tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 14, 2011 7:00am-9:00am EDT
to the new trade agreement. next hour, a discussion on the winter energy outlook. our guest is from the energy information administration and the environmental energy study host: the defense secretary -- warns cutting $450 billion in defense spending would take the pentagon "to the edge." good morning. this is the "washington journal" today is friday, october 14. secretary panetta, in his first appearance, said any defense
cuts over $450 billion currently approved for the next decade will "surely devastate our national security. that's what we want to talk about for the first segment of this program, the comments made by the defense secretary. your thoughts? you can also reach us electronically. if you have called us in bill last 30 days, -- called us in the last three days, pick up a keyboard. you can follow us on twitter @cspanwj or on facebook.
about for the first half-hour of the program. we want to show you a little bit about what the defense secretary had to say to the house armed services committee, covered by c-span yesterday. this is where the secretary talks to the committee about congressional dysfunction being a national security issue. >> i think that one of the great national security threats is the this functionality of the but congress and its inability to confront the issues we face now. i think your concern is this committee that has been established might fail to provide the leadership that has been given, or the responsibility it has been given to be able to come up in a responsible way with additional deficit reduction. that concerns me, as well.
host: our conversations on the comments made by the defense secretary yesterday at the house armed services committee starts in ohio on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. they tell me they cannot even audit the pentagon because it is so big. if we cut some money from them, we would do better with our money. host: what do you think about the comments made by the secretary of defense? caller: well, if they used their money right, they might not be doing that. i do not think they ever use their money right. there's too much fraud and waste. i would like to make a comment about the epa, which is coming up next. if we keep cutting -- the republicans want to cut back on the epa. what are we going to be drinking
and breathing pretty soon? host: let's move on to clarksburg, west virginia on the line for democrats. what do you think about the comments made by the defense secretary yesterday? caller: good morning to you. i feel like he is a good gentleman and he has a good track record, but i cannot disagree with him more. politicians are listening to people on the street. we are tired of being the policemen for the world. we have to pay for everything in the united states. we are expected to go out on a limb and we're left with the negative. as long as the borders are protected and we are protected here. what if they come over here? let them come over here. what are we scared of? there's always a bogeyman theory we are always scared of. host: let me get your thoughts
on this article in this morning's "washington times." caller: i feel like the corporate masters are speaking. that's what the protests are all about. they're not acting my congressman on any issue. they need to be taking care of the budget. there are so many things that have not addressed. if you have a congress that is not functioning -- we have a man telling us about our defense --
we're worried about our defense mechanism. we need to stand up. get the house in order, whether you are democrat or republican ticket does not matter. both parties have sold out. we need to get a grip on these guys in washington to make them pay attention to the people in the street. host: jim on the line for independents. you are on "washington journal." >> i certainly agree with everything the last caller said. dwight eisenhower said for every bomb that luncheon every submarine and tank, the hungry and the naked and those who do not have shelter. people here at home are going without. i agree democrats and republicans are both in the pocket of the industrial military complex and corporate america. we need this money at home. we need to stop going around and venturing all over the world.
we have not solved our problem in afghanistan or iraq did we have made more by killing innocent women and children. that happens in every war. i agree with ron paul. i think he should get a little more air play. he has won a lot of the straw polls. all the talk about was mitt romney, perry, and cain. i'm with the ron paul. it's time to bring the troops home from around the world. host: karen on the line for republicans in norman, oklahoma this morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. it's funny how the always talk about cutting the military, but we do not talk about cutting food stamps and stuff. the guy who said let the bogeyman come over here, i bet he's never spent a day in the military. we need to do everything for the military when they spend time
away from their families. they do not hardly make any money. they get up and go to work every day. if anyone is hungry in america these days, i don't see how. we certainly spend enough money on the welfare, medicaid, and all that. host: let me get your thoughts on this tweet from bill king, who writes -- what do you think about that? caller: i think they could do something -- they could do some cutting in the military. i agree there is fraud and abuse. i do not know why they keep talking about it and not doing anything about it. there's fraud and abuse and everything. we're always talking about cutting the military and they do not talk about cutting the other stuff.
host: we move on to nancy in los angeles on the line for democrats. good morning, nancy. caller: good morning. i agree with the first two callers. you do not need to cut the military. they are doing a job. they're losing their lives. why cut that? you know we have had this war and we have made all kinds of enemies. now you want to cut and put the american people in harm's way? all kinds of terrorists in the united states. why don't they cooperate? anything the president puts forth, they can agree with and they can say, "yes" today. he said today, they do not want.
host: pensacola, florida. james on the line for independents. you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: thank you. but i would like to discuss the wars we are getting involved with. it seems like we're trying to convince people are way is the only way and that is becoming more and more difficult. but also like to say that the people that attacked us on 9/11, the people who attacked us committed suicide. how'd we fight in enemy that's willing to commit mass suicide? not least, we've been fighting a war on drugs since the 1950's, specifically cannabis. when are we going to end that war? they are taking away our freedoms -- a war that is really
unnecessary. . host: dennis on the line for republicans in los angeles -- in las vegas, nevada. let's move on to james in new jersey. go ahead. what did you think about what the defense secretary had to say about the defense spending cuts and how they might devastate national security? caller: i know he stands by the troops. i have studied the situation last night on television. i stayed up late to watch him. he does make some very good points. if you're listening, how are you doing mr. panetta? host: we will leave it there.
during his testimony, secretary panetta was deciding on where troops ago and some areas have been less military presence, including latin america and africa. this is what he had to say. >> we have to look at all areas of the budget for potential savings. from efficiencies that trim duplication and bureaucratic overhead to improving competition and management and operating in investment programs, procurement programs. tightening personnel costs that have increased by almost 80% over the last few years. reevaluating our modernization efforts. all of that needs to be considered. all of that needs to be on the table, if we're going to do a responsible job here that addresses areas that we can find
savings without holing out the force. host: back to our conversation. our next call comes from maryland. edgar on the line for republicans. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i spent many years in the infantry as a military man. now they're going to cut back the military and send all these fellow soldiers back. no joke. i am highly upset with president obama and all the people who are calling in. welfare and all these other things. i'm highly upset now. i think democrats and republicans need to start getting together and looking at
the big issue we have with terrorism. host: we move on to randy on the line for democrats from michigan. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you, sir. i appreciate that. i do believe you can cut the military, because if we are really that seriously threatened, i believe we need to draft them. you hear everybody knocking these people that are starving in this country when they're playing war games and having their little adrenaline rushes. i do not like to pay for that either. if we are in that much trouble, we start a draft in this country. i grew up with the threat of turning 18 and getting drafted, period. no choice. volunteers and is not that big of a thing to me. wait until you live most of your life with the threat of going in no matter what happens. that's what we need to bring
host: back to the phones. rapid city, s.d. on the line for republicans. linda, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i just wanted to make a comment. all of the people who say we need to cut the defense budget -- there was a story not too long ago. i do not remember where it was. it was about the possibility of the iranian ships off the
atlantic coast and the gulf of mexico, where our submarines are and where are oil is. they're waiting to see how much we cut our defense budget. thank you. host: in other news this morning, this is from "the new york times." "in auto state, obama looks for bailout mileage." they will be visiting a gm car plant outside of detroit. jeff zeleney and monica daley write --
joining us to talk about that is amanda becker, who writes for "roll call." she has been writing about how 40 companies have hired lobbyists to work on industry issues over the last few months. amanda becker, welcome to the "washington journal." guest: good morning. host: why have these companies been rushing to k street to hire a lobbyist? guest: solyndra has turned out to be a make or break moment for renewable industries in washington, d.c. they were excited about the obama administration's commitment to bring jobs. solyndra raise a lot of questions about this loan guarantee program. it had gotten a loan guarantee from the government. there were questions about how much the knew. it created a crisis situation
for that industry in washington. a loan program for solyndra has expired. there's another program. it remains to be seen to what extent that will be funded. there's also a treasury program that is expiring, as well. it has been used as a way to go after the green jobs agenda overall and companies are very worried about that. host:, a companies are looking for lobbying help right now and what can they really expect as far as getting through to the white house and members of congress? guest: we know that since august, i believe it was -- that's when all the solyndra started happening. at least 40 companies have hired lobbying companies or groups. the way they are filed, you do not know too many of the
specifics about what they have passed the lobbyist -- what they have asked the lobbyist to do. they will be asking people within the treasury department. host: how is the government funding for energy initiatives been affected since the solyndra scandal broke? guest: basically, the program was expiring at the end of september. that was a program that gave out $16 billion of loan guarantees. the loan guarantees acted as a way to encourage private investors to take a risk on unknown companies an unknown technologies by guaranteeing that if that company goes bankrupt, they will get their money back. the government is essentially insuring the loan. when all of the solyndra business started coming to light, there was a sense that
the had rushed through these loan guarantees without looking at the financial health of the companies. congress started looking for more paperwork. there were some loan guarantees that did not happen by the deadline because of that. i talked to one company in california. they had asked for a loan. it received additional approval. because of the heightened concerns, they did not receive the loan of that time. there is another pre-existing loan guarantee program that remains. its operating as is right now. of course, this all depends on the next budget bill and what happens next year. host: one more thing we want to talk to you about that being reported by "the washington post" and others. solyndra ceo brian harrison resigns.
solyndra said in papers filed in delaware bankruptcy court that he resigned last friday. the company said his resignation was contemplated even before the company sought bankruptcy protection. in the long run, is this going to make the job of any lobbyist dealing on the behalf of these renewable energy companies -- will it make their jobs that much more difficult given that the solyndra ceo has quit in the middle of this scandal? guest: that could be read as a sign that there's something wrong. i do think these companies have an uphill battle. i think it's the opposite of what they expected going into this administration. it has been clear there are at least two committees looking into these companies right now.
energy and commerce is looking into solyndra. the investigations committee is looking at all the guarantees that were approved. there is a sense that perhaps even those loan guarantees could be the subject of future investigations. the royal -- there will certainly be a lot of work for lobbyists and other advisers on the hill. host: amanda becker, "roll call." you can find her articles at rollcall.com. thank you for being on the program. we want to let our viewers and listeners know that we will be covering a house energy and commerce committee meeting on c- span2 at 9:30. it will focus on the department of treasury's role in reviewing
the solyndra loan guarantee, especially the decision to restructure in february of this year and subordinate the first million.io that will be on c-span2 this morning at 9:30. back to the phones and our discussion regarding comments made by the defense secretary yesterday regarding cuts to the defense budget. he said it would be truly devastating to national security. our next call comes from alan on the line for independents, calling from new mexico this morning. good morning. caller: good morning and ditto on solyndra. wall street did a job on america, also. i hope you do not cut spending on defense and our military.
i hope that we can better find ways to use the money to some house seal of the border of mexico between arizona, texas, california, and new mexico. i think it would do a big service to somehow keep iron and other terrorists from coming across our border. that would be a good way to put the money into it. i do not know how congress will finally figured out that we need to close off our borders. host: we're going to move on. our last call comes from mitchell in chattanooga, tenn. on the line for democrats. go ahead, mitchell. caller: panetta was talking about shutting down ships, but he said nothing about all the
bases we have scattered all over the world. he also said nothing about the research centers and research stations we have all over. these things can be shut down. we have a true active force. as a retired military myself, i know these things. one other thing. if the bush republicans got us into this mess and we are still going down with a republican house there. it seems to me the republicans have no idea. what is the real problem here? host: mitchell in chattanooga, a tennessee. coming up later in our program, america by the numbers. we will be looking at the cost of home heating. we will be looking at legislation passed by the senate that would place tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies. you are watching the "washington
journal." today is friday, october 14. we will be right back. >> of course i am delighted. i'm not surprised by the final repeal of the 18th amendment. when this was properly submitted to the rank-and-file, they would readily see that it had no place in our constitution. >> he served as governor of new york four times. he never attended high school or college. in 1928, he became the first catholic nominated by a major party to run for president. although he lost the election, he still remembered to this day.
al smith is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, "the contenders." >> every weekend on american history tv, the people and events. did thomas jefferson really father children with hemings? how early success and celebrity as a football player shaped his career on the court. look for the complete schedule at c-span.org/history.
official dedication. host: "washington journal" continues. elizabeth williamson with "the wall street journal" is here with us this morning to talk about a senate bill that was passed earlier this week regarding china and currency. what did the senate bill actually say about china's currency? guest: what is interesting about this bill, it does not name china in the legislation itself. it talks about any nation whose currency is misaligned. it is a lower bar than currently right now -- treasury has to prove that a nation like china -- obviously, we all know if is
china. they have to conduct willful manipulation of their currency. it's a lower standard and a stricter punishment. host: in all fairness to china, are there any other countries that manipulate their currency in the way this bill wants to go after? guest: there are some other countries you could make a case. china is obviously, because of the size of the economy and because of the importance of the exports from china, how they compete with the united states, they are the obvious target. host: now the bill is on the other side of the capital. what are its prospects for passage in the house? guest: this is interesting. we were comparing it yesterday. once it reaches the floor, it will absolutely pass. the trick is getting it to the floor. the republicans have said they do not want to do this.
boehner has said he does not want to. cantor says he fears a trade war. both of them are trying to call out the white house. host: why does he fear a trade war? guest: is this bill were to take affect, it would lead to levying tariffs on china. host: speaking of us in the long term, how would this affect
people on main street? guest: a number of manufacturers are pushing for this because they feel their goods are unfairly valued. nobody is arguing -- it is accepted that they do. they do keep it artificially low. that makes their goods cheaper in the marketplace. the estimates range from 25% to 40%. that means our goods are much more expensive in the marketplace. host: we are talking with elizabeth williamson from "the wall street journal" about the senate bill that was passed. if you want to get involved in the conversation, give us a call.
you can also reach us by e-mail and twitter. before we get to the phone calls, we want to take a listen to what speaker boehner had to say. this is what the speaker said to the folks there. >> there has been concern from my part and a lot of quarters in america about how the chinese manipulated their currency. there's been every effort that you can imagine out of our treasury department over the last seven or eight years addressing this with the chinese. there has been a significant improvement in the valuation of china's currency as a result of those conversations.
for the congress of the united states to pass legislation to force the chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, i think is wrong, and dangerous. you could start a trade war. given the economic uncertainty here and all around the world -- it is very dangerous. we should not be engaged in this. host: elizabeth williamson of "the wall street journal" -- your thoughts? guest: he lays out the classic argument. the focus more on domestic consumption. the administration and the republicans are aligned in this in that they favored diplomacy and quiet persuasion. china themselves, they will say
beijing says this is working, despite the fact that they have internal pressures not to let their currencies rise. a goes up about 0.5% every month. would beestion of what the inflation rate that people like and what is the way to achieve that? host: our first call for elizabeth williamson from "the wall street journal" comes from baltimore, maryland. go ahead. caller: i had more of a comment and a question. china -- a communist country -- they do not really appreciate democracy. i do not understand how we have such friendly relations with china.
look att's important to the broad picture. this is what the administration always points out. the chinese are an important ally in the region. we worked with him on things like north korea. we also try to cement relations cementkorea, obviously, this week. it is important to see the broader scheme of things and not just knew this in terms of exports and trade. host: next up is niagara falls. kevin on the line for independents. caller: good morning.
my view of this is -- we have been losing. it has only gotten better for the last seven or eight years. what do we do in the future? i cannot see it getting any better. they have an advantage and they're going to keep it. host: the chinese have an advantage? caller: yes, the valuation of --ir dollar -- it's causing our goods are paid more for there. their goods are cheaper here. i wouldn't give it up if i had an advantage. host: we can go back and forth
between the house, the senate, and the white house. what is truly the incentive for the chinese to raise the value of their currency? guest: it's important to remember that the chinese not only sell goods here, but they also buy from us. australia has a trade surplus with china because they are selling them so many raw materials. china has an enormous appetite for raw materials. again, it's a complicated relationship and it's not about the chief manufactured goods that most people think about when they think about china. host: we have this tweet. guest: they are doing is simply to sell more. our trade surplus with china 20 years ago was $10 billion. last year, it was $273 billion.
we are a nation of consumers. we are one of the wealthiest consumer nations in the world. we consume a lot of these goods. they are cheap, yes. if they were not as cheap as they are, we still consume them? host: that to the phones. new york, new york. james, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. a lot of people fail to realize that the nation of china, 1.4 billion people, you have to feed all these people. you have to educate all these people. everything from family planning to military intervention -- in other parts of theworld, which
is good business, but there undervaluing the currency, i believe, is another effort to -- they realize they are on a road to emploimplode. i feel they have a disadvantage. they resort to other means. this trade war everybody talks about -- recently in the news, they were complaining. [inaudible] they cannot even feed themselves. host: elizabeth williamson. guest: the caller points out
that this is a whole basket of issues the united states has with china. 1.4 ilion people. the state is under pressure to try to deliver its own ways to make its goods competitive. we have a lot of issues with china. intellectual property theft is another issue we are negotiating with china on. our government considers it progress that of the software used by the chinese government, 90% of it is pirated from u.s. companies. that's down from 100%. that's seen as progress. currency is the tip of the iceberg. host: we have another tweet.
is that true? guest: china has many more means for doing this. they are able to pull all the levers in a way that a free market economy is not. host: back to the phones. texas on the line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. robert, are you there? you are talking with me now. do you have a question or a comment for elizabeth williamson of "the wall street journal"? caller: i don't think americans have to be afraid. host: we are going to move on. robert seems to be having some problems.
next up, on the line for democratrepublicans. caller: hello and good morning. i just got back from china and what i saw what was absolutely mind-boggling. but construction that's going on in the country, all paid for by our deficit. the build up of their 3.5 million individuals under armed forces, compared to our 1.5. the development of their aircraft carriers, which is an absolute -- it is beautiful. anti-aircraft carrier submarines. it is absolutely scary. i am a retired marine pilot. i do not want to go over there
and have to shoot down their aircrafts. host: were you over there on business? caller: no, i was over there as a tourist. it's mindboggling. everywhere you look, there's construction -- major construction. one person told me -- half the construction trains in the world are in shanghai. host: we are going to lead it there. your response? guest: the construction market is huge. this is what we talked about before when we talk about the need for raw material. we do send tremendous amounts of raw material to china. the fact that china is our banker, that touches on the sensitivity here. with the administration, they
know, and the chinese government makes the point -- if we go over there and start preaching to them about their currency, this will not fly with their own public anymore that if they were to come to us and say, "we are your bankers. you need to fix this, this, and this. you can imagine the cry in the united states if they were to come here and do that. there is this quiet dance that goes on to try to get what the united states wants and needs from them. host: earlier this week, majority leader harry reid was talking about unfair currency manipulation by china and its impact on jobs in the united states. this is what he had to say. >> it's pretty clear by now china undervalues its currency. it has caused -- cost american
jobs by unjustly tilting the playing field. america's trade deficit with china has ballooned from $10 billion in 1990 to $ 270 billion today. to many of those lost jobs came from the manufacturing sector. american businesses do not need special advantages to compete. they just need an even playing field. host: does this legislation even out the playing field? guest: it's hard to say. undoubtably, lots are -- lots of jobs are being lost. to put a number on that is really hard. there are so many factors that have contributed to the decline of the manufacturing sector. host: in an article in this
increases, you will see that gap widen. what the currency devaluation as americans start to spend more and feel more optimistic about the future, they will buy more from china, so consequently -- consequently the deficit will grow. host: it the chinese athletes or adjust the value of their currency and it starts to go up, it will benefit us here in the united states. what does it do for countries, the neighboring countries in the pacific rim? is there some think the president can say to the south korean president that may help the overall situation? guest: i think including the trade agreement with south korea was an important step.
winners and losers here. host: our next call comes from walkie, wisconsin. david of the line for independents. -- from milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: could you tell was the top three segments of the economy are. she is that information not readily available. -- is that information not readily available? thank you. guest: i would say manufactured goods, steel, and electronics would be the industry's better vote hurthat are most hurt.
china feels like it is really hurting by undervaluing the currency. in raw materials you do not have value added you see it in a stark way. some of the other industries have other fish to fry. the electronic industry is very concerned about currencies. they feel like if we engage in a trade war with china what you might ultimately get is nothing on yjr ogthe ifp front. our president and the south korean president are going an michigan today to twour automotive plant. the automotive industry benefit? guest: somewhat.
korean cars a very popular in the united states. what they negotiated under the obama of fenestration were more careful provisions for u.s. auto makers over there. whether that will result in more sales or a surge in popularity remains to be seen, because caribbean consumers to prefer korean cars. -- korean consumers really do prefer korean cars. host: sue brokaw righwrites -- do you think the new trade agreements will help substantially lower the unemployment numbers? guest: the first question, no, because their goods are more expensive in the marketplace. they are up to 40% more expensive than other goods are
here, and that is a direct result of the currency manipulation. on the other, trade agreements tend to move jobs around. again, it is really hard to quantify the impact of these moves in terms of raw numbers of jobs. host: back to the phones. dan of the line for democrats. you were of the washington journal. caller: what i was calling about is wages around the world. china and india your able to buy a car. how were they ever go to buy our product with the make that kind of muddy? they cannot afford it. the second thing is trade adjustment. they know you're for to lose your job. third thing is we just had a trade deal with colombia, panama, and south korea.
columbia leads the world in the world's cocaine. marijuana, drugs, -- has been for years a terrorist organization. i want to say they are stupid and do not care, but it is all about money. how the world were those people buy our products with a do not make any money? guest: i think it is important to note that wages are also -- cheap labor in china is another reason their goods are cheaper here. tactfully currency issues, but that is not a panacea for cheaper goods coming in from china. host: this article under the headlines -- towards the bottom of the article is says the bill present
a thorny problem for president obama. many in his political base for to take steps to turn -- punish china for its economic policies. what is in the bills right now that the white house will want to see changed in order for the presidency -- signed off on this. guest: the white house is not very specific on this. when they were considering this of the senate, republicans were saying let's have some amendments. what mcconnell was proposing, the republican leader in the senate, but he was saying let's
just vote against it. nobody wants to vote against the legislation like this. host: elizabeth williamson. the next call comes from palestine, texas. caller: yes, i would like to have a few things to say. i would like to say a few things. first of all, the president is a great person, but do not get me wrong. there is so ready jobs that he is tried to create for people, if he is just forgetting about
the small towns. we have places here that he could put factories in for the small towns. just think about the small towns. some of the people ready for president, one could not even run texas, what makes you think he could run the world? as far as the children are concerned, please think about them. they're trying to graduate, and they have dropped two years of spanish to graduate. why can't the spanish people -- why can't we have tended to years of english to have them graduate? host: we a talk a little bit about the effect of larger reading fracturing like automotives, but for the smaller people, what effect might this bill have it in the form? guest: it obviously would make goods more competitive.
what is interesting among smaller vader factures is a lot of them are making component parts and business is booming for them, because the assembly is what is done in china. the component parts are still here. it is a bright spot. it is also a need. host: that romney talks but he would deal with china is cheating. -- mitt romney talks about how he would deal with china. is this strictly something being dealt with right now of washington? guest: if you look back at the 2010 election, bashing china was enormously popular thing to do. china, india, outsourcing,
moving jobs overseas. the other thing you have all the jobs front is the fact that american companies to move operations to china. not only because they are closer to serve the market, but because they do have cheap labor. that is another part of the puzzle. bashing tied is very popular, which is one of the reasons for that of the folks that are running in 2012 went on record as voting against this measure. host: elizabeth williamson has covered several areas for the paper since 2008. back to the phones, jack on the line for independents. caller: how are you doing today? host: go ahead. caller: i have a business.
the biggest problem we have with that is by the dead person's side of your lights are made overseas. the quality is not as great, and the lights that are made here, what happens is they jack up the price so high that people cannot afford to buy them. there is absolutely no reason to eject them up. i know this because i had people tell me this. they're doing this because of tax rebates and the credits they get. it makes business sense. i was the victim in the 1970's.
host: elizabeth williams said. jack underscores the point that we made earlier that some assembly is what is done on the manufacturing's side. it does not necessarily the manufacturing of component parts. the labor cost increasing. there are many of the business community that would argue u.s. resolutions governing things like we had the most powerful
weapon. we are such a huge market that people in the india i did states can force these companies to come back there was some type of private organizations that could come back and get the people behind them to say we're not going to buy until one is made in america. the commuter factures will say if i of the first one to get a factory opened in america, i will make the bank. this is just one example.
as long as we sit at the trough and keep buying all of this china stuff, but this will continue. the businessmen make more money, and makes more money. the only people getting killed is us. host: he makes an important point. guest: many would argue the quality is not as good. i think that depends on the sector and type of item and the supplier over there, but there is some manufacturing moving back here. just the distribution, if you have an american product you are distributing in the united states to get it back from china obviously adds to your cost. there is a manufacturer moving back.
many would argue here the key is innovation. we are caught -- not for to make textiles here and make stops here and have them be competitive with asia. -- make socks here and have the be competitive with asia. the answer here is to make a different mousetrap and a better one. host: we have a tweet that writes -- guest: well, the idea of this is to buy american products, and to make the cost differential lost so much. it is a balancing. host: back to the phones of the line for republicans. reed is of a washington journal. caller: i agree with most of the figure just as much of it, except for the last point about
things are not coming back. i think there is propaganda. i think collectively would we hear phrases like jobs are not coming back or we do not want to start a trade war, i agree with many colors of this issue, we have it at a trade war for a long time. i really sick of our politicians, pundits, or anybody standing up at the microphone back and saying if we cut back of the ratio of stop the trade deficit, but that will cost american jobs. i think it is the upper echelons of wall street. cul-de-sacs is the serial job exporter. they have been for 25 years. i am saying this to give an idea of just how corrupt our government is. guest: our calller is really
tapped into the bigger out there. the reason the measures come down the pipe and that the of of an election year is politicians are aware how angry people are. people are looking for a reason. so what are due for a scapegoat. host: where are we in the process of the house version of this bill? guest: it is crafted. there is support from half the members. if it were to come to the floor, it would pass. chances are the leadership is -- as we saw earlier, a producer of this will not come to the floor. host: back to the phones. butler, pennsylvania. steve of the line. caller: [inaudible] host: turn down your television. caller: president bush
implemented plans to create a political entity to combine him and the united states and mexico. he called it the security of prosperity partnership act in 2005. it is claimed he did this because nafta was not taking off. the they realized with china was more feasible, the s.s. paep decided that we're gonna be turned into a borderless union, and there will be roads going through from -- host: do you have a question?
caller: it has to do with china. china wants to go to mexico. instead of having us go through loss angeles -- host: with the current situation with the chinese currency value the way it is, it doesn't make it easier for them to do business with smaller countries like mexico? are they even concerned with that, or is it mostly manipulating things so they can get our money from the united states? host: i think because we are also globally connect it, there will be a knock off affect from anything they do with china or anything they do with us. we did not know about and had the consequences. there is love and i would like to point out. if this with a solution were to ever enter force, what would
happen is tied with for stopwatch a complaint with the wto. -- what would happen is they would log a complaint with the wto. that would drag on for years. so the obama of the streets of is tied to tackle these issues and try to crack down on china, on trade issues in ways other than the currency. what they argue against this bill, they would point that out. host: elizabeth williams said, with a cure for it on our program. -- williamson. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> i am delighted, but not surprised by the final repeal of the 80 but above it. -- but not delighted. >> he served as governor of the york four times. al smith became the first catholic to record president. although he lost the election, he is still remembered by the al smith of boreal did there. he is one of the 14 men featured
in c-span its new weekly series, ."he contenders >> it has been almost 30 years of a small group from alpha phi alpha fraternity proposed building a memorial to honor dr. king. this said they watched the official dedication of the martin luther king jr. national memorial in washington. but coverage begins at 9:00 eastern on c-span. -- live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern on c-span. jacqueline kennedy's taped conversations with [inaudible] . caroline kennedy preserve her mother's recordings. september 1957 his o'brien and elizabeth expert are linked forever if one photograph.
afterwards, but did you your ergin. >> c-span radio as of the other way to keep up with politics and public affairs. the re-clusives liked o air of we get programs. c-span radio, and other public service created by the nation's cable television industry. now in our 15th year. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: we are continuing our america by the numbers series. our first guest is the acting administrator for the energy information administration. tell us what is the energy information and what does it do? where do you get your data? guest: the u.s. energy information is a statistical and analytical arm of the u.s. department of energy. we provide impartial and independent energy information to promote public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. unlike most agencies that really only collect the data and provide it and disseminate it, we also have a large program of energy analysis and projections. we get our data by collecting
information from energy suppliers. we collect data from oil, natural gas, coal producers and electricity generators. some of the most critical data is collected every week on oil and natural gas. we also collect a lot of data monthly and annual leave. finally, we collect data from energy consumers. we collect data from homes, commercial buildings in manufacturing establishments on how they use energy. we provide the complete picture. host: joining us in the conversation is carol warner, executive director of the of our mental and energy study institute. guest: power organization is an independent -- our organization is of independent, non-profit organization that was formed by of our partisan group -- by of
our partisan group of congress and wanted to have an organization that could provide more information to policy makers. we do a lot of work on providing that information through congressional briefings, through looking get different kinds of policies, through trying to build consensus around a different kind of policy solution. host: what is the forecast for this coming winter regarding the consumption of energy in order to keep our homes and businesses warm? guest: compare it to last year, we expect a higher average fuel bill that use oil and natural gas. little change in homes that he with electricity. -- homes that have electricity.
the bill increases are moderated by a slightly warmer winter weather forecast. for the northeast of the midwest, and south. we do expect it to be colder in the west. we do not generate the forecast, we get it from other government agencies. guest: we have a graphic that shows which are weather is forecast to be warmer than last year, except in the west. it is 1.5% side warmer in the midwest, 5% side warmer in the south. about 3% side colder in the west. carol warner of the of our adult energy of study institute, what is it that consumers and holders will be faced with this winter in order to keep their homes warmer? it also to keep the environment
clean and safe? guest: there are concerned the have with the forecast. in areas like the northeast, but what we're really concerned about in terms of thinking about consumers is the fact that heating oil prices are going up so much, it with the economy continuing to be a bit of the doldrums, but this does create enormous problems for so many americans who are facing very high heating oil prices, but which is steadily climbing. and they did not have much of a choice in terms of fuel to aged. therefore, what is the board is to find ways in which people can reduce energy consumption. host: why does heating oil plays such a big part of the economy,
what accorded to this map also provided to us by the u.s. information of history should cover shows a significant amount of homes are being heated by natural gas, with the exception of this out? of the south.ion guest: the people that use heating oil, most of them are located in the northeast region of the country, although it is a very concentrated pocket. i think it is about 80% side of the heating oil users are located in the northeast. guest: that is correct. guest: that really creates a huge heart ship for a lot of people as we look a. -- hardship for a lot of people.
would you are looking at high of of what awaits, looking at people who is it comes to a not been able to keep pace with that, you are looking at a really extreme problems. there is a lot of concerns by folks of the north east of instantly by their congressional delegations about the adequacy of low-income energy assistance, particularly for low-income households this winter. host: today we're talking about the weather energy outlook, and we would like you to get in the conversation. if you want to give us a call and get involved, but the numbers are on your screen.
you could also get in touch with us by e-mail, twitter, and tweet. that is it. that is what we're looking at. at the facebook. -- and facebook. with the information provided by the energy information an illustration -- where does that information go and who does that help? guest: policy makers certainly look at it. we do not set policy. we stay away from policy. markets look at it very closely. when we released the natural gas storage and crude inventory every week, you will see markets adjust the information if it is surprising or unexpected. a lot of the information is aimed at the public. we have a site where all of our information is out there. we try to provide information that is important to the energy
wonks, but also the public at large to help you understand some of the key issues. host: carol warner, talk to us about the incentives, and other enticements for home owners, business owners while keeping their houses freed, to also be environmentally conscious? -- their houses green, to also be environmentally conscious? guest: many of us are very concerned about what is happening on the front, because tax credits are expiring. there are also tax credits for people to put in renewable energy. those have a little bit longer time in terms of how long they are eligible. people are interested in putting
in solar, for example. those credits go toward 2016. the efficiency tax credits have a much shorter life, and there is concern about whether or not this congress will extend them so people will have them .vailable next year there fo, therefore, in some states there are tax incentives. if there low-income households they do not have the income to be able to use tax credits the more efficient we become, the more we protect our environment, and we also improve the comfort of our buildings and homes. all of these things really do go to the other. host: our first call comes from castle rock, washington. caller: good morning. we just got news from our pud that they raise the rates by 5 percent signed in june or.
we just cut is they are raising it by 18%. that is 27 percent signed they have raised the rates in just one year. -- that is 27% they have raised the rates in just one year. we have bought all these cold winds back east shutdown, and where so much of our energy comes from coal around the country, what regulations can we get rid of to get the energy prices back in line, because they are skyrocketing? what can we get rid of? what new policies, new regulations are coming down the line and what more can we expect and how high do you think energy prices will go? guest: think you for your question, and those are the enormous price increases. however, i would caution you it is really afford to look at what is really driving the price increases.
i would suggest that it is not regulation that is driving those price increases, that there are a number of other drivers looking at the kinds of energy are being used to produce your electricity. i believe in washington you are talking about electricity supply. of course in washington state a lot of the electricity comes from hydro, and prices have been coming up, but with regard to coal and we look at energy prices, they're all coming up in price, which creates a lot more volatility, which is one of the reasons why i think so many people and organizations like ours feel it is so important to invest in energy efficiency.
it will help people reduce consumption and divisions. it is healthier all the way around it can be good economic sense. the more we can do to bring greater supply of rubles into our portfolio, but the better off we are. there is a lot of work going on in that across the country. guest: throughout the country as a whole, electricity prices are increasing at a fairly moderate rate. we seek lectures the prices of all the 1% over last winter. one of the things that is contributing to that is the situation in the natural-gas market. natural gas prices are quite moderate this year. that is having a very favorable effect in many parts of the country, but not everywhere, on electricity prices. in many parts of the country's
natural gas is the source of electricity that set the price. it provides 25 percent of the total electricity generation in this country. host: in another craft that we got from the u.s. eia, it shows the price as compared to last winter in blue. natural gas has gone up. everyone has pretty much got up. when you compare the prices on a five-year winter average, the price of natural gas has actually gone down. electricity and heating oil way up and profane up as well. why has natural gas from down as compared to the others? guest: natural gas, the past five years we of seeded increase in production of natural gas, particularly from what is called shale gas resources. that boom in production has really helped to moderate
prices. natural gas prices, unlike oil prices, really reflect -- oil prices reflect what is going on in the world, but natural gas prices reflect what is going on in north america, primarily the united states. natural gas prices in the united states today are much lower than prices in europe or asia, and again it's because of the tremendous increase in supply. host: falls church, virginia, art. caller: thanks for taking my call. what are the alternative energy and experts to increase energy supplies like gas pipelines, increasing nuclear if or investing in alternatives? you usually hear the immediate impact on localities that might be affected like the mountain or in people -- or people in
nebraska who concerned, but you rarely hear about the expenses of the people in the northeast, are chips. and the expenditures that we make to the middle east and things like that, is there anything the public can have a broader understanding of how these things are related? host: before we get an answer, have you seen your heating prices go up or down recently? caller: they have gone up moderately in virginia, but i have many family members in the northeast. and stand what the guests were talking about with respect to heating oil being a major source of fuel there and expenditures for those folks being considerably higher in the last few years. guest: the country uses about 24
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. if the price falls by $1 per one dozen cubic feet, that saves the country $20 billion. there's definitely an impact for what happens to the price of natural gas and what consumers and up paying. in residential and natural gas prices, the prices of commodities is only one part of that price. there's also the price of the transmission of gas from the producing area to where it is used. a big part of the price is the cost of running all local distribution pipes to your house. for fuel oil, the cost of the wholesale oil is a much higher share approve what the household user will pay. it is also the case that as the prices change, as they go up and down, the dealer will be
passing goes through a lot more quickly than the natural gas company, which is a regulated utility would be passing through changes in the cost of gas. it is a combination of more of the fuel oil cost being the cost of the wholesale oil itself, the fact that the oil dealer, you will see a more immediate impact as the world price of oil changes on the price of the household pays. there are a myriad of factors. oil's going on the effects demand. there's been demand from developing countries like china and other asian countries. ba has had an effect. very recently oil production in the u.s. has also been rising. but again it is really the world balance of supply and demand that is driving prices and that is pushing prices up.
host: next call from florida, ned. orler: it's a misconception misguided opinion about some politicians about the oil and natural gas. we think we don't have to import oil from overseas. we have natural gas in the u.s., but environmentalists and politicians are holding us back. why don't we have something like the one in alaska. in north dakota is building highways and digging for oil and natural gas. only democrats can do that. why not open all the places where there is oil? like in florida?
you are looking at the water and that's where the oil is and where revenue is. host: address his concerns about why we don't drill more in the united states? guest: there is drilling that is going on in the united states and there are all sorts of permits that have been issued for places for oil companies drill. as howard indicated, but members with regard to oil produced in the u.s. have been going up, but i would just remind our caller, as we think about these huge issues, but it's really important to us think about all long-term ramifications as well and that it is very important for us to develop a really balanced portfolio, a broad
based energy portfolio in this country and it is very important for us to become cleaner in terms of our energy use, because that has enormous impact upon public kalikow, on our environment, and our environment is very important for all of us and for our children and our future and in terms of what that means for our ability to produce healthy crops, to ensure public health, to have clean air and water. those are all terribly important questions we want to ask. and we should not forget that this country is blessed with an abundance of renewable energy resources, but we should also be looking just as seriously as oil and natural gas
supplies. >host: where does our oil comes from is this headline. the chart on the right of the page shows sources of u.s. net petroleum imports. our next call comes from baker city, oregon. eugene. caller: yes, mr. werner, my question is, epa just got their hands slapped for house of representatives put down a bill, on a mission control and that was supposed to go into effect in 2013.
now it goes to the senate. my question is we have a line plan here. our town is about 9000 or 10,000 people. the line plan has put in $20 million in trying to help emission controls. to control 98% of commissions. they want to put more restrictions on the plant. we have 116 people that work down there. that will probably affect about 2000 people. you people want to close it down. so that you can import things from china, cement and stuff from china. they say it affects 32,000 people, the mission control's that would cause death. we have more than that in wars and other catastrophes. host: we will leave it there.
carol werner, your response to his comment. guest: again, thank you for your question and for your comment. i think that i would suggest that there has been a lot of over simplification with regard to information about the epa's proposed rule and the bill that did just passed the house of representatives, a couple things i would really encourage you to remember. therule that has been predictable than has been proposed by epa that has been delayed, that's been in the planning for a number of years. the industry has been very aware of that and has been in consultation with the agency with regard to that. that said, it is really important again to attack how we can improve our industries.
it is terribly important to make sure that we do maintain and grow manufacturing in this country. we feel very strongly about that. we need our manufacturing industries to be as efficient as possible, that will enable them to really improve their productivity and to be much more competitive globally. that is really critical in terms of maintaining a healthy economy. i would think that you also would be concerned in terms of wanting to make sure that we do what also makes sense in terms of protecting the public with regard to emissions in terms of thinking about things like mercury, which are terribly toxic and are connected to such plants. i think we can all do better. thank you. host: our next call comes from me northfield, new hampshire, mark. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.
you said that it was not policy driving up energy costs. the bush administration, it was $1.85 a gallon. now predellas 45 cents a gallon. it is the administration driving up energy costs. -- now it is $1.45. venezuela selling oil back to us versus american companies keeping it in america. it is a policy. i'm not against solar and wind, but it is 20 years off. right now we have oil that is natural in the earth than has been put there from nature. host: carol werner.
guest: thank you for calling and expressing your concerns. i would disagree with your premise because it is very important for all of us to understand what really is happening with regard to oil and the administration does not really have a significant role with regard to the price. oil is a global commodity and its prices really are so dependent on what is happening with regard to the global demand. i think that howard can probably also called a little more specifically with regard to some of the patterns that we have been seeing with regard to oil prices and what has been happening. it is important to understand that this is really driven by
what is happening internationally. it is very much a global commodity and that is really what is at stake in terms of setting the prices. host: howard gruenspecht, go ahead. guest: oil production, we are projecting oil production in the growth of mexico will be down a little this year, but it is in the neighborhood of 100,000 barrels per day. the u.s. produces 5.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. an earlier caller mentioned the the growth in onshore production in places like north dakota. in august citing north dakota oil production got up to 460,000 barrels a day. a few years ago it was 100,000 barrels per day. again, over all the crude oil production is up and natural gas production is way up. oil is really not important as a fuel for electricity generation,
only because it is so expensive and there are other ways to generate electricity. only 1% of our electricity is generated using oil. the key fields for electricity generation are coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro. on renewal bulls, it is the fastest-growing source of electricity generation -- on renewables. other than large scale hydro power, they are still only providing a 3% of our electricity. it is faster-growing, but it is still quite small in the overall electricity supply picture. host: with regard to the winter energy outlook, the oil that is produced here in the united states, is it the kind that can be refined into and heating oil? if so, is most of that staying in the united states or is it being exported overseas?
guest: good question. the united states really does not export any significant amount of crude-oil. the oil that is produced here is virtually 100% of it is refined here. because the world of oil market is an integrated market, in some cases we do export some of the products that we refine. in particular there's a market for distillate fuels which include heating oil and diesel fuel. the world market there has been very strong. we have been exporting recently and growing amounts of distillate fuels. host: our next call comes from california, mitchell. caller: yes, good morning to all of you. i really would like to make a comment about a little closer to home and the price of utilities.
i live in san diego. there is a san diego gas and electric company down there that ran the whole area. their rates were very high. before the program that be would insulate our homes very well and would use less energy. that program went really well in the area. then san diego gas and electric turned around and went to the public utilities commission and ask for a raise of rates because their profit margin went down. how do you wind with a situation like that? -- win. electric cars sounds good, but they are $80,000, some of them. how can people afford to live like that? host: thanks, mitchell. howard gruenspecht. guest: mitchell, the question.
thank you. like everyone else, there are choices to make. there's no question -- and at the mitchell suggests that investments in insulation, energy efficiency, better windows, more efficient equipment can reduce consumption. that is one of the reasons why we focused on -- in our interviews outlook, on the percentage changes in fuel use, because the results in each individual house will depend on those actions in how much fuel that they use. i think that mitchell is also right that some of the new technologies are quite expensive. carol spoke earlier about many s, governmentp supports, the eia cannot take a position on whether those are
good or bad. our project and is without those reports -- and we do not assume those will continue -- we don't see very rapid penetration of things like electric cars. host: this is from paul in tennessee. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. to both of your guests, i would like to say something. i am a 9.5 year veteran of the coal mines. this administration is breaking the backs of every coal miner working today. i will tell you how the epa is a bunch of junk. people may not know there are things in the coal mine that when the miners cut through that place and i went in and fixed the top when the miners, out, i went into these places and it's like taking a shower every time you go to. there's as much water runs through the middle of the mountain as runs on the outside.
i was working while george w. bush was president. when this administration came into office the coal miners could not back up on the it take can go back any other direction. we cannot back up to go forward. this administration has closed down two coal mines in my area, cost a lot of jobs, and beijing's that guide this country, the electricity grid. thatd major thngings guide this country. guest: thanks for calling. the question that has been raised with regard to the coal mine situation is again very
local in nature. i would think that the in terms of thinking about the question that our caller has raised, that there are issues around safety and emissions and safety with regard to minors that really has to be taken into account, in terms of some of these situations. i had not been aware there are coal mines being shut down unless there were extreme safety violations. people in the minds should be very concerned about those situations-- mines. i think that coal mining and coal production has been increasing, and so i am happy to look into this situation that you described. host: the house goes into session in about 10 minutes. we have about another 10 minutes left in this edition. howard gruenspecht, you wanted
to weigh in on this. guest: guy will stay with our policy given that i am from a particular agency. one of the things that is going on is competition between coal and natural gas and electric power sector. with increasing production of natural gas and the price of natural gas coming down, in some areas of the country we are finding more dispatching of natural gas-fired power plants. the coal industry is a big industry and they are also having a change in how much coal is coming in from the west versus how much is coming from the east. so it is complicated. host: we have a start -- chart from your organization, a howard, the show's most of the gas consumed in the u.s. comes from domestic production and with canada being the main supplier. what i thought was interesting was between 1970 and about 1985
the production lines and the consumption lines for natural- gas seemed to parallel each other. and then in around 1987 consumption starts to separate and moved at a faster pace, i guess, and production through the year 2010. what is the explanation for this and what does this mean for this winter and coming winter is in terms of being able soon heat our homes and businesses with natural-gas? guest: what i would focus on is the end of the chart where you can see the production, since about 2005, really rising rapidly and closing the gap with consumption and even though consumption is also still going up. that reflects the increasing production from shale gas. almost none of our gas came from sale in 2005. something like 4%. -- -- almost none of our gas
came from shale. inre's a tremendous resource natural gas that has been unlocked. there are some controversies around a, as increases apply a tremendous amount. we rely less on imports. the imports that we still rely on do come from canada. we have had attractive prices and such benefits for electric prices. consumers of natural gas. we heard from one of the callers about coal mines in tennessee having a hard time maybe with competition. so this is a success story, i think, in terms of domestic production of energy. host: back to the phones, cleveland, ohio, john. caller: good morning. host: your question or comment
regarding winter energy outlook. caller: my question is for carroll. please comment on cap-and-trade and its effect on fuel prices here and the fact that i think we export coal to china, and are they regulated by this and cap- and-trade rules? guest: thank you. as you probably know, there is no national cap-and-trade legislation in the united states. there is a regional program in the northeast and california is starting a program. europe as a program, but there's no national program. right now we are dealing whips -- with the situation in terms of prices for fossil fuels have been going up for a variety of reasons.
the situation is becoming more and more competitive in terms of how expensive it is to produce various fuels. as we have seen the price of commodities go up over the last decade as well as the price of oil. host: next is valdez, north carolina, nancy. caller: i want to ask about energy. the price of energy going up. , which willp 18% cost consumers 20 more dollars every month on their bill. the light bill. i don't know how many people and have had their power cut off because they cannot afford it without a job. you cannot afford this. if you have to have money. i agree in taking care of our
ecology and i like that. but the environmental folks go way too far. i don't understand it -- i cannot think of what i am trying to say. host: nancy, where do you get your energy from? duke power and national electric? do you expect the costs to keep your house warm this winter will go up dramatically or slightly? caller: they made the comment on the news yesterday that the reason why they were going up is to cover all the regulations on them. host: we will leave it there. howard, is that something we could expect to see around the country, but the prices will go up in order to cover some of the green agendas? guest: i can think it is the case that electric generators,
particularly those that use coal, are facing over the next few years some changes in environmental policies, across state's air pollution role and others that are pending that could potentially have some effect. in our outlooks, and we take the ones that are final and build them into our projections. the ones that are pending, we don't look at. but to the extent of those which take effect and they require fuel switching or requisites or other investments, i think that would be reflected in the cost of electricity. it also depends on whether you live in an area where there is sort of a rate -- the regulatory system for setting electricity prices based on average cost. some areas of the country have that. in other areas of the country you have competitive wholesale
markets. that is a little bit of a different effect when the regulations take effect. so i the caller raises a legitimate issue. but how that plays out in different areas of the country is really quite complicated. host: zande from charlotte, north carolina. ca-- sandy. caller: a comment and then a question. for howard, i would like for him to elaborate on a few months ago the republican house passed a bill in which they felt natural gas prices were too cheap, so they passed a bill allowing them to put all the natural gas in this country on the open market to drive up prices. for carol, i would like her to elaborate on how much of an actual effect on natural gas prices do market manipulation
and speculation by wall street in cahoots with oil companies actually plays a role in the cost of natural gas? thank you. guest: thank you. good questions. closely watching the market. with the increase in production of natural gas and the factors that i mentioned earlier, that natural gas prices in the united states are much lower than prices in asia and europe, there is interest among natural gas producers in exploring the possibility of exporting natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas. kind of ironic because before the recent increase in production, many folks had been looking at huge imports of liquefied natural gas to the united states as being necessary united states as being necessary to