Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20110518

drones were entering pakistani airspace to keep watch over the osama bin laden compound. the private life, should it impact your vote? their stories about former california gov. arnold schwarzenegger and the imf had as well. we would get your phone calls here. the phone calls are on your screen. let me begin this morning with the "washington post" store. bumpy start raises doubts during a torrid in iowa. in the middle of it all, over the dustup up for his comments about medicare, gingrich has a new problem to contend with, -- that is from the "washington" this morning. in other stores, from the "christian post" posted yesterday. new cambridge there is a marital indiscretions for evangelicals to discuss. a democrat is up first on this discussion. has it in the past impacted your road? caller: it is actually lewis. that is ok. for me, and for the electorate i believe, private peccadilloes and personal affairs it should have no part in how we vote and how we view these public officials. what matters is their views on issues and of substance, the loss become the etiology. it is very simple. i do not care if some candidate did drugs. i really do not care much what their religious preferences are. i do, however, care in their policy viewpoints, and if they want to impose their religion on the rest of america. and that is what i have to say. host: what about the issue of trust? does it make you think that you might trust these people s? caller: well, no, because i think it is a part of human psychology and human nature. what went on behind closed doors is their private life. and that is not necessarily congruent and the same as how they are at work, as public officials. i 19 use that as a tool against them in terms of my own trustor lack thereof. i do not feel that it would affect my level of trust. host: here is the "national journal" website with recent and past political sex scandals. at the top is gov. arnold schwarzenegger, and below that is president bill clinton. he was being asked about monica lewinsky. and then there is the national journal featuring eliot spitzer, a democrat from new york, former attorney general. a low that, the senate ethics committee announced an inquiry into john ensign's extramarital affair. the report came out last week. below that, mark sanford, and also larry craig featured in this rundown of recent political sex scandals. we will go to massachusetts, bob, a democrat as well. does this impact your vote in should it? caller: it will lend it should, especially when the person who has transgressed in any way has made a career of talking against these particular transgressions. the defense of marriage and what marriage are they talking about? the first, the second, the third, the fourth? someone who is anti-gay and makes a big to do of it, and number one campaign issue, and it turns out they have a boyfriend on the side. it goes on and on. it seems that in a lasting years these people that are caught morally transgressing are the ones who are making a career and causing a lot of pain to whatever it is that they are campaigning against. i also feel that -- and this is just a hair -- with regard to all of these budget cuts. i think people had better start thinking. one of the things that should be considered for budget cutting is congress itself, the bloated congressional staff. they are costing us billions of dollars. congressmen are using the office as a flophouse, living there. we're paying for all of that. all of these junkets all over the world. host: we will live it there. mona, and independence in baltimore, what do you think? are you with us? mona, are you there? go ahead. we can hear you. you are on the air. caller: i think that all we have to go by as voters is character. the successful politicians today get elected on campaign contributions. they do favors for the people that paid for them to get reelected. until we wake up and realize that the successful politicians today continue to divert from their character on to their dreams and speeches, unless we want to research the voting records of all the people we are voting for, the only thing we can rely on is their character. host: gabrielle is an independent as well. caller: i think i quite agree with the last caller from baltimore. character is the best thing that anybody can have. [unintelligible] you are going to change, you're going to do something else, your point to come up with previous thoughts. soap character is very apparent. we need to see what they are doing. will he be a liar? those of the problems you are having now. you cannot trust them because when they get into the office they fail to do that. thank you. c-span.org pendleton, indiana, wanda, a democrat. we want to hear from republicans as well. we want to hear your perspective as well. want to come and go ahead. caller: i believe that is the person and what they say when they are running for office is not what they do when they get into office. and i think what they do behind closed doors is their business. it is not the public's business on how they run the country. they were selling some of the president's that headmistresses and stuff like that. even the candidates had mistresses. nobody said nothing about that. it has been proven back to george washington who had a mistress. whatever goes on behind closed doors is their business. i think it is up to who you think is best. and i do not just vote democrat, i'd vote for the person. host: the "washington times" this morning. after an impressive comeback in 2010, republicans are unsure of their chances next year, despite their relative unpopularity of mr. obama. that is the "washington times" about talks of the 2012 draft. the front page of the "new york times" about gov. arnold schwarzenegger. he acknowledged on tuesday he fathered a child with a member of his household staff a few years before running for office. and then a senior adviser to mr. davis, who mr. schwarzenegger challenge, said at the time that they're all sorts of rumors flying around like this at the time of the campaign. mrs. shriver has always benefited from an image management. one of the last public events that they attended together was the funeral of her father. alexandria, va., a republican, what you think about this? does this affect your vote? caller: yes, absolutely, and thank you for c-span. people need to perform good conscious as by making good decisions in their public and private life. they will have a huge impact on how they're going to be a in office. and i think we are seen that in people when they get into office and they feel they are better than they are and make some bad decisions. and unfortunately they pay for them. host: jeremy, what you think about new gingrich's past, that situation? you are republican. would you vote for him? he has converted to catholicism and that his wife will be out on the trail with him as a witness to his family values. what do you make of all that? caller: it is quite challenge. you have to think -- just how onerous is see? this is the third time, is that the charm? but as my father frequently has said, we cannot this about miracles. i myself am a catholic. i probably have had sent more than newton gingrich has, but i did before i was married. i do want to take him for face value that he has changed and he is going to be faithful in his marriage. i certainly would like to believe that because i think he is a strong candidate. but i cannot tell you he is my choice. host: let me ask you this -- can his wife serve as a character witness for you on this issue? caller: absolutely. to ignore the spouse would be not a good idea. host: so you think spouses have a role in this as well. caller: yes, look at maria shriver, which i am making the assumption that she was so offended by what her husband did that she had to leave the marriage. and yet hillary clinton, bless her heart, who was standing by her man after i think being dragged through the mud. marriage is supposed to be for better or for worse. and we should not forget that the sense of the flesh are not as bad as the sense of the mind. it is my pop -- completely beyond the pale that men make these mistakes against the women that they should love so fully. host: what do you mean by that last point? caller: the sins of the flesh verses the sins of the mine, the mind is where you are fundamentally twisted in your thought, but when you get involved with sex or drugs or things of that nature, those are more of a pull on your -- the person, i cannot, with a better term that is a flash, your animal instincts, let's say. and one last thing i will say is that if anyone should listen -- want to cheer their addictions, they should listen to c-span because it is so awesome. host: another story about the situation with the imf chief. dominique strauss-kahn, considered the leading party for president of france -- yes, i like women, he said. so what? he had great intellect and restless energy being attacked because of his accomplishments. let's go to hawaii, a democrat. what do you think? caller: i am an independent but i call the democrat line. i think that your previous caller is correct. i agree with him on almost every point. elected officials have a relationship with the public, the voting public, and they should take an oath to stay within the boundaries of conscience. however they are human. i think it does matter of -- this question does matter. it is a matter of intellectual honesty, and as far as sexual infidelity and things that have to do with a more personal nature, i really think the press exploits that and create a sensation in a way that is against public interest. what i thought many years ago with bill clinton, and i cannot say that i have sympathy for bill clinton, but it really was the press that exploits the public mind. what can i say? i blame both officials and the press. host: did you vote for bill clinton both times? caller: quite honestly, i did both times. and the second time, there were a lot of -- there was a lot of joy and trusts in some of the policies that he had created. his lack of discretion and his inability to fully acknowledge that he needed to take some personal responsibility for the public, he created such a catastrophic loss for those working under his policies that i cannot say that i would be able to forgive him as a voting member of the public. i am not his wife so i cannot speak for her. host: you said you were an independent. has a politician's private life ever swayed your vote? caller: not really. it does make a difference and they need to be accountable to the losses to the public. but before office, we all knew bill clinton was someone who practiced infidelity. it was obvious to everyone. it was the strength of his intellectual and political capabilities. but i cannot say that i would support someone with his self- destructive tendencies again. i think that he should have been held accountable in a way that did not damage the public. so i'd bring the press. host: ok, let me show you a piece from the "new york times." this is about the imf chief. that is stephen clark's piece about dominique strauss-kahn. let's go to crapo, tenn., and get your take on this -- could impact your vote? caller: i look at what jesus said in the bible. brought him a woman caught in adultery. the pharisees and the hypocrites came before him and said, and of course, with their laws at that point in time, there were stunning her to death. and jesus got up and said, he that is without sin, let him cast the first own. then he told the woman after, he said, go and send no more. so forgiveness is a possibility. of course the lord jesus christ can forgive people what they did wrong. many do not like the idea of it, but people like yonewt gingrich had great ideas when he was in the house. host: let me ask you, do you forgive him? caller: i do, and i think sometimes, a lot of people out there that are very successful in their business life or politicians, but there may very much failures and their personal life. host: let me get reaction to this. this is susan estrich in the "reno journal." how can you impeach the president when you're under -- engaging in the underlying conduct? caller: bill clinton was not impeached for his sexual act. it was because he lied under oath. host: it is about honesty. caller: newt gingrich never denied his affair. host: it was a secret at the time. caller: i do not think it was a problem. he did not actually deny it. he was able to say that i did this. and he did resign from his seat. it was a difference between him and bill clinton, a really big difference. host: in arkansas, an independent. caller: there is no difference between newt gingrich and bill clinton, the way that this is come out to be. you should hold them accountable for the way they act in their private life. it speaks to how they will act behind closed doors, you know. i think it is important. host: we move on to boston. mike is a republican, you are up next. caller: about 89 calls ago, a lady stole my thunder. she won all the way back to george washington. this is -- she left out franklin roosevelt, who when he died, he was with his longtime mistress. even jimmy carter admitted to moments in time in his life he had lost in his heart. my gosh, we are killing ourselves. we just want people to have no skeletons in their closet. your lines would go totally silent. we have so many problems and to worry about someone's mistress or private life and what they do when they're in the confines of their home, it is their business. what we care about and should care about is how they bowed. how they say and how they vote. host: international headlines for you today. repeated excursion into pakistani airspace -- we'll talk about this issue later on at 8:30 a.m. what tom udall, a democrat from new mexico loses on the foreign relations committee. the front page of the "new york times," about the japanese reactor. the vans that did not work at the crippled plant are also used and american systems. that is the front page. and then inside the "new york times," this headline about mubarak possible life in egypt. wife in egypt. back to your phone calls -- it should a politician's private life but that your vote? go ahead, wanda. caller: i do not think it should have anything to do with it. ivo for the person and i try to trust that person. -- i'd vote for the person and i tried a trust that person. i voted for obama because i did not think we have anyone to vote for. host: you vote for the person -- does that include their character? caller: yes, i vote for their character, but i do not think when they get into office, what they do extramarital affairs, that is up to them and their white. hillary clinton proved that. she stood behind her husband and that is the only one that should have been able to forgive him. she did him and she is one heck of a lady. she should have been our presidents. erode your trust in these politicians, their private lives, their past? caller: not at all, not all, because once they get in office, whatever they do in office on the marital thing, i am talking about the marital fine. host: ok, d w in seattle, washington. st. louis, missouri, jane, an independent scholar. caller: i have a problem with the hypocrisy that goes on in politics. once the republicans to run on family values and then they turn around and find out they have done these the other things, cheating on their wives, trying to impeach a sitting president -- where does it stop? either you're going to be what you say you'll are or you are not. but do not run on those things and then turn around and we come to find out that you are doing the same thing. host: fayette bill, n.c., ed, a republican -- good morning. are you there? i think i have the wrong someone. we will try to get back to him in just a minute. let me give you a few more headlines. this is the international section, those mississippi floods. flooding takes of fast economic toll and it is hardly done. and about a dozen interviews, they expect hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, including crop and infrastructure along the hundreds of miles of rivers that meanders along. one person put the cost in the $6 billion to $9 million range. also this morning, this is the "wall street journal," back to 2012 politics. the exit of mr. huckabee to lead in some recent opinion polls looks to affirm what mr. romney's status as the gop favorite. meanwhile, former alaska gov. sarah palin -- one mitt romney, the story says that he wants to keep his rivals at bay by frightening them with his fund rising, advisers say. we will go to ohio, nancy, our next caller, a democrat. caller: i also want to show you before i get to the subject, you have become one of my favorite moderator's. you have come a long way. host: thank you. caller: regarding new gingrich, he is the biggest hypocrite. here he was, the car out of clinton's allies, terry was trying to impeach him. how many lies has been bridge told what he has been cheating? a lie is a lie and i do not care if you tell it to your wife or if you tell it to the nation. it is a life. and all of these hypocrite's calling in here saying, of, they do not care about that, that is all you heard when this came out about clinton. my sister called me from virginia. she lived right around the sea and she says, what do you think about this? i said deep in my heart i think it is true. i think clinton did cheat. i think he was having a trust and the white house. and they ate him up, and not only that, but they ate hillary up, too, because she stood behind him. host: robert is a republican in georgia. you are on the air. robert? good morning. go ahead, sir. what are your thoughts on this? caller: i just believe that if you are in the public view, you should do your best to do what you say you will do and do what's right, most of all. because if you do not do that, then you cannot have that trust, and nobody will trust you if you are doing the wrong thing. and i know that nobody is perfect. still you could do your level of best to do what is right. and the way that things are now out base, it is very important to leave that kind of life, especially in the public eye. host: go-ahead, robert. caller: about the situation with the economy, i drive a tractor trailer. as they operate the tractor trailer in a business way that the government doing is right now, it pays over $1,000 to fill this tractor up. you just cannot keep going on like it is. you have to use common sense. host: bernie becker is joining us on the phone, a staff writer for "the hill." he had this piece is today. a deal to avert a shutdown increase spending by $3.2 billion. mr. becker, many people remember this fight very recently. the 2011 budget deal that averted a government shutdown. the cbo did a study that said it increased spending rather than saving money, which is what the debate was all about. how did this happen? guest: the short answer is military spending. the cr increase that while decreasing other spending. in fact, some of that military spending was sped up. that accounts for the $3.2 billion difference. host: so what was the reaction from house speaker john boehner when i saw this cbo report? guest: they essentially said, look, this bill cuts over $100 billion over 10 years, which is true. and it was a limited snapshot of what went on. that it did not count the savings in previous cr's, and for the money that was authorized in not spent. they are saying. , it still cut a lot of money. host: so what the cbo look that was the last cr that was passed, and that included military spending. so that increase was just in the short term and not the long term? guest: it was just saying that it was money spent over the next five months to the end of this year, september. and then the $120 billion is for the entire next 10 years. host: so when you take a look at the cr's passed before this final one, how much was there in savings? guest: the cbo did not let that. -- look at that. the republicans were saying it would save about $2 billion a week. host: is cbo going to look at that? guest: it is tough to say when that would come out. host: and what was the reaction from democrats yesterday? guest: kind of muted. in large part, they are more focused on the paul ryan stop. i think they see that as more a winner for them as far as we doing what led to the government shutdown. story canie becker's be found on thehillcom. bernie becker, thank you for joining us this morning. we will go back to your phone calls. should a politician's private life of that your vote? a democrat in ohio. caller: i am just fine. my take on the conversation, the republicans and democrats -- who is telling the truth as far as being faithful? faithfulness is not the key here. when you're dealing with everyone's lives here, you should not worry about private -- privatizing your own life is what you should be worrying about. getting things in order, where the president, ok, what he does is what he does. if he is leading this economy to better, making it better than it was, because he had a lot to contend with in the years ahead, and any little change that comes about towards the positive, we all have to remember, it does not happen overnight. so private life is their private life. host: an independent in gainesville, florida. caller: good morning, ma'am. i believe the hypocrisy, they set the change where they are going to perform and then they claim sainthood while the other guy is supposed to be devilish, short of. and then they prove that they are nothing but a hypocrite, line from the left to the right. that is the issue. host: here is the "usa today" front-page story about congress. voters say most members of congress do not reserve re- election. 28% say most members should get another term in office. 63% say most should be replaced. republican voters are more dissatisfied than democrats. manhattan, mark, a republican. should have politicians' private lives impact your vote? caller: i have only one name to say which i think underlines the point. john edwards. what he was doing during his race for the presidential nomination, when he was being called upon, knowing his wife had cancer, a elizabeth knew he was having an affair, they both came out together and showing that they were like lovebirds, but in the background, she was aware of the fact that he had a love child. this was a very sad situation that we nearly all let to the man president of the united states who both him and his wife were lying to the american public and trying to get sympathy votes. host: mark, that brings up the role of the spouse. what you think the role of the spouses when it comes to situations like this? caller: i hope there will never be another situation is like john edwards and elizabeth edwards that we have to live through again. but it is most important that a wife be honest about her husband. her role as first lady is extremely important. it was set down by -- i cannot think of -- well, the woman, the allyson -- the ice cream. dolley madison, who set the role of the first lady. everyone has tried to be like -- that is all i have to say about john edwards. host: a democrat in baltimore. caller: i think that it does matter. like with new king ridge. he told it -- new gingrich. he went to his wife after cancer surgery at the hospital, he told her he was divorcing her and was going to be with someone else. the question there is, does his current wife, it is that the one he left his wife for previous, or is it yet another one down the line? i am sure if you ask the one going on to the night prior to him announcing his intention to divorce her, did he think he was a good, at the command? she might have said that he was. and possibly even 10 minutes later, she would have done the same thing. in shock. host: the baltimore sun this morning. president barack obama will speak for the rapid changes in the middle east and north africa and a major draw thursday in which she will cast the u.s. as a facilitator instead of an instigator, a sharp contrast with his predecessors regime change. jay carney said yesterday that he will make news in that speech. also, we told you about the game of six, talking a lot about that on this program. yesterday, one of those members, tom coburn of oklahoma, dropped out. here is the story in the "washington post." the group came tantalizingly close to a agreement. but he kept demanding that all the issues be reconsidered. on tuesday morning, coburn said he was dropping out. he later told reporters that the group was at an impasse in complain that democrats were unwilling to do enough to cut spending especially on federal retirement programs. the remaining members of the group planned to meet again today. it was unclear whether they would be able to proceed. that is the "washington post." new orleans, a republican. what you think? privateup politicians' lives caller: affect your blood yes, it does, because honesty is the best policy in we should be taking our kids about fidelity. now, the hillary clinton situation -- she did not -- she wanted to be president so she said she did not care. also, it affected chelsea and that is terrible. we have a lady president and she is a prostitute on the side, would you vote for her? that is why i admire president obama. that is an example that the kid should follow. host: the egypt -- egypt ask the imf for $4 billion and support. and meredith whitney has an opinion piece, an adviser who came under heavy criticism for discussion about state finances. she writes about the hidden state financial crisis. next month will also mark the end of the american recovery and reinvestment act $480 billion. last phone call on this, an independent in stuart, virginia. go ahead. good morning. caller: i would just like to say about this issue, people in positions of authority such as jim baker, jimmy swaggart, for some unknown for others, we need to think about it. are we living in ancient rome where summer crucified and some go free? what do you think? host: what do you think? caller: the opinions as far as the media on some people and others. some people are allowed do these things and it seems like others are not. is it a power deal or what is it? host: coming up in 45 minutes, senator tom udall of new mexico will talk about u.s. strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. but next is the president of the national rifle association, david keene. we will be right back. ♪ >> history as you know is much more than just politics and soldiers. and social issues. it is also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas, and we should not on things into categories. it is all part of the same thing. >> thomas edison, henry adams -- sunday night on "q&a," park one of two weeks with david mccullough on americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. span3, from lectures and history, regina williams on the music of duke ellington. on american artifacts, look at the smithsonian effort to preserve and exhibit, the jefferson bible. and live from jackson, mississippi, but that did anniversary of the freedom riders, when 13 men and women, black and white, boarded two buses bound for new orleans. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history, or press the c-span alert button to get our schedules directly e-mailed to you. >> this weekend on book tv, authors on the gulf oil spill, wall street, the universe, america's largest slave revolt, india, and the malaise. plus a panel discussion on the book industry. the former ambassador to yemen on the u.s. counter-terrorism efforts in that country. and on after words, one of the most significant standoffs of the cold war era, the berlin wall. look for the complete schedule led our web site and get our schedules e-mailed directly to you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: david keene, who now serves as the president of the national rifle association, joins us. a familiar face to you. a member of the conservative union. we will talk about the role, but let's begin with the question we were just asking, does a politician's private life matter? should it impact the budget? guest: whether rich suitor should not is not the question, but that it does. one of the interesting thing that goes on about the selection in people's mind, back in the 1960's and from then on, we had people writing books about how politicians are manipulating the vote. at the presidential level, that decision is so complicated that no one has really been able to do that. people look at their candidate not just for what they have done, not just about what they have said, but about who they are and what they are really doing, seeking someone who kate -- who they can trust to handle the problems that they cannot even imagine coming up. it is much more complicated than electing a senator, who you want to vex for this or that, or the governor who manages and will not cost the country its future. the presidency is a different type of office and they apply different standards. all kinds of things going to agree by the time the campaigns are over, like better not, or whether we look at it objectively and said this should not be considered that should not be considered, all that goes into the mix. the result is the decision is made by the voter. i do not think it is whether they should is that -- but that all of this goes into it. i think candidates, and i have done a lot of campaign consulting, that what often like that none of these things came up. perhaps it would be better if they did not, but they do. host: given that, if you think the electorate, the primary voters, republican primary voters can trust yet gingrich? guest: that is a question that only they can answer. he is a friend of mine and a friend of a lot of people. i work with him and know him, i know is why, and i trust him and a lot of ways. the same is true on some of these other potential candidates and actual candidates. that question is not whether i or you trust him, the question is whether during the course of the campaign all of these voters will not just trust with them but agree with him on another things and think that he has the vision necessary to win their vote. and that is what the campaign is about. you really cannot answer that question at the beginning because by the into the very different -- you remember that this happened during the course of our presidential campaign, or you talk about that this party has the seven boards are the six midgets. and i always say, when the seventh before it gets rid of the other six, he is not a door anymore. -- dwarf any more. you bring those assets to the table, and you mix it up in a campaign and at the end of the campaign, you find out whether the voters thought your assets exceeded your false. host: so let's turn to your new role, president of the nra. guest: the nra is committed is always to maximizing the number people in congress and in the white house for that matter who support the second amendment. and we have already concluded, based on both his background and performance in office, the barack obama is probably not the person we would trust to protect america's second amendment rights. we will be looking and we are looking at the field for somebody who we think would do a better job and we will probably at the end of the day support whoever that is. it will take some time because we like that average voter has to see who we trust on issues of great concern to us. host: when will the nra make an endorsement, and how you go about making that decision? guest: it would usually be done fairly late. it depends. ordinarily in congressional and house races, we do not get involved in primaries unless there is a very clear record. we have an endorsement policy that has been described as pro- incumbent. it is really a policy that if you support us in second amendment issues, we will stand with you. let me give you an example of how important it is. early on in this administration, at 65 democratic members of the house gave a letter to the president and attorney general saying do not mess with the second amendment. if you do, we will not be with you. that took great courage on the part of those democrats. and they had to know and did no that if push came to shove, we would not desert. what we do is look at the can that possibly record, and if his record is one of support for the sec -- the candidate's record, and if his record is one of support for the second amendment -- wealth, this is one of my closest friends, haley barbour, and i think he is a good friend of everybody on the nra board and in politics general on the right of center site in washington. when he ran for governor, we had the support his democratic opponent because he had iraq. -- he had a record and haley did not. now his record is and always will be the great. we had to make the decision not based on who we like personally, but my personal preference, but it is based on the question of which candidate has helped us, will stand with us, and is likely to be with us in the future. host: nra members breezily heard from several potential gop candidates, including gingrich, rick santorum and, herman cain, and mike huckabee. but mitt romney and 10 pawlenty did not attend. was that a mistake? guest: not necessarily. mitt romney has been to the last two annual meetings. so if some of the others. you can i get everyone together every day. but the fact is that our members and particularly are politically active members know their records, and know them, and we of supporters of all those candidates within our membership. host: you endorsed mitt romney in the last election when you are the president of the american conservative union. does that help his chances? guest: it did not the last time. host: to get the nra endorsement. guest: actually acu did not make an endorsement. i did in 2008 because i thought he was the best candidate. i think on second amendment issues, he is fine. i think a number of others will be fine, and they are friends of mine and friends of the nra. we are not likely to make an endorsement for some time, and i have no idea at this point who that might be. our goal is to make certain that the person that is sworn in in january 2013 is someone who is friendly to nra, to the second amendment, and will make that judgment based on who we think has the best chance with those qualities of being sworn in on that day. host: can they expect an endorsement from you personally outside of the nra? guest: very unlikely. does the president of the nra, i'll be on speaking. we have plenty of candidates we will be supporting as an organization. my role is to promote them. every member of the nra or any other organization wears a lot of different hats. i did this when i was with the american conservative union and throughout my life and so has you and everyone of your listeners. but when i put on my national rifle association hat, and that is the one the people now see, i have to act and always will act in the best interest of the association because that is my job, even though they do not pay me. host: you just began this in may. have a legislative priorities changed under your leadership? guest: no, our political and legislative priorities remain the same. some of it is proactive. we met a lot of progress at the state level and we have a lot of opportunities for increasing the number of states with concealing carry laws, making sure that gun owners are not harassed and hunters' rights are increased and the like. and we always do that. but the nra, when most people look at the nra, and when most of your viewers think about that, they think of only that advocacy role. we are much more than that. i do not know what the percentages, but was suspect that 80% of our budget goes to -- non-advocacy types of roles. we do honor education, do we an incredible amount training, in schools all over the country, we train children on gun safety. but thousands of instructors to teach people how to handle firearms and the like. one thing i am interested in is getting new people into the shooting sports, young people, women, minorities, people -- our biggest growth is among women but we want more. host: about 4 million members of the nra, how many are women? guest: i haven't counted them and i cannot tell you the percentage but the greatest growth has been among women. both in the general issues, sports, and in self-defense and we are very involved in them. people get involved in shooting sports foray old different variety of reasons. hunting, because their fathers and grandfathers and uncles took them hunting when there were children. most people come in the way. gun collecting, because people collect and get enamored with the history of firearms. self-defense, a lot of women coming in because they are fearful on the streets and they are coming to the realization that owning a firearm might be very helpful to them. so you have all these different things coming in. what i see as my job is as being to reaching out to bring more and more of these people in. to enlargeinterestingly, at 4 mn members, the nra was formed right after the civil war. it has been, arguably, may be, and arguably -- maybe unarguably, the most successful advocacy group in the united states. there are people who look to us for leadership and we try to provide it. host: about $7.4 million spent in the 2012 election by the nra. -- 2010 election by the nra. how much do you plan to spend in 2012? guest: it will depend on how much we need to spend and how much we have to spend. political spending depends on how much you have got. we are out there right now trying to raise the money that we will need because it will be a very important election cycle. it is hard to measure the impact of a group based on the amount of money spent. when you read the numbers, you wonder why some liberal politicians claim that the nra is so dangerous. did not spend as much as labor unions and the like -- we do not spend as much as labor unions and the like. host: you having trouble raising money? guest: not at all. it is no accident that, after the 2000 race, bill clinton and knowledge that al gore lost the race -- acknowledged that all or lost the race because the nra cost him -- that al gore lost the race because the nra cost him electoral college votes. host: go ahead. caller: i know what he will not vote for the president. it is because he will not bowed down to their every whim and want. if it is truthful or not about him cheating on his wife -- these are the same people who beat down president clinton. now, it is newt gingrich's turn. not everything seems to be -- now everything seems to be fine. he has repented. he is different now. it is just a bunch of crap. host: we will go on to follower lauderdale -- fort dale, florida. -- fort lauderdale, florida. caller: you made a comment as 65% of democrats supported the nra. how much lobbyists give them money to support that? -- how much money did lobbyists give them to support that? guest: our lobbyists do not give out money. our political organization does. i do not think we spend very much money on those campaigns. the reason that people support the second amendment is various, but very little of it relates to money. it relates to votes and to their own views. lot of people who are second amendment's supporters are democrats -- a lot of people who are second amendment supporters are democrats. many of them are members of the nra. our legislative policy committee, part of our board -- i am chairman of that committee. a number of our board members are democrats. prior to the late-1960's, when guns became a big ideological issue, the nra had never spent any money in politics. we did not have lobbyists. we were not a political advocacy organization. we came to that position to defend the rights of our members. in those days, it was not a partisan issue. john kennedy, hubert humphrey, frank and roosevelt, teddy roosevelt, dwight eisenhower -- all card-carrying members of the nra. today, it is different because of the ideological divide in the country. if we were completely successful, and i do not expect this to happen on my watch, the day we and we come to both parties, liberals and conservatives can agree that -- the day when we can come to both parties, liberals and conservatives agreeing, we will just move on. host: name two things that obama has done that demonstrate he does not support the second amendment. guest: since he has been in office, the president has not made an attempt in the course -- because it cannot win a direct assault on the second amendment in the congress, partly because of the 65 democrats in the house that are with us. after the 2010 election. one of the great threats to american gun owners comes from international activities, treaties and the like. that was the public delegate appointed by president bush to the last u.n. small arms conference. that conference was stopped in its tracks because the state department took the position that an american administration would not support anything that impinge upon constitutionally- guaranteed rights in this country to the next small arms conference, the current one is beginning to meet this summer. the obama administration has changed that position and said the united states would look favorably at jointly with other nations for what the president likes to see as a reasonable gun-control. this is an administration that, if it could, would take away every right -- the rights of american gun owners. in congress, it cannot. the reason that the president and the attorney general have not accomplished their goals in this area, and they have stated their goals early on, is that we are there, our friends are there, are 4 million members are there. the millions of members -- americans who support this amendment are not about to drop our guard. host: how much are the dues? guest: i believe it is $25 for membership, $750 or $1,000 for a life membership. host: here is a tweet. i support the ban on high-cap mags. these mags are specifically for killing people. guest: no, they're not. most of the handguns owned for self-defense have a capacity for 10 rounds. criminals -- there have been studies of this. criminals very rarely fire more than one or two shots. you can always come up, anecdotally, with a case where somebody did more. most cases, those of other shots fired are not accurate. to say that is what those are for is not accurate. secondly, a lot of the sport- shooting competition that takes place with firearms that have -- competition that takes place uses bar arms that have more than a 10-schotte capacity -- firearms that have more than a 10-shot capacity. even the sponsors of this legislation say there would be no way to get those back. all you are doing is criminalizing something and putting out a press release which, you argue, is going to be an answer to a problem, and it is not going to be the answer. host: you are on the air with david keene. go ahead. caller: being alive member, i have a comment and question -- a life member, i have a comment and question. it is one of the strongest antigun messages put out by any president. my question is, right now, what are your views on michele bachmann and herman cain? i would vote for those two right now and it would not matter what order they were in. guest: they are both good friends of mine, personal friends as well as political. i will not choose among them. like a number of other candidates, on second amendment issues, in a position of authority, they would both it and a rating -- get an a rating from the nra. host: do you think michele bachmann should get in the race? guest: i will not comment on that. it is the most agonizing -- it is mitch daniels, who is thinking about it, but he knows this is at least a 10-year commitment and maybe more. it changes your whole life. it affects your family. you are really want to do that? he is looking at it from -- and do i really want to do that? he is looking at it from that perspective. if somebody is going to be president -- back in 1975, i think it was, somebody asked jimmy carter why he thought he could be president. carter looked at the reporter and said, have you met those other guys? that is what politicians think. i will not get into whether they should or should not. that is up to them. host: cathedral city, california. burt, a democrat. caller: regarding what president obama has done about guns -- i am a political junkie. i watched just about every news show that there is on cable -- watch just about every news show that there is on cable, even fox news, and i would not mind having a gun so i could shoot my television. guest: it would give you time to do more things. caller: i would never allow a gun in my house. number one, background checks. a felon cannot vote, but felons can buy guns in certain states. guest: no, he cannot. there is a federal law against a felon purchasing a firearm. the instant check checks all of those records to see if the potential purchaser is a felon or is disqualified for other reasons. there are all whole list of things that can disqualify you from purchasing a firearm -- if you are not a citizen, unless you have been in residence for 90 days. there are a whole series of things. those things show up on those checks. those checks are supported by the nra -- the instant-check system. over the years, we have suggested ways to improve it. the idea that a felon can walk into a gun store and buy a gun is just not true. host: rocky mountain, n.c., richard, an independent caller. caller: i heard you mention a number of the candidates for the upcoming race, but not ron paul. he is probably the only -- the truest conservative -- constitutional candidate in the race. guest: ron paul is a second amendment supporter, as are the others. i did not mention him because no one asked about him. ron paul has declared, as has, i think, tim pawlenty and newt gingrich and some of the others. we look at these candidates solely on two questions. the first and most important is, what is their position on second amendment issues? secondly, down the road -- and we do not know the answer yet -- which one of them has the best chance of actually becoming the president and therefore being in the position to defend the rights of the american people? host: do you own a gun? how many? guest: i do. some people say i do not have all the guns i need, but i sure do not have all the guns that i want. host: are you a recreational hunter? guest: i hunt. i will sometimes go to the range. i cannot claim to be a great shot, but i have a lot of fun. i am from wisconsin. i grew up hunting. we lived in a different world, you know. when i was in high school, i would take my shock and to school and we would go out and shoot pheasants -- my shotgun to school and we would go out and shoot pheasants after school. it was a much different culture that we have today. i have been called in the shooting sports, particularly hunting, since i was 12, 13- years-old. host: what kind of guns, primarily? guest: i have a lot of shotguns. i am a black-powder enthusiast. i have a deer rifle and a squirrel rifle. you remember the supreme court case, at 1 point, justice scalia was asked about how many guns you should have. he said, you need more than one. this was during the oral arguments. it was clear that he was going through the guns in his closet. you need your turkey gun, you need this and that. justice thomas, who rarely speaks at these things, started to laugh because it was clear what he was doing. i will not go through my closet. let me tell you, i have the guns i need to engage in most of the sports i engage in. do you host: ever carry a gun on your person -- host: do you ever carry a gun on your person? guest: i do not. host: lumberton, texas. go ahead. caller: this question is for mr. keene. i do not think you are a constitutional lawyer. what about the second amendment -- even though they try to categorize it as being a gun owner for hunting, sportsmanship, or whatever -- what does the second amendment put in there to thave the citizen -- to have the citizen be able to have arms to protect themselves should the government become a tyranny? guest: it is therefore all those reasons, primarily because the founders recognized the need for an armed citizenry. you're exactly right. they had gone through a revolution where they had risen up to throw off the british power that had dominated this continent for so long. our first president, george washington, said that a free citizenry should always be armed. that has always been the position of the constitution. it was the position of the founders. it is the position of the nra. people who purchase guns or use guns or are involved in collecting or whatever do it for a whole variety of reasons. that amendment is there for all those reasons. it was primarily put into the constitution because a free people has to -- in the final analysis -- be in the position to defend that freedom. host: roy, a republican. good morning. caller: shortly after the obama presidency began, you saw, probably, the biggest escalation of gun and ammunition sales in the history of the world. it is because, never in the history of america, as long as i have been alive -- i am 49- years-old -- have so many people feared their president. in the real world, the way america is supposed to work, the government is supposed to fear the people. this president seems to want to take over everything and take away everything and give it to somebody else. my public is that -- point is that people are going to stop asking if someone is black enough or wide enough and, are the american enough pasta mark thank you and god bless america -- enough. thank you. god bless america. host: is president obama american enough? guest: i would not say that is the question. while the president has not been able to accomplish the objectives that he talked about, everything from his comment about americans clinging to their guns and their religion because they were fearful of the world that he wanted to create or that we were in to the early -- there were early attempts by the administration to go after ammunition and the like. people were afraid that these things were going to beat banned. that is what stimulated these purchases. he has been stymied. i would like to think that is largely because of gun owners and the activities of the nra. most american gun owners believe that, if the president had his way, we would be in real trouble. we continue to believe that. the evidence suggests that we are right about that, both from his past history, his comments during the campaign, and the various attempts that have been made since then to try and get around the fact that he cannot get around congress. host: should be characterized as "freire," as that caller said -- "fear," as that caller said? guest: this is a nation that was founded on the concept of a powerful people and limiting government. throughout our history, americans have been properly fearful of a government that would infringe upon their rights in many areas. one of the reasons that this government has not gone down the roads that many have is that fear. that year was widely shared by the founders. if you read the constitution, the constitution is not about giving your government more power. it is about restricting government and restricting the power -- people in power, not because they are bad people, but because they are human. that was really the inside of the founders. it is an insight that is deeply- ingrained in the american people. we do not fear our government, but we fear that any government, whether it is headed by republicans, democrats, barack obama, somebody else, the bureaucracy that is built by the government is going to constantly seek more and more power, more and more influence, at the expense, in many areas, of individual citizens. in the area of the second amendment, we are fearful that government, if it had its way, would wish to it are rights -- would restrict our rights, because that is a natural inclination of government. host: darren, go ahead. caller: good morning. i live in a city where gun violence is very high. it is very bad. i am actually a gun owner. i have a couple of shotguns. my main point is -- our government does need to do something about the flow of illegal guns. these criminals are not walking up the gun stores like me and purchasing guns. they are buying them off the streets. they are readily available. host: what should be done about that? guest: our position all along -- and we have had this fight with prosecutors at the state and federal level for years -- is it is not the gun, it is the criminal. where there has been cooperation between state and federal officials to prosecute criminals who use or possess firearms illegally, it has made a difference. criminals are not completely irrational. if there going to face a stiffer sentence if they use firearms -- it will not stop them from being a criminal -- but it will stop them from using firearms. it has been very successful in richmond and other areas. our view is that you don't ban cars. you do something about the guy who is drinking too much and driving recklessly. you worry about the person who is going to illegally used a firearm, not the firearm and self. -- itself. caller: the worst and that is -- thing that is happening, oh, do you have guns? why do you need it? guest: and then a guy who cannot count his. caller: i have the right to carry a gun. i lived in new york city. i remember when there were roving gangs, running the streets, breaking into people's homes. police were taking legal guns from legal farm owners. the bottom line is the second amendment is my right. when you have all of these pinheads saying, oh, we should ban the big clip, that is the problem -- if you come into my home, you are going to risk losing your life. in one of the southern towns, i think in georgia, they made it mandatory that every homeowner and owned a gun and crime violence went down to zero. the only thing you're going to do is give up your rights and all of these gangs and criminals are going to run the streets. when you, god forbid, need somebody, by the time the police come, they will find you dead. host: he has a gun for self- defense. guest: he has that right. that was the supreme court's decision based on that question of whether a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending himself, his family, and his own. the decision was very clear. yes, he does. he pointed out what happened after katrina. the nra went to court to stop that. we should not have had to go to court. one recent success we have had is lobbying the states for the so-called concealed-carry right. if you get a permit and pass a test, you can carry a gun for defensive purposes. when those laws have been considered in each state, there is this product of publicity that -- barrage of publicity. statistically, after such laws have been adopted, violent crime has fallen. not because everybody has a gun like that town in georgia. if you are a criminal, you do not know who does and who does not pick it protect everybody. you may recall some years ago, and york -- who does not. it protects everybody. you may recall some years ago, and your viewers might, the robberies that were happening at rental cars at airports. eventually, what happened was that are the car companies had to take the stickers off of cars so that criminals would not know that these were sitting ducks, if you will. the caller is right. that right does exist. it has been guaranteed by the constitution, ratified by the senate -- supreme court. it works. host: you say you do not carry a gun under person for self- defense. i am just wondering if you have a different take. guest: i do not. i probably should. caller: i was touching on the idea of arms citizenship -- armed citizenship. my idea is that sport shooters -- and even where someone will bring an army to our country -- in any event where someone will bring an army to our country, they will be our first line of defense. the military will be busy doing military movement. it comes down to the guys who have the guns if there was a situation. i think that is where the second amendment is really there. host: david keene? guest: that is very much what was going through the minds of the founders. two of the early presidents of the nra were ulysses grant and philip sheridan. it was formed by these folks to enhance civilian marksmanship, as they put it in those days. this was a problem more in the north and south during the civil war. the north was reporting -- recruiting people from the city's. many of whom had no knowledge of firearms and the like. there were brought into the army and could not hit the side of a barn -- they were brought into the army and could not hit the side of the barn. they decided it would be a good idea if all citizens knew how to use firearms, in case we faced a kind of problem that your caller talked about. when world war room one came along, world war ii -- world war i came along, world war ii -- we provide a means for our police to enhance their marksmanship, for whatever needs in the future. caller: good morning. my name is valdez. i am an army veteran and retired police officer, also a defensive tactics instructor when i was working. one of the biggest problems is not mentioning is that most people do not practice. we think people will go up being gunslingers, whipping weapons around -- most people have never been in a fistfight or even seen one. they think it will be able to pull a gun and start shooting people? if we're going to allow people to conceal carry -- and i do -- they need to practice and be aware of what is involved in a stress situation. if you are not prepared for that, you are better off not carrying a gun. host: thank you. guest: the nra as thousands of instructors. we provide training in concealed carry states. we want to enhance the ability of citizens to use guns responsibly and to be able to use them accurately. i do not have any disagreement with what your caller says. he is right. host: "usa today" as this piece -- has this piece. doctors are saying that they ask because of safety concerns. prohibiting them from asking about guns likely violates the immersed amendment -- first amendment, at least one constitutional law expert said. guest: gun ownership is a constitutional right. there are those within the establishment elite who suggest, for example, you would be a bad parent if you had a gun. therefore, if you are applying to be a foster parent or to adopt, that should be used against you. in other words, your constitutional right to own a firearm should be used against you if you want to have children. the fact of the matter is that, if you go back to the doctors' thing -- the federal government compiles figures on what is dangerous and what is not. there are fewer gun accidents involving children today -- the federal statistics on children include gangbangers and that sort of thing -- but accidents in the home and elsewhere, at any time in our history. if you look at the statistics, your job was more likely to drown in a bucket of water -- child was more likely to drown in a bucket of water. that is an absurd position. one of the outposts of this cultural war that is going on among people who find firearms and their owners to be reprehensible in some way and want to get them any way they can. they would suggest that i would necessarily be bad because i own firearms. that is not the case. it is the right to own, to keep, to bear arms -- it is constitutionally guaranteed. we're very concerned about these sort of back door ways to get at it. in the early stages of obama care -- the legislation that has now passed -- there was a provision that would allow insurance companies to charge higher rates if there were guns in the household then if there were not. there was no statistical evidence at all that this would have an impact on the family's health. that was put in by anti-gun people in the congress and we had it taken out by pro-gun people. it is an example of people who -- spellings that these people will go to to try and prevent -- it is an example of the links that these people will go to. -- length that these people will go to. thank you. coming up, tom udall. here is a news update. >> president obama says the united states will provide the country of jordan with up to $1 billion in aid. this is according to a white house transcript of the president's comments yesterday. the president went on to say that the funding would be channeled through the overseas private investment corp., the u.s. government's finance institution. the president is scheduled to make a peace -- speech to mark on the mideast peace situation. dominique strauss-kahn is obviously not in a position to run the international monetary fund. he was arrested on charges of attempted rape. the secretary called on the imf executive board to formally designate an interim head. the secretary is the first obama administration official to comment on dominique strauss- kahn and the future of the imf, making his remarks last night at the harvard club of new york. the space shuttle endeavor has reached its destination, docking with the international space station this morning. endeavor and its six astronauts are delivering a $2 billion particle physics detector. it is the most expensive payload ever carried by a space shuttle. of the magnetic spectrometer will look for invisible dark matter and invisible matter, attempting to explain how the universe was formed. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. judean follow the house and senate when you want -- vera follow the house and senate -- >> follow the house and senate when you want with c-span's congressional chronicle. the congressional chronicle is at c-span.org/cognress. -- c-span.org/congress. >> follow c-span on washington -- follows c-span's washington journal on twitter and tweet your questions to our guests. do not miss any updates from "washington journal." twitter.com/cspanwj. >> this june on "indepth," your questions for eric posner who books include -- he will take your calls, e- mails, and at week's -- and tweets. live, sunday, june 5. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we begin with "the washington post." they categorize the future of the relations as make or break. what you think this story does to the relationship? guest: i think we're in a very delicate phase, no doubt about it. the trip that senator carey took, some of the commitments that he got -- i think there was took, some ofrry go the commitments that he got. just after he left, there was a brown strike, which i think was a very unfortunate -- drone strike, which i think was a very unfortunate set of circumstances that happened after the high- level meeting. it is important to stay focused on how important they are in terms of what is happening in afghanistan. 50% of our supplies come through pakistan. that is very important. host: the senate foreign relations committee had a hearing yesterday, looking at their relationship with pakistan. there was testimony from general jones. your republican colleague at the hearing had a bit to say about our relationship with pakistan and tried to explain that to his constituents. i want to get your reaction. >> i have a difficult to explain to the people back home in idaho what we're doing spending billions of dollars in pakistan, particularly on civilian matters. they do not like us. they do not like us. here, they have this terrible tragedy with the floods. we went in. we were the first ones there. we helped them. we saved people's lives. after we spent hundreds of millions of dollars rebuilding bridges that were washed out, i get asked, why are we spending our kids and grandkids' money to do this in a country that does not like us? host: senator tom udall, your thoughts? guest: i think that this is a very troublesome partner, no doubt about it. the capture of bin laden, people are wondering, it is pakistan really an allied? many of the things he is saying -- those questions are being asked back home. we have to look in the larger context. we have to look at how we get our supplies to our troops in afghanistan. we have to look at al qaeda and how they can assist us. they did help us with some of the things that led up to the capture and killing of bin laden. i am not here to apologize in any way for them or to say that many of the things that they do are good things, but they are a strategic partner. we need to try to reset the relationship and move on down the road. host: $27 billion to military and economic aid to pakistan from 2000 to 2011. what have we gotten for the money? host: -- guest: that is an excellent question. i do not think we have gotten what we need. the most worrisome thing to me is that, as we move down the road in afghanistan, we need to try to do everything we can to wrap it up and bring people home. the only way we are going to be able to do that is to deal with this safe haven situation which has been going on in afghanistan from the very beginning. they have ties -- they have had ties over many years with the taliban. we have the leadership of the taliban. the people come over, get dressed, get trained -- get rest, get trained. we hope after this meeting that senator kerry had, that they will change the situation. it may well be that this relationship is broken to the point where we are just going to have to make decisions in afghanistan to move down the road -- this accelerated transition, handed off to that and do -- the afghani's, everything we can to maintain a good relationship while we have troops there. host: does anything you have heard, read, or seen since the capture and killing of osama bin laden change your mind? guest: everything that i have seen since the capture of bin laden and way before tells me that we should be moving in the direction of having this be an afghan-led security operation. we need to turn -- the excellent things we're doing there on the ground, we need to now say this is the time -- it is coming up in july -- within 12 to 18 months, we should be able to turn this over to them. that is what i would like to see. to me, that is an accelerated transition. this three year timeline is way too long. i think we need to be moving down the road in a very aggressive way. it has been 10 years. this is america's longest war. it is your time to step up to the plate and take this over. host: if that happens, do you have any concerns about headlines like this in "the new york times." guest: part of what is happening in this whole region is that china is going to be there, russia is going to be there. they will try to be in afghanistan -- and they were trying to be in afghanistan and were thrown out. we need to stay focused on our national interests. our national interests have reached the point where we turn this over to the afghanis. it does not mean we're leaving the region. it does not mean this is not a strategic region to us. it does not mean we do not have ties. it is time for them to step up to the plate. host: your first phone call. senator udall. caller: two months ago, i was in kandahar. i spent the last several years in iraq and afghanistan as a civilian contractor. as yogi berra used to say, it ain't over till it's over. we're going to have to have a substantial political, military, economic presence in that part of the world for some years to come. we cannot afford to quit the scene too early. host: before you go on, why were you in that area? caller: i'm a contractor. host: what about your experience there makes you have this opinion? caller: because the situation is so fluid, so delicate. there are so many different parties involved. the insurgency is thoroughly entrenched. they have the logistical support, the military support. the elimination of osama bin laden is great. i have no problem with that. i am glad he is off the scenes. the organization that he founded that has been running this terrorism is not finished yet. host: senator? guest: the thing that troubles me -- we have been there 10 years. this is america's longest war. the boots on the ground presence is what we do not need any longer. we have trained their troops. we have trained their police. we put in billions of dollars in this training. at some point, you have to say -- and i think the president was right when he said that we would have an accelerated transition -- i personally think three years is to go along. i think we could be able to do that in a rational, reasonable way within 12 to 18 months. i think that is what i would like to see happen. it does not mean we leave the region. we are going to have our ships in the region. we're going to have our diplomatic mission there. but it is important that, at some point, they step up to the plate and do the job. host: ronnie, an independent in corpus christi, texas. caller: i am a first-time caller, so forgive me for my nervousness. guest: do not worry about me. -- it. caller: the middle east since the pakistan, afghanistan -- the pakistanis have nuclear weapons. the india-pakistan relationship, the israel-pakistan relationship. host: senator? guest: that is another important point. greta and i have not talked about that yet, but pakistan has a large number of nuclear weapons. they have a nuclear arsenal that we are sometimes concerned about. i am not so sure that what we have going on in afghanistan necessarily makes it more secure. and there is a lot going on between the two countries. i think that many of those issues would be resolved and worked out if we did not have such a large footprint right now in afghanistan. host: newport beach, california, marilyn. you are on the air. caller: my name is mary-lynn. i probably talked too fast. good morning. i am a democrat, but i guess i am sort of conservative when it comes to foreign relations and our military and stuff like that, so i will probably sound little off base to you. do you think that going back to our relations with pakistan -- do you think act maybe our -- that maybe our relations and the the world works out of kilter when president obama came in and he seemed -- were set off kilter when president obama came in and he seemed to have a very wimpy take on our place in the world? notwithstanding the killing of osama bin laden, which i think most of the world sees as in the air military did, not our president or secretary of state -- sees as in the military did, not our president or secretary of state'. host: let's get your thoughts about how the president is perceived to. guest: i think that president obama's started off with speeches in various places on foreign policy. one of the major speeches he gave was in cairo, which i think uplifted people. they felt closer to america. we still have real problems in this area at in terms of the people feeling good about our country. if you look at the polls that are taken on a regular basis in the middle east, there is a real suspicious attitude towards us. i think a lot of that has to do with the large footprint that we have, with the way we carried out foreign policy the last 10 or 15 years. it is not all just president obama. there is a lot that has happened since 9/11 that has convinced these countries that we are not necessarily a good partner for them also. i would not fall president obama -- fault president obama. i think he is doing everything he can. one couple you made is that people do not think this capture of bin laden was about president obama. he was in on every step. he made this decision. it was a very tough decision. people were split at the cia. i have to give him all the credit for that. caller: as far as afghanistan and pakistan, i say, let china have them. it is nothing but a huge money ghole. it is time to get out of that stupid war. host: ok. guest: i agree with you on ending the war. as you heard earlier when you were listening, within 12 to 18 months from the july deadline, i think we could give a signal to the afghanis to a separate the transition, start handing it over. -- to a accelerate -- to accelerate the transition, start handing it over. we will have a diplomatic presence. no doubt many of our companies will be operating in these areas. it is not like we're completely ending all ties to the middle east or in particular to this region. host: hank is a democrat in manhattan. you are up next. guest: good morning. how are you? caller: i am doing well. it is great to see you on the program. i agree with what you're saying. i think it is almost a spiritual construct -- we really have to keep the focus on ourselves when we get involved with other countries. i have one question with our economic interest in pakistan. i firmly believe that, when we get ourselves involved -- embroiled with other countries, often, there is an -- i would like to know your take on the realities of the situation. what companies are there rooted in pakistan that we need to be concerned about? oftentimes, i find that policy and government follows economic interests. guest: i think that is true. unfortunately, when you focus on the region, this is a very, very poor region of the middle east. there is not a lot going on economically. there is a huge amount of agriculture. people are living -- especially in afghanistan -- in a tribal way. our efforts have been coming in the past, to give aid, the build projects, to build dams, to do things that help people out. that is something i think we need to continue doing because we want to try to bring them up. that is spread of where it is. is.-- kind of where it host: help me with your name. go ahead. caller: id'd was back in the 1700's -- i think it was back in the 1700's when president james monroe enacted the monroe doctrine. i would like to know -- guest: i think we lost him. host: you have to turn your television down. we will go on to mike in oklahoma. you are on the air. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. how are you? caller: i am well. i graduated from the college of lost princess -- of las cruces. guest: it has changed a lot, no doubt about it. caller: there was an article about columbus, new mexico, where several police officers were arrested for running guns down to mexico. related tovewhen >> was project -- i was wondering if that was related to product gun runner by the atf. they were instructed to proceed with questionable and illegal sales to suspected straw-buyers. i would like to get your opinion projectject beg-- on gun-runner. guest: it is a stain on law enforcement. they started getting information on these purchases. a number of agencies work on the border to try to prevent guns from coming across, guns from being run from the united states and mexico or the other way around. they found out that these officials were involved in in it. in fact, the police chief was involved. they followed it and they cracked down on them when they thought they had the evidence. i am not so sure this relates as much to the program you're talking about. it is just a good effort by law enforcement at the border to talk well -- tackle a serious problem. it is in the legal system now. host: richard is a democrat in canton, illinois. welcome to the conversation. caller: i have three quick points i would like to make that i would like the senator to answer. the main reason we're in afghanistan was to get bin laden. we got him, now let's get out. we're getting ready to give pakistan almost $3 billion in aid. why do we not tell them to give us the nuclear weapons in exchange for the aid? as low as they have the nuclear- weapons, we will be browned -- as long as they have the nuclear weapons, we will be bound to protect them for eternity. iraq is the second- largest holder of oil in the world. why don't we ask them to give us their oil in return for paying for their freedom? guest: those are great points. you have noted one of the things that we went into afghanistan -- bin laden. we also went in to topple the government that was sponsoring bin laden and to destroy the training camps and destabilize al qaeda. those things have been accomplished. that is why i believe we should be on the road to this exonerated transition -- accelerated transition. there is a real question as to what we have gotten for the aid we have given to pakistan. i do not think that is a deal we can make in terms of aid for the nuclear weapons. these countries that get a nuclear-weapons do it for very specific reasons -- get nuclear weapons and do it for very opposite reasons. in this case, it is because of the india-pakistan situation. i just do not think we can do it. i wish iraq was doing a lot more to pay us back. they are in a very unfortunate situation where their oil is not as high as it could be, but i hope that they will do everything they can to give us breaks there at the local level while we are there for the rest of the year. it looks like we will end up with strong and our troops from iraq on the president's schedule by the end of the -- withdrawing our troops from iraq on the president's schedule by the end of the year. i think we have to look at the broader issue of al qaeda and the other terrorist groups in the region. they are spreading out other areas. we are stuck in one area with our allies, 140,000 troops on the ground. we should be more flexible. we should be pulling back and doing this accelerated transition. then we will be able to work with other countries all around the world on the counter- terrorism effort. that is the course we should be pursuing. i think it makes a lot more sense to pursue that course and then having such a large footprint -- course than having such a large footprint that is really not getting us anywhere. host: scott, washington, d.c. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. want to talk about our government getting involved in the middle east. we get involved in these countries and we take so much of a financial, military, political burden upon ourselves. we ask so little of the countries in that region. specifically with iraq, it was often touted as security for the region -- one of the several reasons to get involved in that part of the world. then, the coalition fighting in iraq seemed to be made up of countries that had a presence there from around the world -- philippines, great britain. i wonder why it is that the u.s. government -- congress, the president, so on -- as always found it acceptable that -- has always found it acceptable that we americans take so much of the burden than many of the other countries that are likely to be involved in the region itself. saudi arabia -- they have their reasons. why does the u.s. government fined those reasons acceptable? guest: these are some tough foreign policy questions you have raised. first of all, i do not think we should have gotten into iraq and the first place. i voted against going there -- in the first place. i voted against going there. i think it has been a real disaster for us. finally, obama, with the ending of the policy and the troops out by the end of the year, i think that has us where we need to be. as far as afghanistan -- we have talked about this. we went in there to get the mastermind of 9/11. we've got him. we went in to take the government out that was sponsoring his type of terrorism. we have done that. we have destroyed the training camps. we. had a -- we have had a devastating impact on al qaeda. i think all of those things that we have done our major accomplishments. we should feel now, we can turn this over to them in an accelerated away in the next 12 months to 18 months and maintain a smaller footprint and work with other countries in the region on the counter-terrorism effort. host: silver spring, maryland, joyce on the line for republicans. caller: we cannot mention afghanistan without mentioning the drug problem in our own country. we are begging for help to get information out to -- especially -- young people on this medical marijuana issue. there are over 25,000 studies out of the university of mississippi and not one of them says marijuana is good for anything. new mexico happens to be one of the states that passed it. my own state of maryland. i think there are 25 states now. it's the biggest lie that has been perpetrated on the skids in the history of the drug issue, i guess -- on these kids in the history of the drug issue, i guess. 18 nations have linked marijuana to schizophrenia and others. testimony before the maryland legislature -- it was talked about that marijuana causes schizophrenia. the maryland secretary of health and hygiene was asked a question --the sponsor of the bill asked the doctor, if he were in his place, would he vote to allow their one as a medicine. the doctor said absolutely not. host: will have to leave it there. go ahead, senator. guest: i think you have raised some important issues and the one i would like to speak to about the mexico -- about new mexico is the we do have a medical marijuana program in place. it is targeted specifically at people who have terminal illnesses and have problems where doctors believe that marijuana or the ingredients in marijuana can make a difference. i think our program is a good one. i do not think it endorses drug use outside of the program. that is the way i think a medical marijuana program should be focused. all of the other things you said may well be true. i think a good, solidly supervised the medical marijuana program can work and is working in a state of the mexico. host: louis from fort myers, florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have a question for you, senator. i noticed the elections -- i hope republicans sometimes. it depends on the person. in the future, i would never vote republican again. i think it's good to vote across the line. i think we should have a clear mind. i noticed the attitude of the republican party in the last few months and years since obama has been elected. their attitude -- you notice the things they say and how they come off and the negative use -- a lot of my friends have really turned off to the republican party. i am 72 years old. i never thought -- could tell you a lot of things. host: what is your question for the senator? caller: my question is why no one has come forward and condemned the attitude of some of these senators and some of the people running for president. why doesn't someone come forward and say something about it? guest: if you tune into c-span every day and look at the covers nonstop on the house floor and the senate floor, people are getting out there and condemning each other, and fighting over these programs, like the ryan budget and what ever is. unfortunately, we're in a real gridlock situation. i think we need to pull together for the country and look at the important things we need to do in energy, education, and foreign policy where we can all agree and start moving the country forward again. we just had a vote yesterday on big oil -- trying to take back those subsidies. we will have another vote today. both of them are failing. we ought to be designing an energy policy that moves us on the path to independence. i think you are right in the sense that your question seems to say to pull us all together and forget the parties. that's where we need to head. there's no doubt about it. . host: cottonwood, idaho, cornelia, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. guest: good morning. caller: good morning. i dislike to say that i think america has been very foolish in the way we have pursued the war in the middle east. i was not sure about iraq. i have now come to believe that if we leave those countries to early -- countries too early, we are inviting other countries to come in that are not friendly to america. if you stop to think about this, who wants us out of afghanistan and pakistan? al-qaeda wants us out. china wants us out. iran wants us out. the muslim brotherhood and the radical muslims want us out of afghanistan and pakistan. host: ok. senator? guest: are large military presence in afghanistan right now is hurting our ability to carry out american interest in the region. we have been there for almost 10 years. i believe the very best policy is to stick with the president's accelerated transition deadline starting in july and turned security over to them. that does not mean we cannot be involved in a business and economic sense. we will certainly be involved diplomatically. we need to be involved in helping bring the region together. host: here is "the baltimore sun." it says, "the president will cast the u.s. as a facilitator rather than an instigator of that change." as a member of the foreign relations committee, have you heard that there's this view in the middle east that we have instigated this? guest: i think the contrast that may be drawn here is how we went in so dramatically into iraq when we should not have. i think that was president invadingpinion, that when we did not have the support in the region and when we did not have the real justification to do so. what he has done, since we've seen the uprising and people wanting more freedom and wanting their governments to be more accountable and they want people to be able to get work in these countries -- we have really acted in our foreign policy and i hope we keep doing that, encouraging that kind of thing to happen. i am looking forward to the speech. i think the president has had some good, solid foreign policy wins. i hope he continues to support democracy and human rights throughout the world. host: here's the front page of "the new york times." guest: we have a great chance at this point in time to learn from what happened in japan. i think our regulators have been asked to take a look at the japanese situation, review all of our nuclear siting, review our plants, and that's what they're doing right now. i hope we will do the oversight and congress and they will step forward and make the changes needed to make nuclear power safe in america. an, a democrat in blue ridge, georgia. caller: i wanted to call and talk about afghanistan. i wrote up a policy paper two years ago for what we should do. how do i get it to you or the people who change policy? guest: well, if you have it on the internet, you can get on our web site. my website is tomudall. senate.gov. if you do not, you put it in the mail. some of the best ideas i get are from my constituents back in new mexico about policy initiatives that are occurring in the congress. host: senator tom udall is our guest, democrat of new mexico, foreign committee member. rosemary is next. guest: good morning. caller: when is our president and congress going to stand up and have the backbone to say " no more money is to be given to any more countries, especially to those who hate us"? the bottom line is, we do not have the money. thank you for your response. guest: thank you very much. if we follow the policy i'm talking about in afghanistan of an accelerated transition and handing off of security, that's a significant amount of money. billionlking about $120 per year that could be dedicated to deficit reduction, reducing the national debt, and you are right. that is what we should be focusing on. people want to see us growing jobs in america and they want to see the government moving towards a balanced budget. we are not doing either of those things very well right now. . host: james is a republican in virginia. good morning, james. guest: good morning, james. caller: we're spending billions of dollars over their giving pakistan an aid. 90% of the afghan soldiers are illiterate. they cannot even read. we have to show them how to shoot their own weapons, even though they have been fighting for thousands of years. i am on social security disability. they are talking about cutting my medicare. with all the money they're wasting over there -- they caught one of the warlords here leaving afghanistan with millions of dollars in a suitcase. host: let's take your first point about literacy rates in afghanistan and teaching the soldiers to take over. guest: there are huge difficulties. there's no doubt about it. i remember when one of the top u.n. officials left and he made the statement when he was asked the question, "can we get this done in 10 more years?" he said he did not think we could get them up to the level we would expect of a police force in 100 years. a pretty strong indictment. that tells me we're in a tribal society. we will be much better off when we turn over the security to them and let them deal in their local communities. that's why i e support an accelerated transition and moving out of afghanistan. host: we have a few minutes left with senator tom udall. we go to robert, a democrat in indiana. go ahead, robert. caller: yes, my name is robert. i'm sorry. i'm a little nervous. guest: just fire that question away. you will be fine. caller: the opium trade in pakistan and afghanistan, how come we do not address that in our problems with those countries? guest: we are trying to address that and it is a big, big problem. i remember being in afghanistan and flying over some of those poppy fields and asking the question you are asking. there are not any good answers. unfortunately, you are dealing with a very poor society, a tribal society. the money is really the drugs and the poppy. we really need to have done more in the past. we need to do more in the future on this. the best way i think to deal with this is not have this large of a footprint as we do right now in afghanistan. move in and exhilarated way to hand over security to them and then we can focus on some of these other problems on an international basis in the region. host: last phone call for senator udall. charlotte, north carolina. sandy on the line for independents. caller: yes, i think both of you democrats or republicans are cut from the same cloth. you are not honest with the american people. it's nothing but a money- laundering scheme over there in afghanistan. they have trillions of dollars of natural resources. in essence, our military, our taxpayer dollars, and our sons and daughters are being used for the best interest of these corporations to pillage those natural resources and run off with the profits. host: we got your point. let's get a reaction from the senator. guest: first of all, look at what the average afghan citizen makes. we are talking about a couple hundred dollars per year. that is what they make in afghanistan. this is a very poor, tribal country. the best thing we can do over there is reduce our footprint and try to work with them on developing their resources. they have large water resources where they could put up dams and help irrigate fields. they are primarily an agricultural society. it is true that they have natural resources. they have some minerals. they have not really been developed very much. i think american companies and other countries around the world may do that in the future. i think the best way to go is to try to hand this off to them, stay there diplomatically, stay engaged in the region, and stay focused on our counter-terrorism efforts. we want to be looking for al- qaeda that are around the world that could do harm to us in the united states -- not every little jihadi that is trying to raise hell with his particular government or something. host: senator tom udall, thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: it is a pleasure to be here today. host: coming up, our week-long series looking at the department of homeland security. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> some international news to start off with. russian president and the bed speaking earlier today says the west could face a new cold war if it fails to address russia's concerns over a proposed missile defense shield for europe. he added that the u.s. decision to move ahead with construction of the system, despite russia's objections would force moscow to "take retaliatory measures -- something we would very much rather not do." in iran, officials in the news agencies say president ahmadinejad will head next month's opec meeting in vienna. iran holds the rotating presidency. the group meets on june eighth. more violence in afghanistan today. at least 11 people killed in the country's northern region, where people are protesting against a nato raid that killed four people. the protesters say the four were civilians. nato says they were insurgents who tried to fire on nato troops. the governor of the province where the attack took place said nato never told the government about the raid and acted unilaterally. hours later, more than 1000 people gathered to shout the "death to america" as they carry the bodies of those who were killed. stock futures in the united states are pointing higher today as commodity prices are up after floods in the south damaged corn, wheat, and soybean fields. target corp. reported an increase in first quarter earnings. dow futures are up 15 points. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> history, as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers ems also issues -- soldiers and social issues. it's also a science, medicine, art, music, theater, poultry, and ideas. we should not a lump of things into categories. it is all part of the same thing. >> thomas edison, henry adams, sunday night on "q&a." >> this weekend on all american history tv on c-span3, cleveland state professor regina williams on the music of duke ellington. on "american artifacts" a look at the smithsonian's efforts to preserve the exhibit, "the jefferson bible." and the freedom rides -- their gold to integrate southern bus stops. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> this weekend on book tv, the gaithersburg book festival. plus a panel discussion on the book industry. also, the former ambassador to yemen on the u.s. counter- terrorism effort to that country. and frederick kempe. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> follows c-span's "washington journal" on twitter and join viewers to get advanced notice of tomorrow's guests, the question of the day, and links to video clips of key highlights. do not miss any updates from "washington journal." start your twitter account today atwitter.com/cspanwj. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are looking at selected aspects of the department of homeland security. on monday, we tackled the issue of airport security and looking at the various technology and people involved in that brief yesterday, civil rights and civil liberties. tomorrow, we will focus our efforts on border security technology. friday, we will look at bio terrorism. today, our topic deals with the larger topic of what is known as critical infrastructure protection in the office of homeland security. our guest today is the former assistant secretary at dhs for infrastructure protection from 2005 to 2009. what does this phrase mean for the folks at home? guest: thank you for the invitation to be on your show. critical infrastructure is important because it represents the fiber of our government, our society, and our economy. it represents millions of miles of cable communications, electricity, the power grid. dams, water systems, food and agricultural production facilities, medical, public health facilities, commercial facilities, religious facilities. it is an immense problem to deal with because of the distribution, the complexity, and the nature of who owns the protection responsibility across that fabric of infrastructure across the country. host: the definition of the of this kind of encapsulates what you have done. one of the things they look at as far as food, drinking water, national monuments, transportation systems, chemical facilities, and much more. these are things we would normally probably ignore on a daily basis. what makes the department of homeland security look at these things from a terrorism or security aspect? guest: infrastructures represent target sets. i have a military planning background. i spent 24 years in the u.s. air force before i joined the department of homeland security. i think of our infrastructures as targets that require protection. infrastructures reach out and touch everyone in america. when you turn on the light switch, you expect electricity. when you go to the tap, you expect clean water to come out. when you turn on your furnace, you expect heat to come out. that part and parcel of our everyday life. you take it for granted, except when it is missing or disrupted. for a terrorist organization, infrastructure targets are very juicy targets because they represent a way to get to america, down to the individual household level. terrorists can focus on infrastructure targets as a direct attack. everything you could possibly attack that is an infrastructure target that is connected to something else. for example, the twin towers went down in terms of electricity, public health, and safety, and then there were cascading impacts with respect to the tourism, aviation sector. also, infrastructures can be used as a means to get to tremendous public health and safety issues. it talked-about hijacking an airliner to fly into a public elated -- into a populated center. host: the specific office, in light of everything you say, what's their day to day job to make sure these kind of things do not happen? >> two things. my former office has statutory coronation of authority and the budget to pull together this national team, conduct planning, training, exercises, risk analysis, and real-time information sharing. in 2007, there was a regulatory slice added to my portfolio with respect to regulating security from the perspective of high risk chemical facilities around the united states. host: so the department itself works with other agencies to coordinate these efforts? guest: other agencies of the federal government and dozens of others, such as the department of energy, the department of defense, the department of commerce, of the environmental protection agency. the real key players are state and local government authorities because there are 87,000 local jurisdictions across the country where these infrastructures. exist on a daily basis. 85% of the targets called critical infrastructure is owned and operated day to day by the private sector of the united states. host: what's the relationship between dhs and state and local entities? guest: mostly, across the country, we now have a homeland security effort of the state and local level across the united states. there are people designated with the critical infrastructure and protection portfolio. we have a connection between the policy, plans come in programs at the federal level and the state and local government level. state and local is tied to the federal grant process. host: not only are they trained, but they also receive money. guest: yes, and the homeland security grant programs are ones that i more or less controlled. it's targeted at high risk facilities and making sure there are state and local law enforcement and first responder communities tied into the emergency response plans of certain specific target sites we are really worried about. there's a component in the federal grant program that take critical infrastructure presence in a jurisdiction into account in terms of how much money is allocated to that particular jurisdiction from the various homeland security grant programs. host: our guest is with us until 10:00 a.m., if you want to ask questions about various areas of the united states that need protection under the rubric of infrastructure protection. here are the numbers. you can send us an e-mail and also on twitter. on footer, this question -- on twitter, this question. guest: a fusion center is an intelligence or information gathering and analysis entity. it is normally set up at a state or local government level to bring in different types of suspicious activities, a law- enforcement information relative to identifying terrorists. the idea is to has a central node across a variety of threats. the one i was focused most about was terrorism coming to a central place. different agencies have seats at the center. different types of information is analyzed. it is pushed out to allow those that have protection responsibilities to take aactio. host: our first call, iowa on the line for democrats caller: according to my computer, there's an electromagnetic pulse weapon that could wipe out our entire electric system. wouldn't we have to set up generators in every little town and country in the country? i would like to make a comment on our last show -- the last guest. when are people going to start talking about the fact that we are in afghanistan because -- host: we will leave it there and you can response to the first part. guest: i appreciate the question is a serious threat and there have been various studies conducted recently with respect to the gravity of this particular thread factor. there's a lot of attention put into this in terms of the department of homeland security, homeland security, and defense. as a private consultant, i am engaged in some of those activities. there are various means behind the word "protection." in some cases, it may mean physical or cyber security. in other cases, it may mean injuring our power grid has sufficient robustness to withstand a hurricane, electromagnetic pulse vector, and so on and so forth. it takes a look at the word and looks at it from a much broader perspective and making sure you have secondary and tertiary backups. host: another question from twitter is about effectiveness. "in the case of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, will this expensive "apparatus" actually be effective? how is it tested?" guest: it is tested every day in terms of threats coming in every day relative to terrorism organizations. in terms of the information that is collected, analyzed, and pushed back out to state and local authorities -- that is on a day-to-day basis. right now, as we speak, the federal emergency management agency is hosting an earthquake exercise that incorporates the same people that are fighting floods along the mississippi river into a test of a very big concern, which is a powerful earthquake of an 8.0 richter scale magnitude or greater and how that would affect the industrial heartland and its infrastructures in the united states. that's going on right now, as well. there's various information sharing, exercises, and real world incidents, such as the mississippi flooding. undoubtably, the hurricane in the gulf of mexico sometime this year. host: is there a strategy in the dhs playbook to deal with these things and a metric to see how successful it was in the end? guest: there's a checklist we put together over the past eight to nine years that deal with different threats from radiological devices exploded in major urban areas of the united states to earthquakes, hurricanes, and cyber attacks. in addition to that, since every plan you attempt to execute will go awry at some point because of the adversary being very clever and we always face things we did not anticipate in the planning process -- we have 8 set of processes, protocols, and relationships that can come together fairly quickly between the government and the private sector across a are 18 critical infrastructure sectors to get their right things together. host: independent line. caller: go ahead i want to ask the gentlemen how many household arrests they have made. the public never hears about this. i would also like to know a couple things. one, what does he make per year. what is his pension going to be? homeland security, exactly what does that cost us? how many people make the same amount of money that he does? everyone who comes on c-span should have a prerequisite to tell us who pays them, how much pensions.e, and their guest: perhaps the gentleman misunderstood. i'm no longer a member of the federal government. the salary that corresponds to my position, i do not know what those would be under the obama administration. i suggest an inquiry to the department of homeland security. i do not collect a pension from the department of homeland security. i was there for approximately six years total. host: as far as the budget is concerned, you should know that the request for 2012 as far as the department as a whole is $57 billion. the request for the infrastructure protection is $936 million for 2012. indiana, go ahead. democrats' lines. caller: i wanted to ask robert, in his six years of experience with the house and senate and the white house -- have they got the funding that they needed and does he think that the cuts that have been suggested will hurt homeland security? thank you. guest: yes. the resources question is a very difficult and challenging one. it was a challenge for us during the bush years and i think it continues to challenge the folks that took our place and now have the decision making authority under the obama administration. in overall terms, the amount of budget that has been pushed -- the budget information i've been privy to from the obama administration is certainly up to the task in terms of allowing the programs, policies, and plans put in place under the bush are being carried forward. in my area, infrastructure protection, with the exception of the buffer zone grant program, which focuses on several hundred a year targets of essentially individually a high risk around america. the united states congress, for whatever reason, decided in the fiscal year 2011 budget decided to not continue funding for that. that's a difficult situation -- that's a dangerous situation. it was the only way i had to reach out and touch individual facilities of concern and make sure i understood the risk environment associated with those facilities and engender and foster planning, training, and exercises with specific targeted money between those facilities and their local law enforcement community and first responder community. without the program, we have no means to target individual high risk facilities with any aspect of the federal government that i'm familiar with at this point. host: our guest is dhs formally is, assistant secretary. give a brief explanation of what you do now. guest: i am a homeland security consultant. my goal in life is to continue to work in this subject area and knewort the mission i love and loved dearly. strategic planning, support, working with the federal government, state and local government, and the private sector. host: massachusetts, democrats line. caller: this seems like a way of policing the public. whenever the public disagrees, this is how they end up taking control. we have people that our enemies in this country that are working for corporations that go overseas. we have black nose this water going to saudi arabia and trying to -- we have blackwater going to saudi arabia and tried to train people over there. when the public disagrees with the way our money is spent, it is like what the saudis do with their oil money. host: ohio, catherine on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. and two comments. in the southwest state of ohio, we have bridget's and infrastructure falling apart and we do not have enough money to fix them. because of wars we have never funded, that's why we're in the position we're in. secondly, i would like to know -- are you a double dipper? are you receiving a pension? are you also on social security? that's why american taxpayers are told that we cannot have our social security that we pay for. host: to the first part, the current infrastructure. guest: in terms of the responsibilities of my former office, the department of homeland security, we factor in security risk. we do not factor in environmental and wear and tear and operational aging. for example, the transportation infrastructure -- my job was to work with the transportation security and the department of transportation with respect to security, planning, training, and exercises into the management and risk assessment. the department of transportation and that the state and local governmental levels are really responsible for dealing with the degradation, deterioration, and the wear and tear issue. i personally hope to see that more of the stimulus package that was funded by congress a couple of years ago would have gone too long term infrastructure improvements with exactly those factors in mind. the principal criteria appeared to be the show already peace. to be quite frank, it was an economic stimulus to get a lot of people employed in the shortest time possible. on the transportation site, i saw a lot of roads paved that will need to be repaved in two or three years from now. i did not see chunks of money going into these long-term projects, such as water systems, and bridge systems across america. host: the president and ceo of amtrak was before the senate panel and he talked about rail. there's a story from the associated press that he wants to explore new technologies able to provide events to warning of track tampering, following revelations that al-qaeda considered attacking u.s. trains. this is stemming from the death of bin laden. was that information that came out -- did it surprise you in any way? guest: i'm not surprised. over the last 10 years, where terrorists have decided to strike, the top is mass transit. if you look at the london bombings, india, moscow, and others -- you cannot have a blind eye to that. mass transit is the number one threat that we face. mass transit is problematic because in order for it to do its job, it has got to be able to very quickly take large numbers of people in and out on a daily basis -- major urban areas across the united states. if you are wrecked a security regime, such as that that we have in the airports across the united states, you would stop mass transit as an effective means to get large people very quickly in and out of urban areas. there's a balance between what the u.s. government and the local area transit authorities can do and still keep everything moving and the system flowing, protect privacy to the degree that we possibly can -- is all a delicate balance. host: he also talked about the coordination efforts involved, especially when it comes to rail security. >> we have a strong partnership with dhs and tsa. my vice president for security and chief of police has almost a daily conversation with tsa staff in terms of what we can work together to do. security grants since 2005 totaled almost $200 million and we have used those four infrastructure protection and also to expand our canine program. it has grown from about 23 animals panhandlers to 47 today. we believe we are probably the best in the united states with both vapor weight dogs and determining ied explosives. in recent competitions, aour dogs and handlers came in first, third, and forth across the country. we have the ability to train and we do every day tuesday at a high level of readiness. we have increased our patrols. we have had a public outreach program and worked diligently dhs diligently -- worked diligently with dhs. host: it sounds like a lot of arms, especially for this one aspect of infrastructure. . guest: this brings up an interesting phenomenon. 100% is a number i got this with every day i was in office. is is a difficult challenge. i knew every day that i could not stop 100% of the adversary might throw at us. public expectation might be a little bit different. perhaps they would want us to attempt to do that. i started thinking carefully and closely about the number 100. i said, let's use that against our adversary. a terrorist will most likely not attack a target if he or she is not 100% sure of achieving his or her objectives. what you're looking at in mass transit in the united states is doing enough things in combination, series, in sequence, some random, some not, so that you throw the terrorist operative -- that he or she is not sure of the environment. if there is something random, in extra dog patrol, extra manpower, an extra piece of technology. it is continuing to work on the psychological dimension of their attack planning and disrupt them. host: stemming out of a story from the death of bin laden. senator schumer suggested a no- ride list. what do you think of that? guest: that would be difficult to implement. that would mean everyone who goes on a subway train would have to pass through an i.d. checkpoint. you can imagine the lines backing up in every subway station in the washington, d.c. area, new york city, center cisco, and others, it would bring it to a stop -- san francisco, and others, it would bring it to a stop. host: his comments were more towards amtrak. what would you add to that aspect? guest: if something like that were to develop with respect to amtrak, if i were a terrorist -- i would target a mass-transit system that did not have that system. guest: i was wondering if any of the defense budget for military is used for infrastructure. guest: the department of defense is integrated into infrastructure protection planning information -- a type of exchange within the infrastructure protection community across the country. department of defense is a critical infrastructure sector in its own right. i'm not quite sure what the figure is. on the military support to civil authority, that's a very important component. host: germantown, maryland, you are next for our guest. andrew on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. a lot of our national infrastructures are deteriorating and a lot of our federal buildings are vulnerable. it makes it easier for terrorists to attack and so forth. is there a way to vent out which buildings are most notable -- most vulnerable and look at how congress can get them up to standard? like a base closure -- it would be infrastructure renovation. guest: federally owned or leased properties, there is in fact a program that's managed by a federal security committee chaired by the department of homeland security. old office, the assistant secretary position, is the chair of that group. the have taken on the task of identifying high-risk federal facilities within the universe of federally owned buildings across the country and have done a prioritization of those facilities around the country. the question, of course, becomes an issue of funding from the united states congress, which is an important subset to the risk analysis piece. that important work has been done and continues to be refreshed on an annual basis. host: is congress interested in these types of topics? are they receptive? guest: i always had an open ear in terms of the united states congress. i participated in quite a few hearings during my tenure. i found them always willing and concerned to hear our problems. again, however, it's always a question of resources. where do the federal responsibilities begin and where do they anend? how do you wisely spent the resource dollars in a highly constrained environment? more constrained now than we were after the september 11 attacks and hurricane katrina. that's a problem going into the future. it all has to come together. i found a very good partner in congress, whether it was under the democrats or republicans. host: louisville, ky. dave on the line for democrats, go ahead. caller: how're you doing, c- span? guest: go ahead. caller: robert, i live next to a chemical plant. we have 200 homes in our neighborhood. we have complained to our city for years. we had newspaper reports put out that if terrorists were to blow up these chemicals, it would wipe out our city. i can throw a rock and hit the chemical plant from house. guest: there are two elements to the chemical plant world. one is the safety regulation part is administered by the environmental protection agency. that program has been in place for a large number of years in terms of the environmental impacts and the potential breach of a chemical containment vessel, especially those focused where we have population centers in texas with the chemical production source facility. in 2007, congress gave the department of homeland security and specifically the assistant secretary of the infrastructure protection office federal regulatory authority over high risk chemical plants. that program has been in an evolutionary process for the last three years to four years to make sure that in terms of a security vector, not a safety vector, the responsibility of the department of homeland security is to make sure their meeting very specific federal, physical, cyber standards across high-risk communities across the country. that is an important improvement that we have seen. that was unable by important legislation from congress in 2006. host: what types of chemicals? guest: the hydrogen varieties -- just about anything you could think of that you would see. the problem is that they are not only limited to chemical production and storage facilities, but also many other sectors of the united states. for example, the water sector. we have systems across the united states that depend on chlorine on a day-to-day basis for water treatment and waste water treatment. those pieces of the puzzle are also toxic chemical storage facilities that need to be taken a look at and aggressively brought into a false. host: do private entities control these? guest: generally speaking, they are privately held facilities. although, there could be some government ownership of some laboratories or something like that where some chemicals exist in some way, shape, or form. they also exist in terms of our civilian college and university community. anybody who has a chemical laboratory or chemical facility has toxic chemicals that would be a concern. host: in 2008, according to the information from the department of homeland security, it was found that there were 6400 power plants nationwide with 203,000 plus miles of high-voltage ac lines and 143 million people served. what does that mean on the security front? guest: generally speaking, the electricity industry of the united states, the north american power grid, is generally very robust with respect to day-to-day disruptions and outages, as well as disruptions and outages caused by medium skillet natural disaster and un-- by a medium- scale natural disaster. they have a pretty good track record of bringing things back on line relatively quickly, even with something like hurricane katrina. where the industry and the government are concerned now is what about coordinated physical and cyber attacks and electromagnetic pulse threat vectors? what about things where if you potentially hit the right notes across the north american power grid on a regional scale, is there a potential to take that out for a significant number of months? there are significant issues with that. that is now being studied very carefully in a partnership between the government and the industry. i think it will lead to a different planning criteria at some point in time in the near future to take into account the is not so anticipated and not so day to day threats. all it has to do is have another wrong time. host: mentioned cyber security. the white house released a plan on cyber security. how does that plan incorporates dhs? guest: dhs is a key agency with respect to cyber security. within the plan and within the framework that is in place between the federal government, there are certain key pieces of cyber security that rest with the intelligence community, some with the military, and some with dhs in terms of the dot com, which is the private sector space. the challenge of that is most significant, working with the industry and public at large. again, this is one attack factor that is very insidious and can creep into every laptop in america given the right training and the right militias after and the right technology. dhs is based -- is faced with dealing with industries, the heavy industries, the industries that are now under some form of cyber control, where their processes are tied into the web, and the average public member, a private citizen that depends on the internet. host: our guest is the former assistant secretary for dhs, bob stephan. philip on our independent line, go ahead. caller: hi, robert. boy, are you particulate and precise? host: your question? caller: i'm getting to it. do you think there will ever be enough money to make us secure. you think like i do. i'm a marine. i believe in jesus and i feel secure every day. guest: people always hit me with the resource question. this is not about resources. this is about the will to beat our adversaries, whether that is a mother nature, and the most insidious threat of all, international terrorism of the al-qaeda variant that are actually not terrorists. they're revolutionaries bent on changing the world's political, economic, and social order. this is about a will to continue this great country in its current form politically, socially, and economically into the future. it is mustering the leadership, the organizing framework, and figuring out where to apply scarce resources that will make the difference. i do not think this is a question at simply throwing money at terrorists and they will go away. it's a question of mustering the leadership coalition overtime. every day, further from the september 11 attacks, we observed once a year ceremonies that are a tribute to the victims of that attack, both those that were inside the twin towers and the pentagon and those that attempted to come to their rescue. every september 12, september 13, and september 14 of each year, america goes back to the way it was to some degree. we have to keep this up. i know it's a tough fight. we have an enemy that has time on its side. in terms of decades, hundreds of years, thousands of years -- unfortunately, that's the world we live in. we have to keep it up. host: on our republican line, bill from iowa. caller: i'm a veteran of the last generations debacle in the 1960's. it has occurred to me that after 10 years after one successful attack, may be the terrorists have won. it seems to me that all the efforts are getting worse. groping granma at the airport and tapping into every conceivable phone. i do not know how long the land of the free and the home of the free will put up with this war against terrorism. guest: i would say that you have a couple alternatives. one is to basically deal with some of the interest of aspects of the new security regime, or the new security paradigm post 9/11. that's not something the u.s. government is doing voluntarily or willingly. that's a choice our adversaries have forced us to make. i think we've done a good job of balancing privacy concerns, personal interests and concerns, with security concerns. i would rather suffer a little intrusion when i go through the line at the airport than half terrorists turned topsy-turvy the world's social and economic order and make this country something radically different than was envisioned in 1776. host: tim on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have two questions for you. during the time you were working with infrastructure protection, were you ever lobbied by the american legislation exchange council? now you are working with infrastructure -- are you working currently with the uae? guest: i was never approached why that particular organization you a brooch in your first question and i have no overseas engagement in my current line of business. host: what are the challenges for this office? guest: maintaining this tight organizing framework into the future, where there's a lot of competing interests

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Germantown ,Maryland ,Alexandria ,Al Iskandariyah ,Egypt ,Alaska ,Turkey ,China ,California ,Manhattan ,New York ,New Mexico ,Russia ,Lumberton ,Florida ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,San Francisco ,Mexico ,Charlotte ,North Carolina ,India ,Rome ,Lazio ,Italy ,Massachusetts ,Las Cruces ,Iowa ,Vienna ,Wien ,Austria ,Cambridge ,Cambridgeshire ,United Kingdom ,Newport Beach ,Gainesville ,Moscow ,Moskva ,Philippines ,Japan ,Texas ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,King Ridge ,Virginia ,Cleveland ,Ohio ,Boston ,Illinois ,Indiana ,Gaithersburg ,Wisconsin ,Georgia ,Seattle ,Mississippi ,London ,City Of ,Jordan ,Pakistan ,Fort Lauderdale ,Oklahoma ,Cairo ,Al Qahirah ,Iraq ,Idaho ,Saudi Arabia ,Yemen ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,France ,Berlin ,Germany ,Hawaii ,Americans ,America ,Afghani ,Pakistani ,Afghan ,British ,Japanese ,American ,Russian ,Saudis ,Britain ,Pakistanis ,Maria Shriver ,Thomas Edison ,Arnold Schwarzenegger ,Elizabeth Edwards ,Ron Paul ,Dolley Madison ,Jim Baker ,Hubert Humphrey ,Larry Craig ,Frederick Kempe ,Stephen Clark ,Michele Bachmann ,Duke Ellington ,Dominique Strauss Kahn ,Regina Williams ,David Keene ,Haley Barbour ,Al Qaeda ,Herman Cain ,John Boehner ,Rick Santorum ,Eliot Spitzer ,Tim Pawlenty ,Dhs Bob Stephan ,John Edwards ,Al Gore ,Newt Gingrich ,Paul Ryan ,James Monroe ,Newton Gingrich ,Philip Sheridan ,Jay Carney ,Jimmy Swaggart ,Dwight Eisenhower ,Mitch Daniels ,Meredith Whitney ,Tom Coburn ,Jimmy Carter ,Monica Lewinsky ,Eric Posner ,Barack Obama ,Jesus Christ ,Mike Huckabee ,Sarah Palin ,John Kennedy ,Bernie Becker ,Hillary Clinton ,Franklin Roosevelt ,