country 31 years ago. people from the caribbean, we always leave our money in the united states because we really love the democracy and we love the way the country is. if you go to new york city, it is very hard to find an american

citizen being hired. they are only hiring illegal immigrants. host: what you think about the issue we are talking about today. is it harder to find a job when you are unemployed? do employers discriminate against tax? caller: is. -- it is. they are discriminating against americans. they don't tire american citizens. they don't hire the people that really spend money in this country. they only hire people that spend money out of this country. host: let's look at some examples. this is from the atlantic wire. some ads on web sites that advertise looking for someone who already has a job. you can see some examples here.

these are some examples of ads asking for all the applicants who have a job. akron, ohio, john on the democrats' line. caller: i want to talk about obama. i really agree with the tax thing for jobs, because it takes money to create jobs out there. i don't know why the republicans and everyone else does not realize that. he has been a good president. he took care of the wars pretty well and now he's trying to create jobs. we need to get this money is soon through. i would vote for him again

because he is trying to make great improvements. host: what you think about the issue of whether employers should able to not hire someone who does not have a job already? should an employer say that i am not interested in hiring you because you don't have a job? caller: they should give people a chance for the job, because it is not fair to treat people like that when people are having a hard time getting jobs out there. especially the economy being so bad and everything. and everybody needs to give obama a break because he's doing the best pecan to keep things going in this country. host:joe, independent caller in new york. caller: if this does not demonstrate that this administration is out of ideas, nothing does. the next thing you know he will be proposing a bill that you

cannot discriminate against employed people collecting unemployment. why should they be collecting check one unemployed people are collecting a check? anybody sending our jobs overseas, you should put their taxes very high. anybody that creates a job here for american workers, manufacturing, like the caller from minnesota said, they should get a tax break. that's how to use taxes to increase outcomes. raise taxes if they are sending them overseas and lower taxes if they are creating jobs for americans. we are desperate. we need jobs. host: derek writes on facebook -- don byrd on the democrats' line in baltimore. go ahead.

roberta on the democrats' line. caller: there used to be a program in the 1970's which we need to bring back. that will teats the underemployed how to do manual labor, some of them. we are always going to need somebody to look out for our bridges and r streets and to lay bricks, build buildings. that's what we should do. young people asking for jobs, teach them how to do a job, come in early, on time, and let that program again. thank you. host: joe writes on twitter -- and stephen from lincoln, rhode island on the independent caller line. caller: thanks for taking my

call and thanks to c-span. i watched constantly. you are terrific -- you look terrific as always. host: what you think about the idea of helping unemployed people from being discriminated against when they go for a job? caller: there are so many folks looking forward in rhode island, people cannot find work. i have had to recreate myself. i have four professional resumes. cook, machining, landscaping. i follow up on phone calls and i have been discriminated against. i see they are hiring people. i am 53 and have been working all my life. i would go to work today if i had a dog. i had a full-time job in 2008 as well as from a part-time job and i was a musician on the

weekends. i have been laid off four times and have had a company's move and close down. -- i would go to work today if i had a shot. it is discouraging for folks especially in my state. most people need unemployment if they cannot find a job and are actively looking. i think you should have the opportunity to collect unemployment until you can go to work. i am very optimistic and would like to keep on the job search. i would rather not give up. i don't think the federal government should get involved. i think it's up to the individual employer. if you have an active press a should at least give you a chance and try to train you. have a great day. host: jackie in dallas, tx. caller: yes, i think that law should be passed.

but the thing is, like most callers, i cannot hear you. host: we are listening. caller: the law should be passed. you are never going to be votes approve -- but you will never theble to aprove discrimination. they always give older caucasian women a chance. you will be discriminated against because you'll be the first ones to go and then they will not hire you because of your age. a lot of jobs they have liked in texas, all they have is hispanic people. people who are mechanics and whatever else, they are not able to get a job and they tell you we need somebody that will be aable because you don't show stable work history. if you have been in the recession since 2008 and it's

going on 2012, then you don't have a stable history. my point is it does happen, but only thing is you will not able to approve expect -- to prove it. host: if you are unemployed, give us a call their the topic is the president's jobs bill that would protect the unemployed from status bias and would limit employers' ability to say to someone i'm not interested in you because you don't have a job currently. wilmington, delaware, mike on the independent line. caller: good morning. you have to pass this law. the same reason affirmative action had to be passed. the hiring people were not doing what they were supposed to do, so we have to pass this law. it is not a fact of being unemployed looking for job. those jobs that you just listed, how do i know that job is not

filled by an illegal immigrant? you just have to patch up their. if i have a big company and i have illegal immigrants working in that company, like we had a chicken plant here, those jobs still have to be listed as open, because the government is going to say how do you have a 1000 person plant and only four people working? because you cannot have illegal immigrants. of beingthe fact discriminated against because you don't have a job. american citizens get discriminated against either way. i don't have a job now, but i have been discriminated for other reasons. i was working in the summer. host: if this law was passed,

and you think it would help in your job search? caller: no, because it's going to be another reason. city,let's go to kansas missouri, a democrat line. caller: i worked for of the division of security 30 years in missouri. i started in 1973 and have been retired a few years. this lot is long overdue. this particular issue has been going on for sure since 1978. thanks for your time. host: us go to comment on twitter. jim contacted us by e-mail. he is from greenville, south carolina.

jim does not this is the right solution. let's go to hindsville, alabama. billy, what this law help things? caller: i would hope so. i am not an excellent and sex offender with treatment and registered and everything. i worked at my last job at a paint plant and i was, on the bindery machine making magazines at the time being let's go along

with three others. it's because of nepotism. i have been out of work almost 14 years. i have an interview this morning for dishwashing. all the illegal immigrants are leaving the state because of a down here. it is tough out there. host: do you think this will help you? caller: i would hope so. host: longview, texas, independent caller, charles. caller: good morning. i think the jobs bill that they are getting ready to try to pass would be a good thing. i think the anti-discrimination act is also a good thing for the simple fact i've been out of work four years. i have a child that i am staying with, so we are saving on child care. he goes to school as well.

it seems to me that we have people in congress and in government right now that are trying to do their best to make it seem like people who have been out of work for as few times as i have been out of work, like we are the laziest people monarchs. we want to work. i want to work as hard as i can. every job that i have had, i worked my tail to the bone. since i did not take my unemployment like other people have, i feel i should be given a chance to get out there that and get another job. discriminates against someone at my age, i am 40 years old and lost my job when i was 36, it's just putting pressure on you really hard. host: when you go looking for jobs, are they not interested in

you because you don't have a job right now? >> they say i have been out of work too long. that is frustrating and it makes me want to start doing things illegal and that's not the way i will go, regardless. host: why did you not take unemployment benefits? caller: i thought i would get a job faster than what i have. rick perry said that he was a job creator. he has not created a job for me. host: let's look at a couple of news stories in the headlines today. there is this piece.

there's a story in the new york times. after recession. this shows the decline in real household income. it's fallen by about 10% since the start of the last recession, with a greater decline after the recession ended. you can look epigraphic showing the change in median household

incomes since the year 2000, adjusted for inflation. and "usa today"picks up on this. a couple of political stores in the news. joe mcginnis, the author wrote about sarah palin, "why i used unnamed sources." he defends his use of not naming

people that he spoke to for his book. the tea party turned attention to congressional races. this story is in borders, coming to us from "the baltimore sun." -- the story is from reuters. here's a story from the white house beat.

our question for you this morning: should there be a law against discriminating against those who don't have a job when they go in to find employment? can the employers hold that against them or not? let's hear from chris on the democrats lined in atlanta. caller: good morning. as far as discrimination goes and having a federal law, we're not even in thinking about the history of discrimination. if you leave it up to the view of the people, sometimes it does not get accomplished. i do believe there should be a law that makes employers not scrutinize people that have been unemployed. host: how do you think that would change things? caller: it would give them some incentive to basically look past people's employment and really it would influence -- it would affect the employer. if you leave it up to them,

things would go the way they have been. host: let's hear from scott calling us from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. we have temporary agencies that do that. around here you have to have two years' experience. another thing they like to do is offer you a job. then when you get there it's not the job that you are going to do. so i don't think the law will really do any good with any of that because they could still let you apply but not even look at yyour application. host: you are unemployed right now? yes, since 2008. host: how do you feel employers look at you? do you think they hold it

against you that united employed for awhile? caller: i don't really think they do. i think they understand, at least around here, the job market is really bad. but some of these other places don't. like i said, i don't think it would change anything. there's no way to regulate it. i don't think you can really regulate that. it is just unfortunate. it comes down to morals, i guess. some people will hire you because you have been unemployed for a while. and some people will not. host: vivian agrees with you on twitter. rosalie, independent caller in new haven, conn. caller: good morning.

there should be some sort of lock 2 -- law. my child has been out of work four years and recently got employed. she had insurance and he did not. he was a stay at home father while she worked. when he tried to go back to work -- during the time of course there credit card rating suffered, they had to feed the baby and pay the mortgage, so there credit card rating went down and that's another form of discrimination is to use credit card ratings as a means of not hiring somebody. he could not get a job. he has a lapse in employment because he was a stay home dads while his wife was working and then got a bad credit rating. >> what did eventually turn

things around for him? >> it was sort of mouth with a friend that he knew who got a job and they also needed someone with a cbo license, so he guided during hurricane season and they really needed someone in a hurry and my son had that license, which he kept up for years and was an excellent driver. there was no reason not to hire him except for credit card rating. i think it is horrific and there should be a law against discrimination. if you are interviewed by the company and then they want to use that when they find out the reason -- a reason not to marry

you, and that was a timid, that would be ok. but when they advertise that only employ people need to apply, that should be subject to discrimination. let's look at a couple other stories. also, in politics today, we will be bringing new from new hampshire the presidential candidate governor jon huntsman. he will be talking foreign- policy today from 11:00 p.m. through noon, coming from the southern new hampshire university. we will also be looking at mitt romney's campaign. mitt romney for president. he will be speaking at a town hall in new hampshire this evening starting at 5:30. that's part of our rope to the white house series on c-span. a couple other stores in the

news. 24 dead in rioting in cairo. the military has invoked a curfew to quell sectarian violence. and time is short for the euro zone. the u.k. prime minister raises pressure. the german leader and the french leader at a bilateral summit working out what to do. a last call for this segment is melissa, democratic caller in north carolina on the question of whether there should be a law that permits employers from discriminating against the unemployed. caller: i think that would not necessarily work well. we have so many laws on the books now that are not being enforced. i feel like they should just offer incentives to these companies to hire. they should treat it like they did welfare reform. they offer the company's money

to hire welfare mothers and they put them to work. that's all you have to do. offer the company and incentives, money, and they will hire them. host: one last comment on twitter. let's see if we can get this. coming up next, the proposed oil pipeline that would run from canada down to the gulf of mexico. we will hear two different perspectives on that. we will be right back.

>> it's a story in on a topic of your choosing. every good story has a strong ending. >> c-span2 studentcam competition. >> you don't need the best video equipment to have a winning project. toyou don't have access better video equipment, don't let that stop you. if you need a little more help, the website. process can be confusing at first, a c-span can help you.

the process becomes clear once you get started. >> another great thing about the documentary is you can work alone on the project or work as a team. if you are a good writer, but not very handy with a camera, get a friend to help. not only will you both learn something, but you will increase your chance of winning. >> he can use your parents, other students, teachers, and c- span as resources, along the way. this process is fun and extremely rewarding. with a little effort anyone can do this. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c-

span's website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaign, candidate bios and the latest polling data, and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states c-span.org. >> c-span radio is another way to keep up with politics and public affairs, offering a mix of the most collective events from the gary c-span television networks and exclusives like repairing accommodate news programs. 90.1 fm in washington. across the country on xm satellite radio, channel 119. and on iphone and blackberry applications. c-span radio, and other public service created off by the nation's cable television industry. and now in our 15th year.

>> washington journal continues. host: climate and energy project director with friends of the earth, damon moglen, thanks for being with us. cindy schild is for the american petroleum institute. >> good morning. host: talking about the proposed keystone xl pipeline that would run from canada all the way it to the gulf of mexico through the u.s. your organization is very supportive of this project. what is the top reason? guest: jobs and benefits for the american economy as well as consumers right now. host: damon moglen, there's a lot of opposition for a variety of reasons. what is the most difficult thing about this project? it goes through the united states, is that the drilling that's taking place? is an this product environmental disaster.

the situation in canada is it is damaging to the environment and a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. we have a situation in which the canadian company is proposing a long pipeline across the united states, across fragile environments and the aquifer that provides water to millions of people. a huge array of public health issues. host: what's the main economic argument for the pipeline? guest: unemployment rate is over 9%. this is the largest--- ready project that we have available. -- this is the largest shovel- ready project. obama is talking about wanting to help workers. 80,000 americans are employed to support the development of this in canada. we have the ability to increase

that. 20,000 jobs that the pipeline is committing and has labor agreements. it is being supported by the unions at large. they are ready for the ability to start work immediately on this project. host: we will get into the environmental issues in more detail. for now, what is your reaction to that drive for the economic benefits? guest: this is not about jobs. this is about profits for trans canada. the company wants to be able to move oil from canada to the gulf where it can refine the oil and then put it into the international markets. this is about producing oiil and getting it to markets for profit. the inflated jobs figures are numbers.by government membe

there's a new study from cornell that suggests the numbers are radically inflated and baseless in many ways. there's a situation in which we are talking about much smaller numbers for temporary jobs. these are not local jobs. in terms of construction, there's been a lot of talk about this giving industry a boost. the fact is the steel as a% of it already been constructed outside the u.s. that is not about u.s. jobs. it's about profits for transcanada. host: 250,000 permanent jobs, $100 billion in economic activity. is it you don't agree with those numbers. guest: it's not just me. the government's own numbers are far smaller.

there's a new cornell's study that says the numbers are extraordinarily inflated. that the methodology for generating them is very questionable. what we are talking about is a much smaller number of temporary jobs and not jobs for local people. the cornell study suggests that the pipeline could be a job killer. we have a situation in which a lot of this steel is being constructed outside the country. second, the likelihood that oil and gas prices in the midwest are going to increase significantly, driving down the numbers of jobs potentially kicks in the midwest. finally, we have all seen the extraordinary oil spills creates havoc for the environment, for public health, and for jobs. the cornell study suggests the pipeline project could kill more jobs than it would ultimately produce.

host: american petroleum institute, where did you see the most jobs created? guest: it has widespread impact. when you look at oil sands and what it does for the u.s. economy, already 2400 companies in 49 of our states that are impacted and they are working toward supporting this research. in regard to the cornell study, we can debate that for quite awhile as far as some of the claims there, qualifications of that study. the fact that you can say any project that is going through be created that is going to be built that is going to be starting from scratch, not requesting government funding by the way, this is all based on private investment, if it's going to be a job killer is ridiculous. there's not a single basis to take away jobs from americans. if that were the case, why have

we seen thousands of laborers coming out, thousands of union workers, coming out to support this project? there is a special agreement with the labor unions about their jobs and what is going to be created. they are behind this project. they said they would be behind us protect even if it were half the numbers. temporary or not, that is what they need right now. they need some impetus to start the economy. host: let's look at the map of the keystone pipeline. we remind you that there are numbers to call to weigh in on this. if you are in independent caller. we're talking about the proposed extension of the keystone pipeline that could run all the way through the united states. a state department is the agency overseeing this. it's interesting because it is international and runs through canada and the united states.

so they are looking at whether or not to approve the pipeline. the decision is expected by the end of the year, according to the new york times. st. joseph, missouri, david is on the republicans line. caller: good morning. i will try to keep a civil tone. the main reason our economics is in such turmoil is because of the people like the environmentalists that have done everything to destroy our independent sources of energy for their own gains for their so-called green projects that have been proven to be nothing but fraud from day one. you made the same claims about the alaska pipeline. garbage. we cannot build new refineries,

we cannot modernize refineries, we cannot drill with new technology that is more environmentally friendly, we're not even supposed to attack coal resources even though we have clean ways to do that now. host: let's get a response from our guest damon moglen. guest: i appreciate what the caller is saying about jobs. the job situation is dire in this country. what we must not do is think there's a conflict between jobs and clean energy, because there is not. in the u.s. we have produced 2.7 million jobs from clean energy. this is not about jobs or not. and it's not about energy or not. we can have both of those by making a commitment. a commitment to clean energy and tainting our paths will. what we see as the costs of pipelines like this are the kalamazoo oil spill and the bp

oil spill. that has to be factored into the cost as well. host: let's look at the reaction this proposal is getting. october 3, this was reported. why has there been such a debate

we have already done three years of environmental reviews. typically a project of this nature is 18-24 months. these recent hearings have been about a national interest. i can't you are really looking at a debate -- i think you are really in looking at a debate. getting oil from canada as opposed to the project in the pipeline. it is going to be the first project that will bring oil from canada 8 refining center in the gulf. in our -- to a refining center in the gulf. it is in the texas area states. where do you think it is going to be managed better? in the united states, canada?

canada has interests. $15 billion in the past few months alone. oil forecast is going to be part of our energy question -- equation for the next several decades. where are we looking at our energy future? host: what is your response to the argument better to do it in the u.s. than in other countries like canada? caller: i think there is a huge controversy here. ranchers and farmers feel they have used heavy-handed tactics with them. farmers and ranchers that rely on water field that the water from africa could significantly be in danger. what has began to be clear from the scandal around the state to permit handling this case is

that it is a process with the state has showed clear bias with canada and in facilitating this pipeline rather than regulating this industry and hold them accountable for the claims they are making. guest: what about this idea of doing it best in the u.s.? guest: it is about time to get the oil into the market. it is about trying to move oil from canada to the states for a refinery in the gulf where they can put it into the international market. it is a question about our energy. host: independent line. caller: i did watch the hearing on the pipeline. i watched the meeting with the state department.

i want you to take in preference the name. when you dig your toes into the sand an inch, you reach solid car. it is toxic, poisonous. all of the republicans -- i want you to listen to what the man said. i -- my farm was taken. i want the government to build a superconductor supply year. in the meantime, it cut my house off from the road. this is an environmental disaster.

the epa has studies with a young woman from the oil petroleum company. it was done by the oil lobbyists. please take this into consideration. we have had a bp spill. there have been several weeks in canada. -- leaks in canada. we cannot destroy our communities, the farms, the water with dirty oil. host: let us get a response from our guest. guest: thanks for your question and concern. there are a lot of issues being raised. there are strong feelings and beliefs and positions on this one. that is the reason there has been this dialogue. the hearing you were able to see was one of nine. there are many different positions. talk about eminent domain, up

90% of land owners have signed an agreement. there will be concerns about it. there is sympathy to that. the broader picture when you mention tarzan's versus oil sands -- they are -- tar sands versus oil sands -- you have to look at the mixture of the sand. you sit it in a pipeline. -- sift it in the pipeline. we have been doing this in this country for decades. that is something that people should also know. it is not new. it creates the ability of us to negate more oil from our number one source of imports, which is already canada. host: let us look at some notes

from friends of the earth about tar sands oil. three times greenhouse gases from crude. guest: the fact that this is a kind of oil mixed with chemicals and heated in order to move through the pipe is raising significant issues about the threat and the nature of the interaction between the pipe and the oil. in one year there have been 14 weeks. we had a major spill, the biggest in the history of the midwest from the pipeline in the area of kalamazoo, and bpa is

forcing the company to come up with a cleanup plan, because of the type of oil they are dealing with and the type of damage they are not used to seeing. this poses a serious risk to the environment of public health. host: the oil spills over the last few years, one in michigan, chicago, 207 5,000 gallons in north dakota -- -- 275,000 gallons. another in north dakota. how is this different? guest: they want to implement 57 special conditions that would go above and beyond. they are trying to work with locals and various agencies to try to see what other requirements are needed. i am not the engineer, but there

are special conditions of how you may operate to build in certain areas to be sensitive to the environment. they are monitoring the additional response mechanisms. the state department has said they believe this will be a state of the part of pipeline. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: this is for the lady. they talk about the pipeline going all the way across the united states. they want to create jobs and do all of this. why don't they build in minnesota or michigan and ship the oil where ever they want it to go, instead of all the way going through the country, so they can ship it out to china. china buys all of our oil.

why can't they do it here and keep it in the united states? that would make all kinds of new jobs. people would have all kinds of new jobs. building these new refineries up there. all.would attratruck it truck drivers would have jobs. why don't they think about that? the pipelines will have leaks all the way down. host: john asks on twitter, how much will all of this cost? guest: that is an excellent question. we have been talking about it. the oil market is a global market. when you talk about building a pipeline down to the gulf, that is where we have the refining

capacity, the ability to process this oil. we also have the infrastructure to be able to have the flexibility in our system in the u.s. to get it to the east coast, to the midwest, by bringing it to the gulf. in answer to your question from the caller, if there was an incentive -- if the main motivation -- would it make sense to invest in a pipeline all through the country down through the gulf? you would get from the west coast to canada. you go to seattle. it would be cost prohibitive. in regards to the refining, we had had refining closures. we had seen few refineries in this country over the past few decades. over the same time, the capacity

has been expanding. and lots of it is about supply and demand. it will enable us to clinging -- cleanly, be able to bring that clean product to the u.s. caller: i would like to respond -- guest: there is so much opposition is in canada to move this oil across canada to the west coast and the north, that any effort to build a pipeline has been blocked so far. this is exactly what is being looked at. an effort across the united states to get it to the gulf where they can refine it and move it into the export market. it is not about anything other than the corporate process. host: let's take a look at the numbers of the existing pipeline in place, over 200,000 miles,

it costs $5.2 billion to build. 435,000 barrels a day. let us go to the phones and get grand rapids, mich. into the conversation. republican line. caller: i wonder how long we will put up with these democrats and environmentalists keeping as working poor by not letting us do such things as a pipeline or drilling or building refineries. this is what the country needs for the jobs. the working poor like myself, who gets $75 a week for gas, is a big chunk out of my paycheck. guest: i very much appreciate the concerns of the caller.

and not of people across the country are worried about it. one thing that has been shunned by the pipeline is because of the way it is going to move -- shown by the pipeline is because of the way it will move crude oil, between 10 cents to 20 cents a gallon. one of the things we have to be very concerned about is in the course of canada looking to manipulate cost in not only the national but international markets, it will be hard for working people to deal with. guest: it is not just democrats concerned but the republican governor of nebraska has concerns. host: i am looking at a story from reuters. it could hurt a regional water

source. guest: as many supporters as you -- as many opponents you have, you have supporters. you can look at the letters to the state department and see with the participation has been. if it has risen above any level as we have seen for a project of this level. host: what did he think about changing the direction of the route? guest: there have been three rounds of environmental assessment. it has been in conjunction with the local and state agencies and the epa. they found that it is not a preferred choice. no route is not a preferred choice. look at what is being brought into this country. talking about the fact that it

is going to be -- have an impact on jobs and gas prices. the state department has found that it will not have an increase on gas prices in this country. in their final assessment, the council on relations says that without having this development, it will actually retard development. by depressing the production in canada will raise world oil prices. this is bad. if you have an increase in supply, it is going to be good for the marketplace. it is at a time when our imports from traditional nation's such as venezuela and mexico, it is declining. canada is already feeling -- filling that gap.

by 2020, we could import double. that is amazing. there are so many other economic benefits we can get into if we have time. we are not thinking about them. it is not just jobs for one particular project. host: looking at the "new york times". damon, what about changing the route? would you be satisfied if it was not going through the aquifer. ? guest: under our environment protection law, it has certain

requirements. and think it takes is to a story that you are quoting from the "new york times" which says the department is urging them to hire a company to conduct the environmental impact assessment. this is a classic example of putting the fox in charge of the chicken house. it helps explain why the environmental assessment is so inadequate. why the epa gave them a feeling great and why we need a new one. host: let us get a reaction to this story. the state department signed an environmental study to look at the project sponsor. the state department signed an important environmental impact study of the proposed does this give you concern?

guest: i am not familiar with which company was hired to conduct this assessment. there were three rounds. you are talking about certain companies that have a field in expertise. they still had opportunity -- not just at these hearings. there have been three rounds of reviews. other studies have been conducted. they did not kick a failing grade from the epa. -- they did not get a failing grade from the epa. guest: the company has significant oil company ties. to hire a company that has those ties to conduct this environmental drafting is

completely unacceptable. the public realizes this is a conflict of interest and should never have happened. host: california, an independent line. caller: i am approaching this from a different direction. i worked in an oil refinery for 16 years. i worked in maintenance. this is what we did. i lost a couple of good friends when a pipe erosion from a light gas eight through and brought it back and brought them alive on the job. -- ate through and burnt them a lot on the job. now we are talking about these pipes from canada to texas, bury them under the ground.

so the seepage will not be seen until that causes a great deal of problems. i have worked in a number of refineries. i worked in one for 16 years. they do not give a damn one way or the actor about safety of the people or the safety -- one way or the other about the safety of the people. air pollution district helicopters cannot come over and that is why we release some gas into the air. many people that still work say it has gotten a losy worse. guest: i apologize for any losses and sympathize with that. it is a complex operation in managing in running a refinery. to say that the industry does

not take safety seriously, it is a top priority. unfortunately, accidents happen. they take every measure to learn and improve that. what i have seen in my interaction is that there are great strides being made. our standards are being improved all the time to increase safety as well as awareness in any way that can be had. it is something that is taken seriously by the industry. host:cindy schild with the american petroleum institute refining issues manager. damon moglen, friends of the earth, climate in energy project

director. caller: thanks for coming on the show. just like the last caller who was brilliant in what he said, these people do not care. they do not care about whatever they say. they care about the money. that is all they care about. i am very concerned that we are going to forget that, be motivated by the tea party, and all they do, and we end up losing. my question is, what happens when all of these standards are lost and is in 20 or 15 years, this thing busts'? what happens at this point? -- this thing busts. what happens at this point? guest: there are huge concerns not only along the pipeline,

but many minority communities around the refinery where children have asthma, there are incidents of cancer. the choice of trying to refine this oil in the united states poses a significant additional public health burden on people in our country. i think that is an unacceptable aspect. not only is canada bringing the oil to the united states, but refining oil that will create problems for us and then be put into the export market to make profits for trans canada. host: what will it take to have a successful pipeline? why wouldn't they do the best they can to make sure their product gets to market and there but the station stays in tact? guest: the second to last caller makes an important point. these are complex and dangerous

process these. accidents happen. the people that pay for these accidents are the working people nearby. host: what is your response? guest: the state department found that there would not be additional impacts from the emissions at refineries, nor the construction or operation of the pipeline. if you look at that assessment, the same standard applies when you are refining oil versus any other oil. the environmental standards for emissions will apply, the same feel special -- fuel specifications will apply. the same standards apply throughout the process no matter where the oil is coming or going from. other oil that we are already refining at the most advanced refineries in the world.

host: democratic caller in florida, tom. caller: is it true that this is a four phase project and the three of the phases are completed? guest: know, the construction has not begun. it can begin -- no, the construction has not begun. it can begin. if the decision is made, and it is positive for approval, the work will begin. there are different components. it is not just bringing the canadian oil. there are two high production areas in the united states that would be able to link into this pipeline to bring it down to the gulf as well. you are talking about u.s. production that would be added to this pipeline. guest: i think the caller is picking up on another

remarkable story that is coming out. there was a lawsuit filed last week in nebraska. transcanada has begun to do ground clearing across nebraska in a way that suggests they are assuming this permit is going to be granted. that is not supposed to be happening. it speaks to the scandalous aspect between the state department and transcanada. the state department has a process. these remarkable emails that have been released under the freedom information that shares that they provided insider information to transcanada and have an understanding with them about how to pitch this to the public in a way that gets the permit was quickly. the process is broken. host: can you respond to that? guest: the freedom of information act, free disclosure

of information and communications throughout this process. the state department has claimed that it has been equal from its stand. of meetings and information sharing. -- stan point of meetings and information sharing. the process itself has been expensive. it has been a thorough. that is our position. host: here is a story that our guests are talking about from "for." -- forbes." oklahoma city, okla., republican.

caller: i appreciate your show this morning. i have an input about the constitutional matters here that governs this. a clause was created in the constitution to disallow the federal government from impeding the free flow of commerce between states and countries. this is a classic example of commerce -- where the government needs to stay out of it as much as possible. on that regard, the epa is an extremely harmful an unconstitutional institution that has been set up by a republican president to impede interstate commerce. i call upon congress to abolish this harmful legislation and get rid of that agency. if we did have the unconstitutional violation that

we do in the federal government, we would not be talking much about canadian oil or energy sources from other countries. we would be talking about our own nuclear energy and whatever else hour on japan's viewers are able to freely discover and distribute. -- whatever else contra been entrepreneurs are able to freely discover and distribute. guest: we have the ability to bring to the american people. whether you are talking about energy security, you can debate the exact numbers. whether they come from the state department or one side or the other, companies and people are already employed. you can look at it from the stand point of them every dollar the u.s. spends on canadian goods, and 90 cents are returned

to americans. this applies to the american government and statistics. we do not have that relationship when trading from other countries. do we want to rely on oil from other foreign countries or do we want to import more from canada? it makes sense, and it will be refined into managed better here, where we can bring jobs to americans, then if we send it to china. host: do you agree that the epa has been too stringent? guest: if you say taken too long, it is one more day that the jobs are not being brought to america. no one could really judge or assess too long, because they did the time they felt necessary. it has been led by the state department in conjunction with the epa. the industry is so heavily regulated.

that would apply regardless of the oil you are putting into this pipeline. guest: i would like to pick up on a couple of things that the caller said. local versus federal authority. part of this is states have the right to make decisions about late in the pipeline across their own territory. that is exactly why the governor of nebraska and many of the state senators are calling for a special session in the state to pass a law that would actually stop this pipeline from going across nebraska. democrats, republicans alike are saying they're concerned about the environmental and public health damage this pipeline could cause in the state. host: look at the details in the associated press about what the damage would entail. a pipeline would be buried 4 feet below dry ground, 25 feet below major rivers and 5 feet below waterways.

minneapolis. caller: i will side with transcanada. i worked on a pipeline and a company that laid pipe. they employed 300 people approximately. they were the most professional oil pipeline i had ever worked with. they took great care in making sure the men were safe and the land that we worked and played the pipe in was safe. it was a real safe process. i give them a pat on the back for promoting the pipeline. i would be happy to go back to work on the pipeline when they get started up. i think they are a great company.

they can make money off the pipeline. that is all. guest: that is another good point. when you talk about a company making money, it should not be a dirty word. the cat what is happening in investments being made. -- look at what is happening when investments are being made. you can have safe operations and you have to be able to do maintenance. this is where the money goes. you cannot forget about what is going back to investors. the industry itself is doing its part. we have the ability to employ a lot more people. we need effective policies to be able to do that. if you look at the forecast, we would be able to provide whatever% of our fuel needs in north america. -- when the% of our fuel needs in north america. -- 100% of our fuel needs in north america.

guest: i appreciate your comments as well. i hope everyone working on this pipeline can be as serious and committed as you are. the fact of the matter is what we see is that there have been very significant problems with these pipelines so far. the keystone one pipeline in one year had 14 spills. we look at the spill outside of kalamazoo in michigan. this is the worst spill in american history. it is posing an environmental crisis. we still do not have an idea about how to clean it up and that is when you're out. both parties are saying the same thing. the issue is it is posing a significant public and environmental health risk. that is what people are so scared up and down the pipeline. host: 70, we have a question on twittered. c we have a question on

twitter. guest: it is something we have to look at holistic plea -- cold holistically. you can understand concerns. there are thousands of miles of pipeline running through this region. you are going to have extra conditions in place. he will have the reason that these will be instituted and able to provide quick response. no one wants a spill or incident to happen. you want the ability to respond more efficiently. you are talking about pipelined being the most efficient mode of transportation. as opposed to having additional trucks on the road, etc..

guest: i think these documents that have been released have a lot of interesting information. one is that says, they say no accident will happen, but they say if wells were found, they would provide people with alternative water. you cannot make up for what would be damage to the aquifer that provides millions of people with water. host: tucson, ariz., a democratic collar. -- caller. caller: i am concerned that maybe we are going in the wrong direction. i think the corporate greed and government people that have paid

off and lobbyists running roughshod as usual. if they get their way -- regardless of how much we fight, they will get what they want. i am afraid it is going to be a bad thing. the point he made about kalamazoo still one year out, not even knowing how to clean it up, scares me. then i go to western virginia. our country does not look the same it did did 20 years ago. it is all about money and corporate greed. host: if i can ask you a question, what do you think about the need to create jobs? does it weigh in to your take on this project? caller: i do not believe they will create that many more jobs. that is the republican argument for the last year, and there are no jobs. i just do not believe it. they have never done anything

except for their own benefit. caller: let us leave it there and get a response from our guests. host: i am not sure where the question was. thanks for the concern. we have had it -- heard a lot of the views about what we are hearing throughout this process. it has to be a decision that will -- right now they are looking to see if it is in the nation's interest. one will be the environmental considerations. the other must be about our energy future. about supply. i also hear about something am sure everyone else does -- gas prices. it has the ability to add supplies to the market. that is only going to be good for consumers. it implies flexibility of what we will have in our infrastructure system. we have to look at the balance.

we will need all forms of energy. we cannot preclude one that is providing over 50% of our energy needs. host: bill, republican, las vegas, nevada. caller: lots of debates or discussions happening. i think most of the people showed up to discuss it. i see it as the baby is going to be born, because there is too much money involved. the real debate or discussion i think will come over what penalties there will be, what -- once an environmental impact occurs. some seem to have prepared to propose to congress or whatever to make sure that will companies pay their due share when those

detriments occurred. please answer that. guest: thank you for the question. i am not sure the baby has been born. the fact of the matter is this oil is controversial, all over the world. the european commission after a year of studying has decided to give tar sands a negative grading, so it may not be exported into the european market. we see opposition to this dirty and dangerous oil around the world. it is growing in the united states, as you can see. i am not convinced that this is an industry that will have a future. i do not think the pipeline will be built. the scandal surrounding the state department and transcanada will have a real impact. we will have to start this

process again and the president will have to intervene. the liability issue is a hugely important issue. we do not have anything like meaningful liability in this country for these kinds of disasters. where can people throughout the gulf had had their livelihood and homes destroyed. and they have seen their future evaporate under a coat of oil. you are asking a hugely important question. who is really going to pay? host: what is your rebuttal to what damon talks about regarding who deals with the aftereffects? guest: we do have the legal ability in this country and certainly the exercise of lawsuits. money is being paid from the bp spill. that is not going to compensate for the incident itself. and the damage that was done.

every effort was made to to the best with something unprecedented. the industry has gathered together to improve standards, to make it better to operate more safely in the gulf. as far as compensation, there is a draft within our legal system. each of those lawsuits are being worked out with the company themselves. host: the transcanada keystone pipeline project is 9% of u.s. oil consumption. let us go to a question from twitter. he wants to know about how the monitoring is done. how do companies that run pipelines make sure they are in tact. talk about that. guest: i wish i had my colleague here that could give you a real good answer.

which you are looking at is the monitors andeal, amount of monitors, the types of monitors. the systems themselves are called leak detection mechanisms. beyond that, we would be happy to follow up, if he wants more specifics of the engineering, design, controlling measures. guest: that is an extremely important question. regarding the marshall michigan's bill, at first the oil company said, we may have lost -- marshall michigan's at first the oil company said we only lost a few thousand gallons. but once you put the pipes down, it is hard to know what is being spilled and will -- where the

split is going. this is a critical environmental issue. many lawsuits have been raised about the fact that transcanada plans on increasing the pressure in the pipeline after this is bill, which has been a huge environmental bone of contention. host: amanda, conn., independent line. caller: please do not cut me off. this is very important. i got up early for this. i take notes on all of your shows. i took note on a larry king show in tune -- 2010. they were really fired up about this situation. i could not wait to see this oliver stone document, south of the border. i forgot to write down if it was going to be on tv or the movie theaters.

i want to know why president obama sidestepped congress in this terrific situation and started working with hugo taught chavez? who was the decider in this blunder? what good is the president if he cannot reside over congress in stopping this pipeline? the title there president comes from the word presided? he takes too long. it is time for the president to take action. if not, it is time for a president like dr. britton's berzinski. he can be a combination of pope john the 23rd, fdr, and

president eisenhower, who warned us against the industrial complex. host: should the president to take action? guest: the president has to take action. the state department at the highest level, including secretary clinton herself, while she is supposed to be overseeing a fair and objective process said she is of the mind to give the go ahead. then one of the leading lobbyists for transcanada is one of her former campaign managers. there has been terrible bias at the state department. complicity with transcanada. the state department has coached transcanada. he needs to take this process and decision away from the state department. we need to do this in a different way.

guest: we may have agreement on this issue. it is up to the state department and ultimately the president. it is time for action. it is time to bring the jobs that can be had and the ability to take a step further to improve our economic situation. the only answer, and we hope we see it, and it is about how badly the american workers are looking for this. the communities must beg for this project to happen. we need the president to say yes to the pipeline. host: the state of bremen on friday held its last opening -- last open public hearing. it is wrapping up. where does it stand now? they expect to have a decision on this by the end of the year. what are you watching for the next couple of months? guest: the environmental impact statement has not been completed. there has not been a public

commentary. the agencies have to weigh in. it must show that the state department has been biased in this document. then we have to have a determination to see if this is true that in the national interest given the public health and environmental dangers it poses. we have a long way to go before we have a decision. i think the president has to become directly involved. host: what are you watching for? guest: a positive outcome at the end of the year. we believe the environmental assessment has been a thorough assessment. we appreciate the concerns. and the state department has done a good job in attempting to balance all of these concerns. they have had nine hearings and hearings throughout this process. they have 90 days to take a look at the national interest. this project is in our nation's interest. from jobs, energy, security, flexibility -- you see it by the support we have a from american

workers who are out there waiting to have the jobs created for them immediately. they need to sign off on approval of this project. host: thinks so much to both of you. coming up next, we will talk about campaign fundraising for 2012 presidential campaign so far. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> it has been almost 30 years since a small group from a fraternity has built a small memorial to honor dr. king. this sunday, watched the official dedication of the martin luther king general memorial. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span. >> last monday on communicators, one person's book about his company's efforts to build a $14 billion high-speed

wireless network. >> -- for the first time americans will have access to this even if there are natural disasters and other things happening through our satellite network. >> tonight, questions on its goals and possible gps interference with a subcommittee chairman paul brown. jim kirkland. and a senior reporter. at 8:00 eastern on the "communicators" on c-span2. >> it's a story on a topic of your choosing. every good story has a strong ending. -- a beginning, a good metal, and a strong ending. -- good middle, and a strong ending. >> c-span2 studentcam competition. ♪

♪ >> you don't need the best video equipment to have a winning project. if you don't have access to better video equipment, don't let that stop you. if you need a little more help,go to studentcam.org. >> this process can be confusing at first, but c-span can help you stay organized. i find it useful to read the rules very carefully and then make a checklist of what to do. the process becomes clear once you get started. >> another great thing about the documentary is you can work alone on the project or work as a team. if you are a good writer, but not very handy with a camera, get a friend to help. not only will you both learn something, but you will increase your chances of winning. >> you can use your parents, other students, teachers, and c- span as resources for you along the way. this process is fun and extremely rewarding. with a little effort anyone can do this.

♪ ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael malbin, is the campaign finance institute executive director. good morning. guest: good morning. host: rick perry looks like the most money, $70 million. -- $17 million. guest: perry says he is at 17. we do not know where mr. romney

will be. it will be somewhat lower. this is the second quarter, for. is his first. all of the republicans -- for perry, it is his first. host: what do you read of these numbers? why is it is significant for rick perry that it is his first quarter? guest: in the first quarter, you should be able to pick up contributions, maximum contributions of $2,500. it is from people who have supported you in the past. we do not have the details yet, until the files are released next week. from the early press release from his campaign, it is not as if that is happening. he has a number of contributors and his average contribution is

775. that is very high for an average. many are giving the maximum. we should not be surprised by that, because he is in a state with unlimited contributions. host: we are looking at the latest campaign numbers. the rules say that the end of the third quarter was september 30, but kids have more time to file them. we will find out -- but candidates have more time to file them. we will find of the official numbers later. some have given a hint of the numbers that are coming out. what do you make of the number of rick perry? some say it is an interesting development, because it can contrast the fact that we have had a rough week or so in the eye watchers looking at how the big performances ago,

immigration, do these numbers counter that? guest: i do not believe primarily in terms of the horse race, and who perry is slightly ahead of this quarter or vice versa. i look at both of these candidates and they are raising the bulk of their money from people that get the maximum amount. they cannot give again. if the supporters that give the maximum amount want to support some more, they have to get into these outside committees called a super packs. on the republican side, the leading candidates, funding is coming from large donors. host: here is something from "politico."

what about some of the candidates whom we have not seen their tallies yet such as michele bachmann or new gingrich? how are they working? guest: if they wanted to brag about their numbers, they would have let something out by now. i want to caution not to start anointing the person that has the most. at this point, a quarter years ago, the top republican fund- raisers where mitt romney, rudy guiliani, and fred thompson. having the most money meant you would call one of them president, and we have not.

host: if you want to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. democrats: (202) 737-0001 republicans: (202) 737-0002 independents: (202) 628-0205 email: journal@c-span.org twitter: http://twitter.com/cspanwj we are talking about the presidential campaign fund raising this far. you were talking about who was in the lead back in this time around the last election cycle in the 2008 race. how do the overall numbers compare? how are they ultimately looking at this point? guest: the numbers are looking fairly good on the republican side. on the democratic side, there was a hot race between barack obama and hillary clinton. by historic terms, these are on the high side through the third quarter. these candidates will have

enough to go through the early rounds. if this is a long haul, however, and that is possible, it may be determined by the money, but the money will make it possible. then i expect to see a significant role played by these outside super packs, which can accept unlimited contributions into advertising. host: the "huffington post."

can you explain that one for us? guest: yes, but it is not a loophole in my opinion. the committees are required to report the end of your fund raising and spending by january 30. if states move their dates up, that means they're moving up ahead of that date. a ton of money can come in from super pacs, and the voters would not know about it, and that is problematic. even more problematic is a large amount of money can be spent by 01c organizations that don't have to file at all until the next tax year. it would be a year before we learn anything about their sources. even then we did not learn about

the sources of their funds if they pass through intermediaries. host: how much more money can be coming in this year through other organizations not necessarily funneled through the candidates themselves? what will you be watching? guest: we have no idea at this point, but it can be quite significant. it can be much as major candidates spend. especially on the republican side, because we will be worried -- they will be worried about the fact president obama is raising so much more than they are. host: ron on our independent line. are you with us? steve, republican in florida. caller: hello, i just want to comment on herman cain. he did not really spend a lot of

money down here in florida, but it's he won the straw poll. the only way we got to see him was on the debates and every now and then he would do news conference. for the most part we never heard about him, but we like his message. i think that if he had that kind of money, he could be a contender. thank you. caller: the caller is correct. the early states iowa and new hampshire did not necessarily require large amounts of money. mike huckabee 9 did so well with very little money. two points you could make. a ton of money gives you the opportunity to put your word out, but it does not mean people have to listen to what you have to say. and if the audience is small

enough, and it is in the early states, then you can get a foothold. once you get a foothold, given the internet and current methods of fund-raising, you can granted up pretty fast. host: one of our twitter follower as talks about the number of individual donors that ron paul has. about what it means to have more small donors compared with a big donors. guest: ron paul and michelle bachmann are the two republican candidates raising most of their money from small donors. and barack obama has a very large number of donors giving small amounts. the nice thing about small donors, a couple kings, one is that you can go back to them because they cannot maxed out. the second is many people that

gives small amounts are enthusiastic and want to help out, but don't have a large amount, but they give their time. this, your basis for your volunteer networks, which is very important especially in the caucus states. in 2008 the entire difference between barack obama and hillary clinton came in the caucus states that obama carried a largely on the strength of volunteer organizations in those caucus states. host: let's hear from pennsylvania, democrats lined. caller: i was wondering, i know that all this money is going to be spent. my concern is i don't know who putting out the ad. is there any way that we can require the ad is from exxonmobil, that it shows a the bottom of the screen as opposed to it being endorsed or approved

by the candidates? guest: the u.s. supreme court said in its recent decision to a year ago in citizens united that you may not limit the amount of money that an organization spends for independent advertising, but they upheld the ability of congress to require disclosure. there's no reason congress could not require more robust disclosure than they do now. you don't know that it comes from exxonmobil especially if exxonmobil gives it to the chamber of commerce or some other middle organization, because the law does not require that, but it could. the answer to your question is you could no, but it's up to congress. man at something else? -- may i .

congress came within one vote to passing stronger disclosure laws in congress, so they're not far away. people have to make this known that they want this. host: let's look at president obama and third quarter fundraising from the associated press. expected to report around $55 million. guest: these are high numbers. we do not yet know the breakdown for a party fund-raising vs campaign fund-raising. $86 million in the second quarter was about half of it was party money. host: does that distinction matter?

guest: it probably matters less for an incumbent. you could control the apparatus of the national committee. but party money has to be spent at least somewhat independently of the candidate. whereas the candidate has spoken told over money that goes straight to his former campaign. host: the read something into it if one number is higher than the other? guest: no. if he's raising mostly party money, it tells me that he's getting a lot of money from people giving $50,000 as opposed $50. host: albany, new york, bryan, democrat. caller: it's been a great show so far. i'm in his class. at what point does it no longer

become responsible when you are talking about president obama raising close to $1 billion for his upcoming campaign? then you have a 9% unemployment rate and people overall are not doing that great. at what point does it become irresponsible to earn that much money? guest: the caller is asking a good question. why do candidates raise and spend so much? certainly an incumbent president is fully known to the public. it is impossible to say of this point what these outside spending groups may do. many candidates are raising money looking over one shoulder wondering what is coming up behind them. i am sure that is true not just

of president obama but of many members of congress. in the last election when the president spent three-quarters of a billion that medvedev organizations in all 50 states, then-senator obama. i assume he could do something like that again. it is up to the voters to decide whether you think it is irresponsible use of money. host: matt writes this on twitter. guest: they have to have a 4-2 go to decided that a broken the law. and it usually takes some time, well after a campaign, before

they impose a penalty. so this has not been seen as a strong deterrent by many candidates. it divides on the tradition of a lot or the bulls 3 division, thene3- there's no decision, no complaint filed and essentially the candidate is free. , democraticgo to ed caller in michigan. caller: i would like to say that this goes way back to the reagan administration. james baker, comes from a big oil company in texas, his cabinet went to texas and the

secretary of commerce for busch 41. the cabinet went to texas and this data $100,000 arrangements. -- they set up $100,000 arrangements. then you hear exxon paid no income tax in 2009 or 2010. that enabled bush 41 to come in, whose closest friends were oil people. if it were not for that, we would never had the economy ruined. the american people not knowing the effects of big oil and this government, they own the republican party and they will not let them tax the companies, which is the richest corporation on earth. this should be all over the media.

thank you. guest: the caller is correct in some of things. i want to make a correction, because there is an interesting distinction. mr. baker was raising money for george h. w. bush and the texas rangers wre for george w. bush. ronald reagan was the candidate who most depended on small contributions before this don -- most successful before barack obama. he was the one candidate who received the maximum amount of public funds in our history, because he had so many small donors. ronald reagan would never have

been president if it were not for public financing of elections. he was running as a challenger and was flat broke in january of 1976. because he got public funds, he was able to make a credible race against an incumbent, gerald ford, and became the frontrunner for 1980. ronald reagan is almost a poster boy for why a public financing system can be important and why we ought to be looking at a system in which several of small donors is multiplied through matching funds rather than simply letting maxed out donors bed unlimited super pac's the main sources of funding. host: during the governor chris christie does not plan to run for president. alaska governor sarah palin says

she does not plan to run -- former governor. do any candidates benefit financially from these two setting that they are out of the race, out of consideration to be in a race? do you see a shift in donors? home depot co-founder has now said that he will endorse mitt romney. guest: yes, as soon as governor chris christie decided, all the people who were backing and started getting phone calls from mitt romney and rick perry's caps. -- camps. sarah palin would have been competing for the slot that rick perry has fully occupied by now, i think. so, this may -- or maybe a third

candidate to newcomers -- candidate who shows well in the early states, but it will come from the candidates already in the field. we will see what happens with herman cain and ron paul. there's no question about who the front runners are. host: would sarah palin have to pay back to the people who donated? guest: a political action committee and is a multi- candidate committee that supports other candidates. it does not support the campaign of that person. she is under no obligation. to a pac ono gave the expectation it would go to someone's campaign was making a mistake. host: lapel let's go to the

elmira, new york. caller: what happens to all the money candidates made if they do not? guest: there's almost no campaign that at the end of the day is left with much money in the bank. many of them are in debt by the end of the day. a couple of campaigns have had some left over such as john kerry, who in 2004 decided to take public funds. he was able to give the money to the political party. candidates can give unlimited amounts to the party. they save some money because they're bound to have ongoing legal and accounting costs. they can give limited amount of other candidates. the bulk will probably go to the party. host: looking at this story, judd gregg is giving his support to mitt romney. i am looking at a story on the

cnn political tinker -- ticker. how significant of these endorsements when it comes to fund-raising? guest: i think endorsements are significant on the ground particularly in the home state of the people involved. the two gentlemen mentioned have very good strong reputations in their home states. that will matter. it would matter less in the fund-raising. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. talking with us about campaign fundraising for the presidential race so far. michael malbin, professor at the state university of new york,

albany. thank you, sir. guest: my pleasure. host: next we will take a look at your money. we will talk about farm subsidies would charles abbott. we will be right back. >> ♪ >> last monday, lightsquared, company efforts to build a $14 billion high-speed wireless network. >> for the press time americans will have access to a connectivity even if the there are natural disasters and other things happening through the satellite networks. >> tonight, questions on the company goals and possible gps

interference subcommittee chairman paul brown, coalition to save our gp member jim kirkland, and fred schulte, a decline eastern on c-span2. -- at 8:00 eastern. >> c-span helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaign, candidate bios, and polling data, and links to a c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. every monday at this time we have a chance to find out about not only what federal program's cost, but also what

they do. today a look into a farm subsidy programs. our guest is charles abbott, agricultural reporter for reuters. president obama wants to cut farm programs by $33 billion over 10 years. how much of these cuts would come from subsidies? guest: almost all of them would come from subsidies. the question is how do you define subsidies? the easiest way is almost all the money would come through elimination of a type of subsidy called the direct pavement. that was created in the 1996 freedom to farm law. it is intended to be transitional farmer support. it's based on historical production of the program crops which are wheat, corn, soybeans, barley, oats.

direct payment runs around $5 billion a year and it's made regardless of need or economic circumstances. it's based on historical production. the rest of the money essentially comes through shaving back support for federally subsidized crop insurance. a government pays several billion dollars per year to subsidize the purchase of crop insurance by individual producers. it's been a marvelous success. tuolumne 70 million acres of cropland are insured. the government pays 60 cents out of every dollar in premium costs. the government pays a couple billion dollars a year for the administration and overhead costs of crop insurance companies. under an agreement, it takes on some of the risk of lawsuits. the program cost several billion dollars a year.

the new farm bill scheduled to be written next year, the crop insurance program would be the most expensive of the crop supports the government is offering. host: farmers are doing quite well relative to others in the past and to the general economy as a country. i'm looking at numbers of coming to us. the predicted net farm income in 2011 is $103 billion. that is up 31% or $24 billion from last year.

parts of the farm industry have had problems, but overall it's a very good time for them. host: make a distinction of large-scale farms versus a small-scale farms. guest: that is a little harder. the government defines a farm as antiestablishment that is capable of producing around $1,000 of agricultural or livestock products in a year. -- as an establishment. 400,000 of them produce most of the food and fiber. more than 1 million of them are very small operations. they could be operated on the evening or weekend by people. the 2008 farm bill tried to

eliminate some of this. people did not want to support hobby farms. there was immense problems in carrying out that idea and then that i did was eliminated. host: let's hear from john, republican in michigan. caller: i'm calling from near the mackinac bridge, and north. i have a question. why is hemp not being used? that can really -- it is a crop that does not hurt the soil. it was criminalize to 1930's in michigan. before that, we used that for

products like clothing and for the environment and like cotton. why don't have people advocating to use these crops? host: our guest is a reporter with reuters, let's get a response. guest: there is a small industry that has been using hemp as a fabric. hemp is also in some varieties, marijuana. there's concern within the agricultural community about this will be an undercover way of bringing illegal products into production. there have been big fights in farm organizations about whether they should support industrial hemp. it has been used in making broke -- rope and other

commercial products. because agriculture is a big sector and there's a small industry and growing hemp, aside from the fact you cannot grow illegal varieties of it, there is an opening for this product. host: we are talking about subsidy programs to farmers and looking at how your money is spent in this area, how federal dollars are used. chuck abbott is an agricultural reporter. four main areas, but those down. guest: there's direct subsidies. some people proposing to income support and price support. indirect subsidies, which can be things such as grading standards or marketing orders, which limited the type and size and

even color of commodities that can be taken to market. and there's crop insurance. that has to be no. four. host: is also disaster assistance. we talk about how some farmers are doing really well right now. some programs are social. guest: the 2012 farm law presents the opportunity for dramatic change in the way development supports agriculture. at the moment the direct pavement is most on the chopping block. it has been mentioned explicitly by people, people being legislators. we have some mention in president obama's dubbed the did president obama's

deficit reduction report. looking at the budget side, there will be less money for the 2012 farm law bans the 2008 -- than the 2008 farm law. the deficit debt limit fight that we had during the summer, there could be even further cuts. at the same time is the fact we have a direct payment that the most obvious place to go, smaller funding at the same time, crop insurance is increasingly expensive, probably doubled in cost in the last five years and certainly the last 10 years, so it's about how large

the cuts will be. there's a lot of speculation the minimum will be around $15 billion or $20 billion over 10 years, in which case they can be accommodated in a great whitay y reducing or eliminating the direct payment and creating revenue program. a lot of the commodity farm groups which represent corn, soybeans, cotton, they put out proposals for the farm bill, but they are also aimed at the super committee, that assume there has to be less money spent, so all of them offer some form of savings, usually by reducing direct statement and they're pretty explicit about they will reduce the direct statement, and for the most part they want to create an insurance-like system that would protect farm income

against catastrophically low yields or very low market prices. this is an insurance-like program. there are policies offered through the federal crop insurance system that do the same. this would be a remarkable change in u.s. policy to go that route. your question was where the cuts are most likely to occur. the cuts would most likely occur in the straits for traditional subsidies and most of all the direct payments. host: gets to the idea of need- based subsidies vs subsidies that are given as a historical. guest: the direct payment was created in 1996 and was in the farm law as a traditional payment used to make up for elimination of some support that

had been used up until that time. in 2002 and became a prominent pavement. the direct payment is the type of statement that most likely to be deemed in compliance with world trade organization rules. the needs-based programs like the insurance or programs that respond to low prices, while they are popular with the united states, they would have a hard time if they go above certain levels like being with in the world trading organization rules. it's a fascinating paradox. helping someone in a time of need would violate the world trade organization rules. host: now to laura in anne arundel county, maryland. caller: i have a brief statement and then a question. this is what i have always considered real welfare. when we talk about welfare that

is such a small part of the budget. this is one eighth of the budget. i have always looked at it as subsidizing farmers not to grow crops. there is too much corn on the world market. is this what your guest means by direct payments as in subsidizing farmers not to grow if there is too much corn on the world markets, is that something that would be cut? guest: the answer is no. the 1996 farm law deregulated farming for the most part so that it removed the limits than had been in place until that time on how many acres of a major crop farmers could plant. that's the answer.

when we talk about reducing the direct statement, it simply says right now farmers get approximately $5 billion a year and there are more than to hundred crops grown in the united states, with major field crops would get instead of $5 billion a year, they would get something less. if we see the direct payment, you can -- if you receive a direct payment, you can grow anything you want. host: jim wright's on twitter -- writes -- guest: the easy answer is they certainly can.

it would be harder to do that. it would be harder to enact or create that sort of program. the government had difficulty in enforcing payment limits in the past since the 1970's when congress decided to limit the amount of money that the largest operators can collect and support. limits.called payment that is how much money an operator can get in one year. this quickly developed in lots of ways to get around it, because people subdivided their farms and declared their children to be full partners in the farm. they declared that their 5-year- old child is the primary operator of 100 acres of cotton

land or rice lands or whatever just to get around the pavement. -- paynment. host: let's look at some of the numbers. guest: right. we have beeneory talking about that most likely to get cut. host: republican caller in orangeburg, south carolina, philip. caller: good morning. i am december farmer in south carolina. it is my opinion that's all agricultural subsidies should be abolished. i am a timber farmers. it's a mess that is promulgated by greed.

in 1985 when the program came out, i planted 400 acres of cotton, soybeans, corn, and weeks and pine trees. in 10 years the program ended, but i kept my pine trees on the land. i have now 27-year-old pine trees and now since 1995 when the program ended i have received a counter-cyclical pay debt from the government for not planting corn, soybeans, oats on my land. i get over $6,000 per year. i have received that over 15 years. it is ridiculous. the farm law is the most critical farm lobby is the most vocal and they are greedy. it needs to be stopped. it is ridiculous. thank you. guest: the american enterprise institute is one of the few

think tanks that has put out proposals and they say get rid of farm subsidies. there are a number of proposals that would change the farm subsidy system as it is now structured. aei gets the award for being the most straightforward in its analysis and saying just get rid of everything. host: agriculture reporter with reuters, charles abbott. a question on twitter -- guest: that is a good question, something that has been debated for decades. in preparation for this show last night i was reading "

american agriculture in the 20th century,' written by an agricultural economist at the university of maryland and was a usda official in the first bush administration. he says the u.s. government has had a role in american agriculture virtually since the start of the country, but that the most direct involvement grew out of the depression in the late 1920's and the entire 1930's. it is still a sizable fraction of the population lived on farms then. as part idea of the new deal, which was to get the economy moving again, the government's began paying farm subsidies and it was linked to production control. paying people not to grow something, it really was paying people not to grow something. for the next 50 years the united

states engaged in various ways of trying to limit protection -- production because it seemed u.s. farmers were going to overproduce and there would be huge surpluses which the government was sitting on and that prices -- market prices would be punishingly low. there was the times also in the mid-1990 posing, but they ended with the asian flu, which was really economic distress and not influenza. host: we have been looking at some of the usda budget request numbers for 2012. the commodity programs over $5 billion -- $1.5 billion.

guest: one of the most significant, and congresspers -e program expired the first of this month, runs out of money, it created a lot with it. a few other subsidiary programs along with it like livestock. these programs were supposed to cost $5 billion for five years. they cost twice as much if there were to be extended into 2012 farm law. when congress starts writing a new farm bill, it will be in a

whole as far as expenditures. this is one of the supplemental revenue assistance programs. it's one of the half-dozen disaster programs that will have no funding the in the new farm bill. there are 30 other bills, similar programs, that are running out of money. assistance forsistenc bringing biofuels into commercial production and i cannot remember the others. host: we will get back to them. i'm sure they will come back to you. let's go to mike from washington, d.c. on our independent line. caller: good morning. a few comments. this is not relative to the farmers direct statement. this is on the crop insurance. as the 2012 farm bill approaches -- a program is put

back on the chopping block, the program received $6 billion in cuts in the 2008 farm bill and through the agreement between the government and the crop insurance company last year, it took another $6 billion in cuts. 12 billion have not fully been implemented yet and we are considering additional cuts. my second comment is we are talking about subsidies, the premium side of crop insurance. i feel americans all benefit from crop insurance wherever you live. if you're eating food, you benefit from it. it affects the international balance of trade. and there's a lot of benefit we receive as americans through subsidies. guest: those are good arguments in support of the crop insurance system.

the proposal would reduce support for crop insurance. the administration says crop insurance will cost taxpayers a billion dollars per year to run. it includes $2.3 billion per year for private insurance companies to administer and underwrite the program and $6 billion a year in premiums subsidies for the farmers. the illustration proposal is to reduce the rate of return to crop insurance companies to 12%, which is the biggest of the savings that the administration wants to put out of the crop insurance program. some adjustments to reduce some costs. there would be a slightly higher price on catastrophic insurance

coverage. the administration proposes reducing opinion subsidy by two points for all the policies that have more than 50% in federal subsidy. that is mostly revenue policies. the administration says most of this would not come out of farmers' pockets especially for reducing opinion subsidy. i imagine the administration argument is people are having a pretty good year. an economist at montana state university, a critic of the insurance program, said there is a farmer getting $2 in benefits for every dollar that they put out. they get two dollars in coverage for every dollar they put out

because of the federal subsidy. he says it costs $1.44 for every dollar of health insurance coverage. every dollar that's being provided. he would happily get rid of the entire program. host: looking at the agriculture department numbers, the 2012 budget request for crop insurance fund is $10 billion. it's voluntary, but is incurred through premium subsidies and is delivered through private insurance companies. guest: the crop insurance -- the government has been in and out of it crop insurance for decades. it's got its biggest boost about a decade ago when the government, meaning congress, passed a law that allowed the agriculture department to provide subsidies for buyup

coverage, means getting higher levels of coverage. up to that point they cannot get people to buy much in the way of insurance and people tended to buy insurance to cover catastrophic losses like the drought that wipes out everything. now with the support for increasing coverage, farmers are more and more buying revenue policies, policies that protect their revenue against low prices or poor yields. they buy at higher and higher levels. it is common for people to buy 70% or 75% protection. that's the point the administration is making, but the program is costing a lot more than it needs to cross. going into the future it will cost more than the traditional type of crop subsidies. probably just the fact that it's

now the premier part of the crop support budget. host: agriculture reporter with reuters, he's been with the agency since 1991. the covers commodities including energy, metals, and agriculture. now to pass a bill on the democrats' line. welcome. -- nashville, tennessee. caller: could you speak to water subsidies, either direct or indirect? how do they value water subsidies? guest: i was thinking this would be the trick question. this is a useful question, because it points to the value of the indirect subsidies. and one of the arguments in the

last several years has been to this point the subsidies are paid primarily to producers of eight major field crops, major meaning they are grown on many acres. half of agricultural crop revenue comes from specialty crops which are fruits, vegetables, or culture, and so on. there is an argument, considering americans are having problems with obesity, but the government should encourage people to eat more fruits and vegetables. if we are encouraging farmers by providing subsidies to them, why not provide subsidies to fruit and vegetable growers? if people are upset about traditional subsidies, why are

they bringing in new subsidies? people that grow fruits and vegetables have some benefits that they collect indirectly such as grading standards. if you look at an orange id will be roughly the same size and the same color and quality at the grocery store. but it's a barrier to competition, because you cannot buy a small tomato or you cannot buy a fruit that does not look good. in the european union there are much stricter on that than the united states. as the caller said, in the western united states, water projects constructed by the u.s. government provide irrigation water for most

notably the central valley of california and water is provided arguably at below market prices. this also is a sort of benefit. what is proper price? that is a subject better for someone with more experience. there are indirect benefits for various parts of the industry. the specialty crop industry benefits by the fact b the fact buys billions of dollars a year in fruits and vegetables for distribution prove school meals and public nutrition programs. 2008 law also created a budgetary baseline for programs that support specialty crops. host: let's look at one other element of the 2012 budget request for usda to reduce its

contribution and other programs. $2 billion, involves retiring in an environmentally sensitive land, the end of 2010 conservation reserve program enrollment totaled 31 million acres. guest: this is an important area to talk about and one that is easy to overlook when you talk about farm subsidies. conservation has been an activity -- a better term would be land stewardship, activities intended to reduce farm erosion, to protect water quality, or to provide habitat for wildlife, that's back up again. after the first round of the new deal legislation, which created some production controls and the supreme court decision for a long time the federal response was to try to not avert

surpluses by idling farmland. most recently had done in 1985 we had a conversation -- conservation reserve program which gave landowners an annual rent for 10 or 15 years at a time for retiring fragile farm land from use. one of the things -- one of the questions congress will have going into the 2012 farm law would be the future of stewardship programs in an era of perennially high demand for food, high and volatile prices. the u.s. has limited

experience in what to do in a world which seems -- in which food will be in high demand. the question is how to handle nd store chip -- land stewardship. there's an idea to reduce the amount of land that is in the reserve. that is essentially idling -- the purpose is to idle fragile land, but there are 10 million acres of land which could be farmed at some cost, but could be farmed profitably with care for the selection of the type of crops or crop rotation or the type of livestock that are put on the land.

senator dick lugar and had a proposal last week which would reduce the conservation reserve to maybe 258 -- 25 million acres or so. that is modest, but that could increase grain production by a percentage point or two. the u.s. has 300 million acres of farmland in the major crops. the 2000 most widely grown crops. that's a fair amount of land. from bill, aear republican caller in washington, kansas. caller:.: -- good morning. i would like him to comment on the renewable fuel standard on farm income and the political realities of changing the

renewable fuel standard, given that iowa is such an important part of presidential politics? guest: those are two good points to talk about. first, we have been talking about farm subsidies. we could talk about the 2012 farm bill. the farm bill is a panoramic piece of legislation and the last one had about 2000 titles, east title been a different topic. the biggest is crop subsidies, conservation, you have rural development, economic development, trade information, parents and food assistance, agricultural research, and public nutrition program which will be 75% of agricultural spending going into the future. that would be 75% of the money available for congress to look tax, through the super

committee or either to provide through the new farm law. it is a food act. related to the impact of the aenewable fuel standard, former congressman from south dakota has described biofuel boom that started ago as taking up the slack in rural america and allowing agriculture to run at full throttle. it is perhaps coincidental that the boom in farm income correlates with the boom in biofuels production. the renewable fuels standard says that the united states will guarantee a set share of the motor fuel market or renewable fuels, which the moment is quite

mixed up. the target is 12.6 billion gallons of fuel in 2011. increasing to 13 billion gallons next year. that is using 40% of u.s. corn crops. the ethanol industry would say now that we return part of that to dried grains and other pro- products that are used in livestock. it is a big deal. as to what it means in presidential politics, that may be more debatable this year than it was four years ago. congress has shown a lot less enthusiasm for supporting biofuels this year than in years past. host: charles abbott,

agricultural reporter with reuters. thanks for being with us. guest: thank you. host: this is part of our "your money" segment that we are doing every monday on "washington journal." we will be back at 7:00 tomorrow morning eastern time. have a great day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> army secretary john mchugh

addresses the association of the army general meeting today. he will talk about army budget cuts. his comments will be starting live it 10:30 eastern on c-span to. we will be live on c-span starting at 11:00 eastern as a former utah governor and republican presidential candidate jon huntsman for outlines his foreign-policy. if he will speak to the world affairs council in new hampshire at 11:00 eastern, part of a sixth as a campaign tour of the granite state. then we take you back to the campaign trail at 5:30 eastern for live coverage of former massachusetts governor and republican president attended a mitt romney holding a town hall meeting in new hampshire. former senator judd gregg will endorse mitt romney for president today and will be with the candidate and his wife in appearances throughout the state. > last monday, lightsquared's sanjiv ahuja spoke about a high- speed wireless network. speed wireless network.