Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20110520

the reelection campaign yesterday at the women's leadership forum. for our first 45 minutes, we'll take a look at some sound from the president and the first lady's speeches. we want to open the lines for democrats only for the first 45 minutes. here's the question we want to ask you. as it stands right now, would you re-elect president obama? again, democrats only. here are the lines you can call. those are the phone numbers. e-mail and you can also reach out to us on twitter. here's a story from michele obama's speech yesterday. it says in "the chicago sun- times" -- host: to give you more of a sense of what we will do for the next 45 minutes, as we asked democrats only if you would reelect the president, here is michelle obama from yesterday. >> the simple truth is that today, four years later, we are here because of all of you. i'm not just talking about winning an election. i am talking about what we have been doing every day in the white house since that time to keep on fighting for the folks we met and the values we share. arackalking about what brou has been doing to help all of us. host: in the meantime, your thoughts on the reelection campaign. for democrats only, would you re-elect the president? here's how you can weigh in again. as you call, make sure if you have not called in the last 30 days or so, so that other people can get in the conversation. if you can tell us why or why not you would reelect the president, be sure to explain your reasoning. fresno, california, you're up early and you are first. jeff, good morning. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: i am well, thank you. host: your thoughts on reelecting president obama. caller: i'm only said that he can only run for two years. . host: you would re-elect him. why so? caller: he seems to be open to talking to everybody. his foreign policies are miles ahead of any previous administration. i'm primarily brought up republican, but i was never able to call myself a democrat until recently. absolutely. host: columbus, ohio, you are next. david, good morning. caller: yes, i would definitely reelect the president. my comments will follow the heels of the previous caller. i have been a lifelong republican. i switched to independent. i have been supporting the president the last two years. this is a president that has been trying to bring the world together, trying to enact world peace. think he has done a terrific job in the face of a lot of folks that are seeking to keep us separated. host: what about economic issues? caller: i think he has been dealt a very difficult hand. if you look at the beginning of his presidency to where we are now, we did stall off a total economic collapse of our economy and more so the world economy. absolutely. these things cannot get done overnight. a cell-minded person would say yes, it could be. the reality is that it cannot be solved overnight. i think we're doing a tremendous job. i think the american spirit is strong and it will continue to prosper. host: hawaii, you are next. good morning. how are you? caller: very well. thank you. host: go ahead. caller: i would definitely reelect president obama. he is from hawaii, but he takes with him to that office the spirit of aloha, which is manifested in hawaii. when people think about hawaii, they think about beautiful things. the thing about love, flowers, and rainbows. he carries that into that office with him. it is something that everyone of us that travels to washington, d.c. or goes from hawaii to the mainland, we carry this aloha with us. he has had two years to try to solve a problem that took eight years to 16 years to create. i want to give him an opportunity to try the best he can with the time that he has to try to make things right for our nation. host: what would you marked as high points in the last two years as far as your support for the president? caller: i think the high points for me would have been the issue of mortgage and foreclosures. for us in hawaii and in my island, 25% of all the foreclosures were done on my island. what he did to be able to push that through and also the thing that happened most recently was immigration reform. those two things. the issue of allowing families to remain in their homes and to be able to reunite families with immigration reform. host: what would you want to see from him going forward in the following two years? caller: in the next two years, i would like him to be able to bring more of our brothers and sisters from the other side of the aisle to come to some consensus as to how we can move our economy forward. host: rocky mountain, n.c., you are next. ray, go ahead. caller: yes, i would not vote for him because i have not seen anything but hurtful things as far as the health-care system, and the allies or a so-called lies about his bursars' vivid -- and the lies or so-called lies about his birth certificate. host: why did you vote for him the first time? caller: because i wanted to change a life. he talked about the veterans. i'm a veteran. i was hearing that he was going to do all this and this, but yet, the v.a. medical system stinks. no raises for social security. no raises for the vets. yet they are still sitting in office and they get an automatic pay raise. they don't pay taxes. they get their health care free. why should they? host: off of the twitter, we have this from vivian shepherds aon. she says, "i would reelect in a heartbeat. he has led the country in the right direction!" we have opened our phone lines to democrats only for the first 45 minutes. we're asking you if you would reelect president obama. , go ahead. caller: good morning. i would reelect president obama three or four more times. he is levelheaded. he is highly intelligent. he knows what he is talking about. people are so set in their ways and so difficult to see the president as he is and his background. host: what is an area that you would define as his test of leadership or where he has shown real leadership? caller: well, you know, because of the conditions in the way the world is today, we need somebody that can be levelheaded, that can think things out, and make intelligent decisions while also respecting the opinions of others. he has shown to be that type of person. host: akron, ohio. cornelius, go ahead. caller: yes, i would definitely support and reelect president obama. he's one of the greatest presidents the united states has ever had. i rank him along with abraham lincoln, lbr. host: what about the economic policies that you find most in favor? caller: in the history of economics, the depression, the recession, there were republican presidents behind it. obama did what a lot of presidents did not do. he stopped the run on the banks. that's the only thing that did not happen in this recession. there were 20,000 jobs being lost a month. people seem to forget that. even though there's a republican congress, the blame goes to the president and the credit goes to the president. host: in your mind, what is next as he finishes off his first term? what would you like to see from him? caller: just like all americans, i'm concerned about the jobs. we are concerned with manufacturing, imports, exports. i'm glad that he is working on the economy because america is losing jobs, but the gdp is still going up. that's a call for deflation, which a lot of presidents have done. host: if unemployment is still high at the end of this term, would that change your decision on whether you re-elect him or not? caller: no, unemployment was high in reagan's administration. people did not care about that. host: kansas city, missouri. joni, hi. caller: no, i would not reelect him. in the last several months, including the bin laden -- what ever we would call it. he is only maintaining. it should be about jobs, jobs, jobs. we're still in a deep, deep recession. congress needs to come out in the real world and to see what's going on with our jobs. there are none and everyone is affected. he has never been forthright about and followed his real heritage. both are throwing their mothers out of the window. dr. susan rice said early on, if he is biracial, and in "the washington post" multi-ratio, which is correct. he should be very proud. understand the last census -- multiracial or biracial is the correct term . host: is there is a he can do as of this term to change your mind? caller: start working only on jobs and the recession. i could give you some examples. you would not believe it. host: then sell, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. my first comment is the first two callers are republicans. i would definitely reelect president obama. let him get a chance to work on problems other than the ones that were created before he got in office. host: such as? caller: the economy was thinking before he took office. housing was going down. he had to deal with that. he did not start the war, but now he has to deal with it. i think another term would give him a chance to finish some of the things that were started by the president or actions that were not of his choice or choosing. host: we will leave the lines up to consider the reelection of president obama. they are divided up by time zone. pick the best one that works for you. the story from "the washington post" this morning, as we turn to some other stories. laurie montgomery -- host: shreveport, louisiana. antonio, good morning. caller: good morning. i would definitely re-elect president obama. his policies of fiscal responsibility have been superb leadership that we have seen. i want to address the college that would not re-elect president obama. the lady with the racial situation -- number one, president obama is biracial. what ever you do, there are certain right wing or extremists -- whatever he says, they will not accept it. i think we need to move far beyond that issue. as far as his economic policies, the stimulus bill is that he passed prevent us from a mass collapse of our economic system. in january 2009, president obama was losing 650,000 jobs every month. now we're on the track of gaining 300,000 jobs every month. the problem is that we have so many people who are jumping back. they find that jobs are not created. have -- we still have nine. -- we still have 9% unemployment rate. president obama is creating 300,000 jobs per month. before he was elected, we were losing 650,000 jobs per month. the stimulus bill helped us avoid a collapse of the economic system. and the health care system -- no where in history have we seen such a healthcare system get close to universal health care. we have the individual mandate of buying insurance, but that's because everybody will take part in health care. host: we will leave it there. you heard from the leadership -- you heard from the first lady at the women's leadership forum. you also heard from the president. >> i want to underscore that we are not close to being finished. [applause] back in 2008, on that night in grant park, i told everybody that this is not the end. this is the beginning. i warned everybody we were going to have a steep hill to climb. change is never easy. change is certainly not easy in a democracy because people argue. people have different points of view. that part of what makes a democracy vital and healthy. we have made enormous strides over the last two and a half years. that should not be a cause for complacency, but it should give us enormous confidence that we can make even more changes over the next five and half years. as long as each and everyone of you continue to be involved,. continue to be engaged, continue to speak out. i promise i will be right there with you every step of the way. host: the president from last night. would you re-elect him? democrats only. cleveland, ohio. derrick, go ahead. caller: how're you doing this morning? host: i am well. thank you. caller: i would vote for president obama again. i kind of see it like he sees it. if you are an american, health care should be a right. that should be a given right. you are born american -- health care should be promised to you, period. you look at third world countries and how bad they got it and you look back at america and you see how we have got it. you say, why don't we have free health care? host: what about issues concerning jobs? caller: it is hard all over, but president obama has people skills. very rarely you see someone who can get along with everybody. that is so hard to do. to try to do what he is trying to do and still get along with everybody, that's almost impossible. the rich people, so rich, so much money -- care about nobody board. that does not seem right. host: say he wins a second term, what would you like to see him accomplish going forward considering that most of his activity will be involved with the campaign. what would you like to see in the second term? caller: i would like to see these larger corporations stop sending the jobs across the east. i would like china to take their fair share for all the stuff date sent to america, whereas we get taxed double and triple. employ our people for less money than americans -- doing the same thing, but they still get the benefits. that's why it seems like a good job. hyundai does not pay the same as for chrysler, -- as ford or chrysler. i would like to see him do something about free trade. host: maryland, mertha, go ahead. caller: what is a question? what do you want me to say? i would like to re-elect president obama. we have to remember that he has been saying from day one, if we want our security to get anywhere that we should focus in afghanistan and pakistan. he was absolutely right. we find osama bin laden in pakistan. he has been saying from day one that we should do that. he completed the health care reform. people may be happy or unhappy or whatever, but he did it. it has been on the table for decades. he bail out our banking industry. i know a lot of people are discontent because the banks are doing their business, but our banking industry is the core of finance is in this country. there are some other things that he has done that people do not give him credit for a, but he is an absolutely smart, intelligent, good hearted and super well educated. he is a worldly man who knows poverty and misery at different levels of society. i believe he's the best person we've had in a long time. host: "usa today" frontpage talking about job creation efforts or at least numbers. host: new york, charles, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to comment on the callers who said they would nonpublic re-elect president obama. host: mm-hmm. caller: the first caller sounded like he was more republican than his democrat -- than democrats. the second caller was talking about jobs. a lot of people forget that when he was indent obama office, the first two years, his hands were tied from going further because the republican party kept the health-care bill on the floor for two years, unning so he could not do anything else. republican passed, party says jobs are more important. host: what would be your specific argument on why you should re-elect president obama? caller: i would re-elect him because he is only one person. to me, he is doing the best he can and he is still doing the best he can. he is still trying to bring the country together. host: just a reminder for those of you watching at home, if you could turn off the tv when you get on the phone, that will keep feedback from coming in on the conversation. sheila, st. louis, missouri. are you there? caller: yes, i am. thank you. i would re-elect president obama because he is definitely doing a good job and he is trying to do the best he can. i believe, if he gets in office a second term, things will turn around and everyone, democrats and republicans, will benefit from everything he is doing. host: when you say he is doing a good job, what do you mean by that? caller: well, he is trying to turn the recession around. he is trying to get health care. the caller said his hands are tied because the republicans are not letting anything through. i think everyone should have a right to pick the type of health care that they want. i believe insurance companies should pay, even if they have pre-existing conditions. host: are there things he could do better? caller: 1 of the things i think he could do better -- i would really like for him to try to end the war as soon as possible or just start bringing home the troops. they have been there for too long. now we have osama bin laden. it should be time to ease out of their. host: austin, texas. rabin, good morning. caller: yes, would i elect obama over hillary? i elected obama twice last time in texas over hillary. would i do it again? i'm thinking -- should he be more of a puppet master? we know why the first bush lost the election. host: yes or no, would you re- elect him? caller: i think bill and hillary are almost leading me to think -- hmm, i do not know how i should play it with them. should i let them play it so he can be these things? should i play them out front? i'm not sure. host: new york, nora, good morning. caller: yes, president obama not only has the intellect -- he has the personality and the fortitude in order to go ahead. he is a thinker. he has thought things out. he has the patience. you cannot jump into things. he's thoughtful and hard- working. he is diligent and he thinks before he acts. host: what specific policy areas do you think he has done well in as far as thinking things through? caller: the full pay for women. that was an excellent policy. the auto bailouts. do you know, the people would have lost jobs? nobody will believe this. he said millions and millions of jobs across this country. the more the thing that he did helped to save people from losing their houses and stay in their homes. health care, yes, we did not get single payer. we did not get our public option. a lot of things were helped by the health care reform. a lot of people were cut off from having insurance by having a pre-existing condition. host: what you want to see for the remainder of his term? caller: concentrate more on the economy, closing the tax loopholes. a lot of revenue is being lost. it's not only a deficit problem. it is a revenue problem. people in the top percent are not paying their fair share of taxes. they get off without paying taxes. i make less than they do. not only did i have to pay taxes, i had to pay more in. i did not get a refund. why should these people that are making billions of dollars not pay? that's why we do not have it. we also do not have revenue because people are unemployed and they are not working. therefore, they're not paying into taxes. when they say people are not paying taxes, they are ridiculous host: when you look at unemployment, is that a factor on how you vote for a person? caller: no. know what? a lot of people lost their jobs. i cannot look at that as one factor that would help re-elect president obama or not re-elect president obama. host: michigan, raymond, go ahead. caller: yes, i would definitely re-elect president obama. i am a design engineer and a was laid off for about two years. gm is going crazy with hiring right now. also, chrysler, ge, beoeing. if it was not for this, i might still be laid off. i definitely would reelect barack. host: james, go ahead. caller: i am a biracial male, democrat, and i live in the south. i could not say to you that i would vote again for barack obama. i work in the mortgage industry. he has made it difficult for people to have jobs and get back on their feet and keep their homes. all the plans that he has laid out -- a majority of them have hindered rather than helped. the stern for me was back when the bp oil spill came out. i did not like his reaction. i thought he could have been more reactive in having our military go in and make sure the oil does not reach the coast and caused so much damage. when that happens, i started looking at his leadership skills and they were not impressive at all. host: columbus, georgia. linda? caller: in the south, we are not going to vote for obama again. never. host: why did you vote for him the first time? caller: i did not. host: because? caller: number one, i do not believe he is fair. number two, a lot of people just do not remember this. i remember this. social security and medicare has an overabundance of funds. because they have an overabundance of funds, the president at that time train them dry so they could use those funds for other purposes. not only that, but we do not believe in the south that we should be sending our money to foreign countries. i do not think our people should be dying in foreign countries because they are not doing anything force. host: you are a registered democrat? caller: i am a democrat. host: boulder, colorado. it'sbert, good morning. caller: i would re-elect him, but with reservations. it's not necessarily his fall. it is because of politics these days. $700 million is what his campaign spent. the $150 million to become a senator. $15 million to become a congressman. they all have to sell out to some degree. in the 1980's, democratic party got a% of its money from the unions. today, less than 40%. the rest of the money comes from the usual suspects. when we do a bailout these days, we have to deal with $40 deal $50 we are not getting back. that buys a lot of $1 million campaign contributions. there was a time when they would not consider the tax or otherwise. that's one of the concessions that was made. he went behind his party is while- his party's back, sacrifice in the bush -- sacrificing the bush extensions for their rich and the bush tax cuts for the rich and the inheritance tax. host: we will leave it there. karen hawkins has a story in "the washington post" today. host: vancouver, washington. charles, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on, sir. go ahead. caller: would die re-elect president obama -- would i re- elect president obama? no. a few examples. the economy is still at 9% -- obviously, we're not getting jobs as quickly as possible. another thing is the health-care bill. obviously, the health-care bill fell through and when to -- and went to the supreme court and rejected by the two republicans. why would the two democrats and the independent approve the bill when it obviously goes against our rights on the federal level? that can only be set on the state level. secondly, obviously, they've set up a whole bunch of different laws and things they voted in. we are obviously not drilling in our country. there are obviously plenty of natural resources we could be using. host: what convinced you to vote for him in the first place? what convinced you to vote for him initially? caller: personally, i thought he was going to be the change. i thought we were going to be pulling out of our three wars. obviously, i thought he would improve the economy and different things. he has done a few different things. obviously, a tax credit for first-time home buyers. we got the credit for turning in an older vehicle that did not get as good of gas mileage. at the same time, those are some of the things that are the reasons why we are in the economy we are. obviously, if you're giving away all this free money that we do not have, it's kind of -- you are making money out of nothing. host: the caller mentioned automobiles. there's a story in "the wall street journal" today that the united states has abandoned a proposal to give cars a letter grades. it says -- hakka but host: we go to new york. joe, good morning. caller: good morning. being and dies in this is not being -- being anti-zionist is not being anti-jewish. very few american politicians dare to speak out against israel's negative things because they're afraid of being reelected, sidelined, marginalized in newspapers. host: texas, you are next. go ahead. are you there? dallas, texas, good morning. caller: yes, i would reelect barack obama. if people would think about it, if he had been president when we got into these wars, our kids would not have been killed and we would still have bin laden. his technique would have s aved young people. as far as jobs are concerned, we may not have as many jobs as we want, but jobs are improving. as far as big business is concerned, if we decide the tax rolls that we have, we will have revenue and a man will have something to work with. the problem is not that he is not doing very good job. the problem is that he is not getting the opportunity to do what he wants to do. if he is given that opportunity, he will be a much better president and the united states will be a much better country. host: is there anything he could have done better over the term he has served so far? caller: yes, as far as immigration is concerned, we are always blaming the immigrants that are coming here. they're coming here because businesses are hiring them. if he can get businesses to start treating these people fairly or to get them to not hire them in the way they are hiring them, then the immigration situation would be looked at in a more and lighting way for more palamericans. host: katie? caller: yes, i want to support president obama. i think he's very intelligent. we are at a time where a lot of other countries world have a lot of civil unrest. america should be an example to the rest of the world. we need to unite behind president obama. we need to show the world that we believe in our country. host: what would you look at in the term he has served as accomplishments? caller: i think he's doing the best he can with health care. he's trying to make way, but it's a difficult process when you have a system that we have. it takes time and he has not had enough time for policies to go through, but he is trying with health care. he sees the suffering of the people and he is definitely a proactive president. host: tuskegee, alabama, you will be the last call for this segment. doug, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i feel like we will re-elect president obama because he has done more for this country. host: such as? caller: more for this country than any other president. i think we will re-elect him because he has not had the opportunity to do anything. we will re-elect president obama. thank you. host: that's the last call we will take for this segment. our next segment will take a look at the money that is being asked for by one group looking for money from the federal government to update roads and bridges and things commonly known as infrastructure projects. coming up, we will take a look of the elements from the president's speech yesterday on the middle east. akbar ahmed and aaron david miller will be our guests in just a few minutes. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> no one succeeds in life by themselves. you must be willing to lean on others, to listen to others, and yes, love others. >> watched 2011 commencement speeches on c-span memorial day weekend, and search more than 800 past commencement speeches online at the peabody award winning c-span video library, where you can search, watch, click come and share every event we've covered from 1987 through today. it is washington, your way. >> history, as you know, is much more than politics and soldiers, social issues. it is also medicine, science, art, music, theater, poetry, and ideas. we should not let things into categories. >> sunday night on "q&a" part one of two weeks with david mccullough on the americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, cleveland state professor regina williams on the music of duke ellington. live sunday from jackson, mississippi, the 50th anniversary celebration of the freedom rides, when 13 men and women, black and white, boarded two buses bound for new orleans. their goal was to integrate southern bus stops. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. follow c-span's "washington journal" on twitter. you can also tweet your questions. do not miss any updates from "washington journal." star your twitter account today. "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion of the middle east in light of the president's speech yesterday. two guests will guide us along the way. professor akbar ahmed, chair of islamic studies. we're also joined by aaron david miller, a public policy scholar at the woodrow wilson center and also a former middle east negotiator from 1988 to 2003. both of you gentlemen, thank you very much. now that we have heard the speech, what are the policy implications going forward for the president? if we can start, one of the things he focused on was a call for democracy. in certain areas of the middle east, we heard the call as far as policy. what does it mean, mr. ambassador? guest: there were some comments from president obama's reactions. they were somewhat unambiguous, somewhat lacking in direction. there were statements, but there seemed to be some lack of clarity. yesterday, he cleared the air. he emphatically laid down the marker that this is where we stand. this is where we stand. we will support democracy and human rights. we will support every kind of desperation of the people of the middle east. he took the range of countries into a purview. he talked about egypt and tunisia, who began the uprisings. he talked about syria. he was harsh on syria. it was interesting. he did not mention a key ally of the united states. he talked about bahrain. the same time, i thought this was a vision of a statement. he's looking at the global landscape. now, policy has to be filled in. you still have the nuts and bolts of foreign policy to be implemented. host: mr. miller, as far as vision is concerned, what does it mean as he goes forward? what kind of things will have to be done, especially with the meeting today at the white house? guest: presidential speeches purrsucceed in persuading. i'm not sure this one did that. presidential speeches are designed to explain. the president believes himself to be it transformed the political figure. he presided over a transforming a set of events in the middle east. when the 3:00 a.m. proverbial phone call came in the middle of the night, the president responded pretty well to his first foreign policy crisis. he feels pretty good about it and he felt the need to associate himself with the broader vision. the problem, first, these are words that need to be translated into policy. two, they have to be translated in a way that's frankly not possible with a measure of consistency and predictability. we confront the arab strength, tunisia and egypt, where the president has done pretty well. these are hopeful situations. also, what i call the error of winter, syria, bahrain. we have not said anything anythingbahrain -- a thing about bahrain. yemen is the same. there's a gap here. we do not say these things because we have specific interests in bahrain. in yemen and even in syria, where the gap where how we behave on libya is amazing. gaddafi tilsit people with impunity and we said in a tub. -- gaddafi kills people and we send in nato. host: as far as the democracy or the themes he laid out, all the papers this morning, elements you found when president bush made a similar type of speech during his administration. is that a fair assessment? yes, in thatest: sense, both presidents could take some credit for associating with these american virtues and values and seeing them in the arab world. i would say that giving a final assessment is premature. we are in the middle of a massive transformation taking place in the middle east. we're not really sure how this thing's going to end. i hope and pray that the aspirations for democracy and human rights will find their logical outcome, reached their conclusion. the battle is on. in libya, there's a stalemate. cherings goingdu on. the fact that the president of the united states is quite strongly and clearly on the side of democracy and human rights does mean a lot. i agree that there was some cynicism and indifference to the speech. at the same time, it has encouraged people to feel that america is on the side of democracy and human rights in the arab world. host: mr. miller, when you see the president talk about egypt and debt forgiveness -- what does that do as far as the idea of democracy building and other places in the region, as well? guest: we have a comparative advantage. we can make a difference. economic assistance is very important. the problem is the $2 billion is not real money. we're talking about loan guarantees and debt forgiveness. it is important, but we have austerity problems here. as important as egypt is, you'll not find congress wanting to increase in real time, real dollars, american assistance. one final point he made is that it is a paradox. obama has become, in many respects, george w. bush. double down in afghanistan. now with the freedom agenda, he has operated within the parameters set by his predecessor. i think it reflects the cruel and unforgiving nature of the world. guest: in the moslem world, a lot of people do not see obama and bush as democrats and republicans. they really see an american president. a lot of people of great expectations of an american president. they associate america with these great values, the founding fathers, the founding methodology. -- the founding mixology. in that sense, the muslim world sees the american president clearly making a statement. host: here is how you can get involved. and also journal@cspan.org. you can send us thoughts on twitter, as well. before we go to the calls, the one thing he did at the end of the speech was a discussion about israel and the change of borders to 1967. as far as the speech, what does it mean going forward? guest: the president has a problem. he committed himself to this issued two days after he was inaugurated, after the appointment ofs mitchell, who has resigned -- of mitchell, who has resigned. frankly, speech or no speech, the challenges of doing that remain huge challenges. i think the president wanted to create some commitment -- a down payment, if you will, on the image that barack obama is serious about israeli peace. actually getting to those negotiations and producing an agreement on jerusalem, border security, and refugees would be very hard to do. host: on the concept of land swaps, what is your thinking, mr. ambassador? guest: i agree that the situation on the ground is probably more bleak than it has been in a long time. the reaction of the palestinians and israelis responded negatively. they both see something else in obama's speech. the reality is the arab-israeli conflict is an ms in this large tidal wave of change that is taking place. the israelis and palestinians need to step back. why can't we come closer together? why can't we begin the healing process? to miss out on this great change taking place around these two nations means that they are not taking up this great opportunity. guest: one. needs to be clarified. i spent an enormous amount of time in the last 20 years. the notion that the president has asked israelis to go back to 1967 borders -- i do not know where the president has gotten these from. he said it should be the basis of an agreement with mutually agreed swaps. mutually agreed swaps essentially negate the principle of returning to june 1967 borders. israelis will define x, much land they need. the palestinians will come back with a counter position. somewhere in the middle, between 8% and 1.9%, which is the current palestinian position of what they're willing to give up from the west bank -- something between those numbers is the agreement. it's not a return to june 1967 borders. host: let's take a call. new jersey, you are first for our guest. republican line, good morning. caller: good caller: i was very disappointed that he did not address the terrible problem of the slaughter of christians in egypt. in afghanistan, where we are dying and sending our treasure, if you convert to christianity you incure an immediate sentence of death. guest: i think he should of made a point about it. i think the vatican is very concerned about it. tremendous attrition over the past decade. i think the broad answer is that the protection of minority rights. that is an aspect to be worked for, to be aspired to, but in the meantime, the the position of the christian community in egypt is going to be a precarious one. guest: i had the privilege of being educated at a christian school and pakistan run by catholics. i know the kind of respect that we had for our teachers. that has changed. now christians are attacked and the churches are attacked. we have terrible stories from iraq and egypt. traditionally, christians and muslims have lived in peace and harmony. president obama must point out that they must live up to tolerant societies by challenging them. he is not a muslim, but he has grown up in muslim societies. his mother was an anthropologist. in that sense, he is uniquely placed to bring out and challenge the best muslim societies. host: jacksonville, n.c., are democrats' line. caller: i want to make a couple of comments. i think obama is a smooth- chameleon.llio he tries to tell the public one thing when he really means another. he had no experience in politics or government or anything other than being a professor of history. suddenly he knows everything about the world and the united states. host: your thoughts on his speech yesterday? caller: to me, i listen to it while i was driving. i was not surprised at what he said about democracy. i hope that the people in all of these different places do not adopt the same type of democracy that we have here, because what we have here is a form of legal slavery. a host: one of the things that we have heard is the campaign for hearts and minds. how do you convince leadership to come over to what president obama is trying to accomplish? guest: this is going to be a big challenge. it is important because muslims constitute about one part 5 billion people on this planet. one of the four people is a muslim. we have hundreds of thousands of americans in muslim countries. we have geopolitical interests. therefore, winning over and keeping on site major muslim nations is critical to us in our national interest. we need to heed the urgings of president bush, president obama, general petraeus, and therefore i believe diplomacy, cultural outreach and initiatives are as important as simply giving aid. we give aid generously. we have given billions of aid for many countries. we know a lot of it goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians and rulers. where is that aid ending up? i would like to see it going into construction of schools. last week, a date met the president of a private university. ye can we not divert some of the aid that goes into the pockets of these corrupt rulers? that wins hearts and minds. host: diplomacy and culture? guest: i think the order is wrong. i think if it does nothearts and minds. it is minds and hearts. if their own assessment of the reality has changed, you appeal to people's minds. hear, the question is not changing of a bull or the package, it is changing the package. we choose our own democrats. we ignore the ones even if ipod the results are free and fair elections. i think american policy -- i am not arguing the change across the board, but unless american policies change, you are not going to capture the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people living in this region. a better balance has to be found. it cannot be one way or the other. i do not believe in a clash of civilizations. i believe in a clash of interests. if you believe in fact, you can ameliorate that clash through cultural diplomacy and dialogue. it is a difficult process. guest: we need to remember that relations right now are very brittle and vigilant between the united states and pakistan. we need to remember that it has not always been like this. in the 1960's, i still remember this picture of jackie kennedy lahoy.g she went on to the tribal areas where the taliban now roam. there was a time when america and american representatives -- it evoked the kind of response. i think this relationship is skin deep but it can be turned and changed. host: washington, d.c. caller: why did the u.s. spends so much energy trying to resolve the palestinian and israeli conflict? why do we almost always wholeheartedly support israel? is it because of money or political reasons? guest: the conflict is not the central issue confronting america and the middle east. it carries more emotional and ideological power than perhaps any other issue. if you want to protect and promote american interests and credibility, seeking a solution to the problem is important. as far as israel is concerned, we have a special relationship with israel and it has nothing to do with the peace process or their function as a strategic ally. it has to do with the issue of the value affinity. i am not endorsing them. there is the essence of a relationship between two societies that share common values. it gives it is certain exceptional quality. when we use the special relationship wisely, the three americans who have succeeded in peace-making using honey and vinegar, which can actually succeed. when we allow the relationship to become exclusive, when in fact we do not protect american interests or talk openly and honestly, we do not succeed. the question is not abandoning the israelis. we are simply not going to do that. it is calibrating the relationship to use it appropriately so it can be reciprocal in nature. the honey and vinegar have to be applied at the moment when there is a real opportunity in order to succeed. the honey is both toughness and reassurance. if the israelis do not grab the moment, but those circumstances have yet to be created. there is no deal on the table. this is where i feel very strongly. fighting with israel on the peace process is a necessary, obligatory function of any serious peacemaker, but the fight with the israelis has to be worthwhile and produce a result that benefits not only the united states but the israelis and the arabs as well. that is something the administration has not yet figured out. caller: i am glad you brought up the honey and vinegar because when i heard you speak about -- the honey and vigor and a critic vinegar needsand the dinner to be applied to the palestinians. they are protecting this tiny piece of land surrounded by large masses of land. honey and vinegar on each side is very necessary and helps the diplomatic process. it also lets you see both sides of the pros and cons of each side of the equation. guest: frankly, this is the best assessment. that is the best, detached objective assessment of the frame of mind in which the united states must proceed into this conflict. this is not a morality play. it is a complicated conflict. both sides bear responsibility for its perpetuation. she is absolutely right. the honey and vinegar has to be applied to both sides with reassurance and a furnace. guest: this idea that everything must come from america -- i think it would take some -- i would have reservations because ultimately if the leadership in israel and in the arab world -- we must understand that israel is a neighbor situated in the heart of the middle east, and the two nations need to get on with each other and benefit from their presence. hopefully, they will exist as friends and neighbors. the israelis must also reach out and do exactly the same to the arab world because there is so much to learn. think of what the israelis can teach the arab world -- democracy, free press, a thriving educational system, developments in agriculture and industry. there is so much taken benefit from each other without the world intervening. i would say that that awareness has to be encouraged. host: of the president spoke directly to the israelis and palestinians during his speech. guest: i hope people respond to that. guest: there is a lot of wisdom here. it is about ownership. it was larry summers who said that in the history of the world no one ever watched a rental car. why don't you watch rental cars? because you only care about what ou own -- why don't you wash rental cars? because you only care about what you own. caller: thank you for this topic. i support barack obama 100%. i am and member of [unintelligible] one hour ofe gave a the holocaust last week. host: what is the question? caller: i hope that the israel and the arabs who have to have one state -- they both will have to stop killing each other -- host: brooklyn, new york. you are next. caller: i have a question. mr. miller, regarding president obama's policy, i think that is a little bit disingenuous and not true. president bush never wanted to -- he was forced to leave senator obama at the time [unintelligible] also in afghanistan, president obama has been saying for years we should be in afghanistan. my question is this. wasn't it president truman who said [unintelligible] but jews are so we should support israel in that regard? guest: i still defend my position on obama's w. he did not have to add 30 to is -- 30,000 additional forces. he was told he had to get in deeper before he got out. targeted killings with creditor drones, they have quadrupled under this president. i think there are many similarities between the two. domestic politics are a reality. if you had a set of interests, you post them. you do it democratically within the confines that the system allows. it is an open competition. in essence, that is what has happened. willful american presence -- nixon, carter, and bush 41, will fall american presidents when there was an opportunity, they did so and as a trumpet political interests every single time. if obama found its strategy and a moment and believed the arab- israeli issue needed to be resolved, and the parties were willing to help him, he would trump political interest, too. guest: i think we have to put this in the context of the second presidential cycle. we need to put this in context because president obama will be taking all of these calculations on board. in that sense, i think much of what the speech will be overtaken by the events as we go into the cycle and maybe it will be new developments like we had with the killing of osama bin laden. i think that we are going to be seeing a lot of changes in the next couple of months. the revolution is going to play out. the consequences of osama bin laden's death is going to be making an impact in the islamic world the debt ceiling will be making an impact. there are many issues on the horizon. this speech is important but it will be overtaken. host: what does it mean for the state department and the secretary of state hillary clinton? guest: she could pick up the baton and run with it. that would go a long way in implementing what he has in mind. i suspect it will be so many events that will overtake this particular speech guest: in the end, this is not our story, and frankly, that is good news. these uprisings are really not revolutions. these are about indigenous changes, authentic changes, people trying to throw off the burden of corrupt, distracted leaders who have bilked them for far too long. there is a certain degree of support that we can provide. host: new york, gregory, go ahead. caller: good morning. hopefully i will be able to finish what i am going to say. the israeli-palestinian conflict is similar to america's conflict when it has to do with race. you mentioned bush, nixon, and carter. the difference between those three and president obama is skin tone. president obama's hands are tied a lot tighter. during his speech, he talked about the need to stop the lie. the lie is we can't call c-span and say anything about israel without getting a dial tone. number two, the israeli connection to america is our media. host: you made your point. guest: first of all, this is not about race. we did something in november 2008 which was truly extraordinary. no one could have selected a man of color whose wife is a direct descendant of slaves and made the person the most important man on this planet. only america could do that because of the nature of our system. this is not about race. as far as the media, again, i come back to the basic reality. we have a democratic system. a foreign policy cannot be sustained without the support of the vast majority of the american people. however problematic relationship is, it has been maintained over and over and over again with successive administrations because of the built-in the predilection on most americans including millions of evangelical christians as well as a very small jewish community. this state deserves our support. not our unadulterated support, but a wise judicious american policy. i think it's before itself in that regard. host: steve on our republican line. caller: you said we should not abandon israel because of the things we have in common. i heard two things in that speech yesterday which tells me that that is what obama is doing. number one, to think that israel would cede land to hamas, the land that was used to attack them in 1967, it is suicide. number two, he said when it comes to security, israel has a right to defend itself by itself. what we are going to hear, islamists that are taking over egypt, if they want to take israel out, go for it. we are not going to interfere. they are on their own. guest: first of all, no american administration is going to force the israelis to make existential decisions when it comes to their security. without their being on the other side one gun, one of for the, one negotiating position able to deliver those commitments in a negotiation. i think the notion that the united states is just waiting for an opportunity to sacrifice israel on the altar of its own self interests in the middle east is wrong. do i think barack obama has the same passion for the state of israel that george w. bush had or bill clinton? no, i don't. he is a product of a different kind of environment. he is much more detached, but he is certainly not an enemy of the state of israel. guest: i feel like in america, perhaps only in america, we can help by creating and sustaining a vigorous jewish-muslim dialogue. i have been very much involved -- i am speaking at a congregation to celebrate -- -- along with cambridge university. these initiatives i believe will help promote better understanding, better friendship, better relationships, and that will cause a better understanding over there. ultimately, jews and muslims who has so much in common can begin to see each other and not through theprism of enemies and antagonists, but as friends and kinfolk. host: riverside, calif., bonnie, democrats' line. caller: president obama did bring up the crucial point, going back to the old testament, that there are extremists inside of eight to annihilate israel. they have reason to be paranoid. islamistst some of the complaining about their own leaders? they have now hired blackwater with a new name -- guest: she is right. there is a great deal of anger against their own rulers in the muslim world. for example, the taliban in pakistan were killing pakistanis constantly. they just blew up some pakistanis and they said they were trying to attack the u.s. consulate. our number one enemy is pakistan, not the united states. this battle is a battle that we have to watch. there are thousands and thousands of those who have given their lives during this fight in the muslim world. they have to emerge and restore a sense of balance, a sense of destiny and identity to is the muslim world. host: as far as moslems and palestinians are concerned, do you see the notion of another negotiator? guest: i hope not. i hope the administration thinks very carefully about what its strategy is going to be. without a strategy, it seems dubious that words in a speech are going to lead to much. we face a problem here, and i do not know how to resolve it. i tried to provide advice to half a dozen secretaries of state to do that. the gaps between the leaders on the big issues are very wide. the leaders themselves are prisoners of their constituents. they are not mastering their political houses. the political situation is very uncertain. how does the united states wade into a problem? to basically made israelis and palestinians sit down at the table and negotiate of the conflicts without a sense of ownership on their part? it seems to me it will be very difficult for the president. akbar is right here. host: alabama, good morning. our independent line. caller: of wanted to speak about achieving peace over there. on the palestinian side, the failure to recognize israel is a chief point. if somebody came over here and took half of our land, i understand what it would be angry. as far as israel goes, the economic situation, they shifted their economy from the internet- based economy to a more security-based economy. that seems to be controlling their country. doesn't it make up over 50% of their gdp? thank you very much. guest: i mean, i think that is not a fair characterization of israel's economic reality. they survive the dot com bubble and the 2008 crash much better than we did it. the economy is growing and high tech is fundamentally important. they certainly have a vibrant economy. in terms of real dollars, the percentage of money that is released spend on defense is very high and will remain high. we have zeroed out our economic aid. host: san diego, thanks for holding on. our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. miller, -- how can i say? every issue than you are bringing up is correct. the way we can solve this -- one major weight is education. the americans need to be truly educated, not a harvard education, but education in civics, learning the law. once we learn the law, we will learn about the structure of the american system. you are a citizen. by law, you have to pay taxes everywhere you go. understand that, understand sovereignty, and then we will trace everything back to the root of our problems and all of our issues will be solved. host: independent line, cheryl. caller: one thing i heard president obama say is that we need to be talking to the part of the world, especially the youth. one thing i heard over and over in the comments was that we did not perceive the arab's coming. why did we not understand that? why did we not feel it? was the intelligence bad? my point is this. it plays into the feeling you get from your aspects of the season and community. sometimes, the media does not let through what we need to hear. right now, we have two distinguished guests on this program. yet i have not heard anything about the there have been two ships going toward gaza at the end of last year. there is a trial going on in israel as we speak where a family is suing the state of israel at the encouragement of the united states state department because israel -- because she was killed at the hands of american-funded bulldozer -- host: we will leave it there. as far as the yoouth revolution. guest: i have been watching the revolution in close quarters. my daughter was in cairo and it just arrived when the revolution began. these movements are being led by young people. young people wearing jeans, on twitter and facebook. it is a new kind of a weakening in the arab world. i am hopeful. -- it is a new kind of awakening in the arab world. the they are often supported by washington. that encouraged me. at the same time, you do not know how these revolutions are going to end. you saw what happened in iran. that revolution led to more violence. revolutions by definition are uncontrolled. we hope we pray that these revolutions succeed in bringing democracy and enlightenment to the region. at the same time, they need all the support and help that they can get. guest: i think that is right. you ended up with a grimmer reality on the ground, which is a negotiation core power. the military and the muslim brotherhood of the two best organized forces in this country, essentially trying to googlete face for the generation. young secular nationalists can organize. once of the uprising and, it is all a question of the transaction, trying to negotiate the best deal that you can. host: as we are running out of time for this segment, but from what we heard yesterday, would be your advice for the next step? guest: i think history will smile kindly on these young arab democrats. i really do. for the short term, buckle your seat belt. we are going to be in for a very bumpy ride. guest: never lose sight of hope and idealism. you can overcome. host: chair of islamic studies at american university, akbar ahmed. aaron david miller also join ing us. gentlemen, thank you for your time this morning. coming up, we will take a look at federal money and what is required for the upkeep of roads and bridges. we will also look at the issues of bioterrorism. we will be right back. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information. and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online. >> follow c-span's "washington journal" on twitter. the question of the day, high- profile bookings, and links it to video clips. don't miss any updates from "washington journal." start your twitter account today. >> at this june, the balance between security and liberty, the difficulties of a climate change treaty, and the limits of international law. your questions for a law professor eric posner. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. >> the c-span networks, which provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. find our content any time throughout c-span's video library. we also take c-span on the road, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington, your way. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: maureen mcavey joines us, with the urban land institute. ms. mcavey, as far as money is concerned, how much money should the government be spending? guest: we should be spending about twice what we are currently spending. it really is a strategic priority for us. the american society of civil engineers did a study showing that over the next five years we need to be spending about $2.20 trillion. we will spend about half of that. host: what is going on that we have to spend that kind of money? guest: we have not done major investments in infrastructure -- roads, bridges, mass transit, water systems, etc. we have not been spending what we need to spend. people use it. it is used every single day. largely, we take for granted. people basically do not want to spend more. we assume that when we opened the tap, here comes clean water. we assume that we have a good road to drive on. one way or the other, whether through taxes, tolls, fees, we need to be spending more. host: do you mean those in congress do not want to spend more on these things? guest: congress believes it is a strategic priority, but they do not want to do what is necessary, whether it is to raise gas taxes, increase of the polling for highway programs, and certainly it local individuals do not want to pay more. citizens do not like toll roads or raising taxes for one purpose or the other. we have seen over the last five years, particularly in the western states, the valid initiatives for infrastructure have passed on about a 70% ratio. 70% of those initiatives have passed. host: as far as spending is concerned, what are the problems that her being faced? can you give some specifics? guest: there are problems coast to coast. in the new york region, a bridge needs to be replaced. infrastructure is expensive. that is $17 billion. in san francisco, the stations, the repairs -- they need to $7.5 billion in investment. i could go to smaller communities as well. it really is a critical issue for us. when we think about infrastructure, which think about the backbone of the economy. we are not spending what we need to spend on a proportional basis. host: the report of the cover that you put out shows a shot of one of the cities in china. guest: china across the board -- they will spend $1 trillion over the next five years. they are spending it -- they have a different form of government, of course, but they are spending it in state of the art infrastructure and they are able to build a brand new roads and etcetera we are one of the fastest- growing countries in the world. we have 30 million people who come into the country, both immigration and through birth every 10 years. all of those people live in cities, and it went to get someplace with mobility and access, and they want goods in their stores and goods for all the moving around that is necessary in the country. host: you can call us with your questions about infrastructure. also, if you want to send us an e-mail or a tweet. the urban land institute -- what does it do? guest: it is a research and education institute. we do not do lobbying. there are finance people, real- estate developers, academics, architects -- it is really about making city's better all across the world, predominantly in the u.s. we have about 30,000 members. host: off of twitter -- american infrastructure is falling apart. is that a term that you would use? guest: it is certainly deteriorating. i might use "erosion." we have to be spending competitively. host: there is a chart in here that shows the united statesi s different shades. the guest: at the chart relates to how much the states and the federal government are spending on infrastructure. despite high gas prices are, we have not raised the federal portion of the gas tax in 18 years. the federal government who build the highways and the major cross-border infrastructure elements has not had more money to spend in the last several years. we cannot continue to do that. one of the things interesting to note is that infrastructure will increasingly relate to the strength of metropolitan areas. it is where our gdp rests within the country. if we are not spending competitive in the metro areas, which will have winners and losers -- we will have winners and losers. host: greater than 48.1% for red. blue is less than 40%. guest: it is really how much the gas tax -- how many cents per gallon is being paid by various parts of the country. the state and local portions of the gas tax has been going up. it is the federal portion of the gas tax that has not been rising. there are a number of communities -- los angeles is one, denver another -- with a have raised taxes to fund local infrastructure initiatives. host: good morning, georgia. caller: i was just wondering about if we are going to give $2 trillion to the administration for infrastructure and we have already given them a trillion dollars to what they considered a shovel-ready products, are they a group a people that we should trust? guest: that is a good question. the stimulus dollars that are spend largely did go to repairing existing infrastructure. roads, bridges, things that were ready to go and could provide jobs and badly needed repairs. so, much of that money may not have been exciting, but it certainly did a lot of work that needed to be done. that money will tail off. we will not be spending bill stimulus dollars by 2013 or so. what happens then? host: atlanta, georgia, you are next. caller: what i would like to say is the people are all about the size of government. this is a vague answer. wendy's and natural disasters are happening on the mississippi river that are taking place, they always look for help to the government. the businesses and things -- it hurts them more than the average person like me, the average taxpayer. these people should be responsible for putting up money because they profit more off of infrastructure than anybody else. guest: thank you. infrastructure is very much a national issue. certainly, we have seen, five years ago with hurricane katrina, flooding that is occurring to the central states, we see the need for thinking through a national system of infrastructure in dams, levees, as well as bridges, roads, mass transit, etc. if we do not do it, it will be to our peril. host: louisville, ky. guest: i would support more money for your infrastructure if there could be significant labor reform. we have a situation where you go down the road and you see four or five union contractors or laborers working on a project, and, only one of them working. another one down the road, sitting by a railroad crossing, just standing there. if you are going to spend more money, -- you talk about the chinese. the chinese do not have the kind of labor overruns that we have. don't you think there needs to be a significant union reform in this country and labor reform before we start spending this kind of money? guest: the issues of efficiency and effectiveness are worldwide issues. recently, china has had significant problems with their high-speed rail. they fired the leader of the project. there has been corruption and the cost overruns. some of our problems of our worldwide problems. it is useful to note that in the u.s., where the local citizens believe that infrastructure dollars will be carefully spend and prudently spend in an effective way, 70% of those valid initiatives have passed. there are some good examples are run the country. host: florida, you are on with our guest. caller: this problem has been going on for 30 years. we have to stop spending so much money on making war and making weapons of destruction. i think we have enough. host: st. petersburg, fla., duke, our independent line. caller: the last bridge that was built in new york was in 1964. the state of new york is a crumbling, negligent in regards to infrastructure. that is why interstate 95 [unintelligible] guest: the challenge of preparing our existing infrastructure is just a crucial issue. i am sure anybody who has been in the metropolitan area and has spent time stuck in traffic, waiting for transit service cannot understand how critical it is. one of the mantras that the urban land institute has used is we have to invest in infrastructure, not just spend. spend using a national plan and a metropolitan local planned. host: there is another chart that shows cars per capita. you had mentioned at the beginning that a the way other countries a fund to their projects differ from the way we do it. what is the difference? guest: many of the other countries spend on a top-down basis because of democracy and help local decisions are made an. in a metropolitan area, we have many units of government. chicago, for example, has a 1400 separate taxing district. everyone is putting a little bit -- everyone is applying a little bit for where that money is coming in. china, india, etc., india, the u.k., they are able to spend on a more top-down, rational strategic bases then we sometimes spend. host: what about the assessment of interstate 95? guest: we have not done what we need to do in terms of thinking through significant new roads. some of the plants on the books around the country have been on the books for 20 or 30 years. city, we are seeing the second avenue subway finally getting going. there is a desire to build the extension of the bike system in san francisco. these are investments that need to be made and are in fact strategic. host: talk about projects like those in boston. guest: often, these projects are very hard to estimate going forward. many of them, even projects in the private sector, are very difficult to budget accurately and to control accurately. we can always improve the process. it does not mean we should stop doing the basic investment. we need to get better at controlling it. republicanuon our line. caller: and god bless c-span. maureen is going to give a lot of heart attacks across the country until she shows of that chart, the state run by democrats -- they are taxing all of these retired people to pay $80,000 for their retirement. most retired people make less than $20,000. it is these totally inefficient people putting grandma over the bridge, scare tactics, when they have 50 years of affirmative action programs to set aside money for all of these people who have had it for 50 years and have done nothing but build up the bureaucracy, whether it is running businesses out of california, new york, sending them places and then attacking places like south carolina where boeing is building a plant. guest: one of the thoughts -- one of the challenges is to think through the kinds of transportation systems that we need as people age. about a third of the population in this country cannot drive. even if they are too old or can no longer because of vague reflects standpoint, there are too young and are not yet able to drive or get a driver's license, or they are impaired in one fashion or the other or disabled. how we provide access and mobility to those people is critical. as the baby boomers age, that is going to be a critical issue for people to get around. host: phoenix, ariz., on our democrats' line. caller: i would like to say that america's infrastructure should contribute itself towards america's major state of the art development establishment here today. do you believe that america's infrastructure should be more contributed to our education which does provide us a lot of growth today? or just to our state of the art -- what you were talking about with the light rails hitting metro? guest: education is a critical part of infrastructure. we think of infrastructure in it two ways. there is the hard infrastructure, and there is a soft infrastructure, which includes the health care system, education, in many ways, telecommunications, and we need both, hard and soft, infrastructure to remain competitive as a world power. host: maverick says -- guest: it is always easier to fix something currently then is to let it deteriorate further and further and further we know this from our own homes and cars. if you keep waiting for something, often it triggers something else going wrong. it might have been fixed earlier if you had the money or intention. host: how long does it take to execute a fix? guest: many of these projects are long-range projects. you think about airport expansions, major bridges, a new subway lines, etc. once it is planned and approved, then it can be three years to five years to 10 years in construction. i might add that not only does it take us long to plan and execute these improvements, they stand for 50, 75, or 100 years. we are using some of the same infrastructure that was created 75 or 100 years ago. these improvements need to be repaired and improved, but they are the backbone of our economy. host: as far as the $2 trillion cost, does that go into planning and building? guest: planning and building is the estimate. host: texas, addison is up next. go ahead. texasn yes, i'm a native and i regard infrastructure as and the we inherited from our predecessors. our infrastructure is a gift to an immigrant when they come in. i have wandered in the past. do you have a dollar figure per capita of what infrastructure is in this country? guest: that is a good question. we all are about 310 million people at the moment. we will be adding easily 3 million people every year for the foreseeable future. certainly, much faster growing band japan or most of europe, russia. we need to accommodate our new citizens, both those who are born here as well as those immigrants who come in. virtually all of those people will live in metropolitan areas. we are getting crushed by the amount of congestion that we have in those areas. host: is there a case to be made for the private sector to take over these projects? guest: we are seeing an increase in what we call t3 -- public private partnerships. in some cases, they are designing and building it, operating it, and maintaining it over time. chicago did read -- chicago did that with the skyway. we are seeing that come with some soft infrastructure as well with a charter schools. we are starting to see public- private partnerships and very creative ways. other parts of the world have used public-private partnerships much more creatively than we have. there are two ways they can make money. in some cases, there are toll roads that are then created, the hot lanes being built in the washington, d.c., metropolitan area. there is a pledge of future tax revenues. it can be parking revenues, sales tax revenues, but there is an agreement that there will be some revenue that comes into the private sector. host: maureen mcavey, executive vice president of the urban land institute, they have put out a report looking at it infrastructure spending. is the report available online? guest: the report is available online. host: steve is on our republican line, go ahead. caller: i just want to say something to this woman who i am sure is a very honorable woman. this is a bunch of hooey. i have four points if you have the time. first, politicians love infrastructure projects. they love infrastructure projects because they are extremely labor-intensive and create a lot, a lot of employment temporarily. then you end up with a bunch of people that are basically all of a sudden unemployed and projects that do not fulfil their promise, as it were. this happens every time, for example, a host of the olympics. you end up with all of the stadiums that are unusable the cost a fortune to be used once. i will give some examples. host: you have made two, so we will leave it there. guest: there are projects that do not live up to their expectations. we do not hear quite so much about the projects that exceed expectations, and that all brought in under budget and on time that have projections. los angeles has seen that with their light rail system one of the things about transportation, the american householder pays the second highest payment they make per month for transportation. the first payment is their housing. the second payment is for transportation. if we did not have the bus services, the transit services, the householder would have no choice but to drive every place all the time. that is an increasing problem when you are looking at a gas in the neighborhood of four dollars per gallon. we need an array of transportation choices. host: according to your report, as far as our satisfaction with the roads and highways, the united states came in fifth place. australia, the u.k., canada, norway below us. japan, france, sweden of of us. -- sweden of of us. guest: many americans, partially because we're such a diverse country, believe are infrastructure -- by that, many of them mean roads -- are doing ok. they can get wherever they need to go within 20 minutes or 30 minutes. other parts of the country, the levees, it's apparent to them that there are problems and those problems may well increase over time as we face issues of climate change and such. in the countries where things are better, in many cases, european countries, japanese, etc., we are seeing an array of transportation choices and people use the transit regularly. that's true in this country where we have transit -- as we it-rich, trans-ric cities. in the cities where we have good transit, there are 30% of the people who use it every day. in the places where there's not as much satisfaction, there has not been as much investment in the last 20 years, 30 years. host: from twitter, how can we trust the spending for infrastructure to be spent on infrastructure? guest: it is alsalways something that bears watching and bears 8 watchdog agency watching over. the assistance approved ballot initiatives in a 70% majorities in all the cities in the last five years. it is a significant number because we have been in a recession since 2007. there's a great deal of distrust the government. and yet, 70% of the citizens thought that that agency would spend money prudently and that it would be badly needed and they would get, if you will, a return on investment. being a watchdog is critically important to a democracy. we need to figure out how to spend the money prudently, efficiently, effectively. host: illinois on the line for democrats. steve, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i just wanted to ask you, how do you think the impact of infrastructure, like bridges -- deficiency rated -- how will that impact to the highways down the road? [inaudible] with the new federal highway bill, when it comes to congress, and how that goes on the infrastructure projects and things like that. guest: thank you. to the extent we are not spending what we need to spend, we end up closing critical infrastructure links. there are bridges around the country that have been closed because there are no longer safe to travel across. because this is a network system, we can see that the closing of one element in the system reverberates and causes problems in other elements of the system. we see this in spot areas all over the country. we need to be spending strategically and we need to be doing a better job of coordinating our planning so that we spend where it is most critically needed and where the population growth will occur. host: marysville, washington, john on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: hi. good morning. i really support the idea of better transit. i have been in the navy and traveled all around the world. i lived around chicago and i like the rail system. i think san diego is an outstanding example. washington, i do not know. they are way behind the curve. i am wondering this. was it a case of poor planning way back when when nobody thought -- hey, we build a road -- how will we pay for it down the future? as our population increases, we increase our roads, bridges, and are infrastructure. you would think that as the population increases and cost- of-living increases, that the -- the cost of repairs increase, you would think we would still have the same money coming in, or at least the amount of money needed to repair things. what has happened to that money? guest: you raised a couple of good points. one of them is the relationship and how we build. at the urban land institute, we think about land use a lot. we see an opportunity all over the country. in the suburbs, where there is some degree of transit, they are starting to build up. they are starting to build in clusters so there is housing nearby offices, nearby retail, and people either have a shorter trip, if they are going to drive, or they have the opportunity to bicycle, walk, or simply get around using trans it because they've done a better job of building in an intelligent way. the second question, where does all the money go? the more our metropolitan areas have spread out, the greater the cost than simply repairing our existing infrastructure. as i mentioned, we simply have not kept pace in terms of nationally raising the gas tax, which is where a great deal of the money comes from. it is then redistributed across the country. host: "the hill" newspaper reported earlier this week -- as a program or at least a proposal, what you think of that on its merits? guest: we have looked at that. one thing about vehicle miles traveled tax is that it does encourage people to use alternative methods of transportation and it encourages them to plan their trips in a smart way so they do not go from a to point b, then go back to point a, so that they can strategically think about how they make those trips less. the other part of the equation is that on a gas tax basis, because we are seeing -- which is a wonderful thing -- cars becoming more fuel efficient, it is often deemed that we should not be solely reliance on the gas tax. it will not bring in enough money unless we raise it very dramatically to meet our needs. a combination of taxing makes some sense. the proposals that have been talked about will make allowances for people whose jobs, whether they are a visiting nurse or a salesperson, if they have to use their car for their business to go to these various locations, there are offsets that could be worked in. host: when you say alternate modes of transportation, you mean public transportation? are more people taking it now because of gas prices? guest: yes, all across the country. and that is true where there are good transit alternatives. it takes two and half hours to go from where you are to where you need to go, they are still driving and they are just cutting back on other expenditures. where there are good alternatives, the ridership has gone up. host: for myers, florida, thank you for watching. louis on the line for democrats. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to make a point. thank you for c-span. i would like to say to maureen mcavey, either way, i'd travel 95 quite a bit. either way, you will pay for the infrastructure. when you travel up and down 95 with the pot holes -- with a big truck, it cost you. you'll either pay the mechanic or you will pay someone to do the roads. you do not want to be running a big truck. no one looks at the big truckers and how many and what it cost across this country. we pay a big dollar tax. i think someone should get with the truckers and look at these highways. they do not mind paying. they want good roads. it cost them a lot of money to run over these rough roads. guest: you raised a good point. the wear and tear on trucks and cars, because of bad roads and because of congestion, is substantial. some have estimated that cost $500 to $1,000 per car, and of course it would be more for truckers to use the roads every day. if we have smooth roads that run efficiently and you can get to where you want to go reasonably efficiently, it saves money and it saves wear and tear on the car. host: los angeles, good morning. bob on the line for republicans. caller: in los angeles, the freeway and the car region -- the city streets in los angeles are deplorable. they are the worst mess. the city cannot keep up maintenance. they repair something and it falls apart within minutes after. host: pot holes and things like that? caller: yes, that's just the city surface streets. the freeways are obsolete. they're totally unreliable. it takes three and a half hours to go a few miles in most cases. our neighbor to the south, orange county, they're building eight or 10 lanes on their freeways every year. it just adds more congestion. it's just another parking lot. we have water mains burst in every week. nobody seems -- wall street is not going to want to shell out any wherewithal, any funds for repairing our infrastructure. guest: los angeles just past a half cent sales tax increase to fund billions of dollars of improvements, predominately to the mass transit system. they are experimenting with what is called bus rapid transit in addition to rail services so that the los angeles region remains competitive and is able to get people from place to place in a more efficient way. you are certainly correct that the growth in los angeles both in the city and on the freeways are at capacity. they are, in fact, past capacity. host: the statement that new york city has the best mass- transit system in the country. is it profitable, neutral, or negative as far as dollars are concerned? guest: it is neutral in most cases and profitable on some lines. as you go through the metropolitan regions and of course the city of new york is an extremely large and well served system. in many cases, the rolling stock, which is the train cars, need upgrading and improving. we have seen stations that need improving. escalators and elevators need improvement. it depends on the line that you look at. again, we are not spending all that we have to spend in order to keep up with the usage that is occurring and the growth of population. host: our guest is the executive vice president of the urban land institute. she has been there since 2001. she has two master's degrees, one from the university of minnesota and one from the kennedy school of government. how did you get involved in these kind of matters? guest: i have always been what i think of -- if you will -- a social worker of cities. i love cities. how you finance, organize, and maintain a city has been a passion of mine all my life. host: as far as most cities, when they think about these things, is it a holistic approach or piecemeal as far as the infrastructure is involved? guest: there are examples where people are able to come together on a bipartisan basis and think about the good of all. in denver, 40 mayors in the city's and suburbia to work together to get a regional plan between cities, minneapolis and st. paul, passed a revenue system. using complex where there are places where -- you see conflicts where it is me, my, mine, and areas where there is cooperation. host: was cities rank on the list as examples and other cities to look at? guest: there's no perfect city, but i would say virtually all of the cities in the country are doing things in this arena. san diego is experiencing -- is experimenting with bus rapid transit. i mentioned denver, los angeles. host: would washington, d.c. be on the list? guest: absolutely. washington has done a great job of developing around transit. where the metro system has been so successful, there's increase in development. offices, residential, etc. around these transit stations. they are one of the leaders in the country. host: new york, barry on the line for independents. go ahead. you are on with maureen mcavey. caller: i in my ear your focus on the work you do. i think it's extremely critical and it is so important because it affects people's quality of life. it is an important issue that people have to deal with day after day. my question is this. how much do you focus on the efficiency of projects? there are projects that are in place, but frustrating to most people. in new york, a road is scheduled for a replacement and it seems to go on and on with no progress. i've gone over the same pot hole in new york city for 30 years that has not been fixed. you will see construction workers there. you will see trucks there. lanes are cut down, but yet no progress is made. guest: i certainly share your pain and in many respects. one of the challenges in areas like new york is to try to keep movement occurring while major repairs are happening at the same time. we see lanes cut down. we see much repair work done at night and the early hours of the morning in order to keep things moving. could we do better? i'm sure we could in many parts of the country. i live in los angeles during the olympics in 1984 when the airport was being expanded and it was an incredible challenge. i live in boston during the big dig. i understand that pain. how we do this in the best and most efficient way -- the urban land institute looks at what we call best practices. we try to share the best practice so that other people can learn from both the best of what people are doing and the mistakes others have made. tweet formarch ore you. guest: i'm not even sure i can remember "the flintstones" and "the jets sinons." when i look that india is building $1 trillion, we are not spending what we need to spend and strategically investing that money because it is the economic backbone of the country. host: maureen mcavey with the urban land institute. she's the executive vice president. she has a new report, which you can see online at uli.org. thank you. guest: a pleasure to be here. host: today we tackle the idea or the topic of bio terrorism and dr. jeffrey runge will be our guest and we will be right back. >> you're watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, is "washington journal" connecting you with policymakers and journalists. also, a supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturdays, the communicators. on sundays, "q&a." you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span, washington, your way. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> history, as you know, is much more than politics and soldiers. it is also medicine, science, medicine, science, art, music, theater, ideas. we should not allow the things in two categories. it's all part of the same thing. >> sunday night on "q&a" part one of two weeks with david mccullough on the americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, from lectures and history, cleveland state professor williams on the music of duke ellington. a look at the smithsonian's efforts to preserve an exhibit, "the jefferson bible." the 50th anniversary celebration of the freedom rides, when 13 men and women, black and white, boarded two buses bound for new orleans with the goal to integrate southern bus stops. get the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. >> this june, the balance between security and liberty, the difficulties of the climate change treaty, and the limits of international law. your questions for author and university of chicago professor eric posner. and he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. >> "washington journal" continues. . host: the final day of our series looking at the department of homeland security. on monday, the topic of airport security. tuesday, civil rights and civil liberties. critical infrastructure protection on thursday. there's a, technology, looking at border security. today, looking at bioterrorism. our guest is dr. jeffrey runge, former assistant homeland security. thee's an office within office called the office of health affairs. what is its role in the effect of a bio-medical emergency? guest: we constructed the office with three arms. one specifically with the issue of detection of biological agents and the surveillance of disease in the animal rome and the human realm and environmental health. the third area was having to do with medical readiness. that was all planning, and working with usda, cdc, etc. around that issue. there is a planning function. there's also the detection and surveillance part that belongs to that host: office. how has that office been tested in the history of the department? guest: i will confess that interagency planning is a very difficult thing. obviously, the white house is very much involved. it is very much driven by the white house. when i came into homeland security from my days at the national highway safety administration, quite a different way of doing things. we looked to the d.o.d. to help us learn how to plan. when you have people under orders and there's a nice car. -- and there's a nice hierarchy, planning is straightforward. when you are dealing with multiple civilian agencies, and none of them work for each other. the issue of planning across agency and who is doing what is much more challenging. host: in the days where we had anthrax,about what was its role? guest: at that time, there was no department of homeland security. whoever had resources was brought to the table by the white house. it turns out that the coast guard actually managed the cleanup. who would think of that. since that time, the epa has stood up. there's protocols for how we clean things up and so forth. it was a new game for the civilian agencies. host: looking at the budget, there's $150 million slated for a project called biowatch. what is that? guest: it has to do with the detection of biological agents. when it was set up in the mid part of the decade, there were four killers in homeland security for bio-defense. one was surveillance and detection. one was looking at the context of disease in the population. detection is specifically aimed at finding agents that might be released into the atmosphere and detecting them in time to be able to bring medical countermeasures to people who might be affected. host: as far as the program, how does it work? guest: it is a process. we realized even before we got to the department that our current bio-watch system is fairly slow and not optimal for getting medicines to people in real time. a project was begun called project 3 bio-watch. it is autonomous. it identifies dna and reports automatically to public health officials and government officials about if there has been a hit. host: how widespread is the system and how is it coordinated? guest: that's a good question. a lot of people have a stake in this. obviously, fbi, epa, hhs. it is managed by the department of homeland security. the old system is in over 30 cities across the country which we deem to be highest risk. the focus was to cover as much as the population in the daytime as we could cover given the resources available. much of the funding now is aimed at getting the economist devices out there. they will save a day. you do not have a time to get antibiotics out to people or begin a vaccination or alert the health-care community when there has been a release of an agent. the sooner you know, the more lives are saved. this autonomous program is aimed at reducing the time lag, which may be as much as 24 hours to 48 hours, down to four hours to six hours. host: our guest is with us until 10:00 a.m. to talk about these issues. if you wish to do so, you can on these phone lines. if you want to send us an e- mail, journal@cspan.org. on twitter, cspanwj. as far as the office of homeland security, who are the main partners when it comes to the bio-defense policy? guest: the department has to be able to region to any federal agency that has a stake or a role that may be in charge of a particular event. it depends. with the pandemic influenza, for example, it's typically led by the cdc. the counterpart in washington is the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the department of health and human services. that office was created under an act in response to the pandemic in december of 2006. it really fortified hhs's ability to deal with these issues. if it is the environmental, the epa has response teams. they call the shots on environmental toxins and so forth. widespread better marry problem, usda is the lead a veterinarian problem, usda is the lead. we have a long way to go to we have been in this business for 10 years or 15 years. the japanese terrorist group got people's attention. biological terrorism has been going back as long as there were poisonings the soldiers of troy firing contaminated stones and pieces of diseased bodies over the walls in spared the and so forth. the idea goes back a long way. not until we understood the ramifications of what is actually not that difficult to pull off if you are -- if you want to harm this country. it will take a while. host: joe from twitter asked this. guest: supplies are pre position to, in fact. the cdc is responsible for the strategic national stockpile. not only do they have a stockpile -- the large stockpiles, but they do decentralize it somewhat. the transportation, the movement of countermeasures, per to clearly antibiotics to the scene is easy part of the problem. it's what happens after the stockpile lands in a state or urban area. then, the states or local folks are sufficiently planned for points of distribution. is the post office ready to deliver the goods? that's the current plan. what happens to people who are out of town, who were there when the release occurred but are now out of town? there are thousands of details? host: does the department have people and states and localities that are trained in these measures? does the department also fund these kind of first responders? guest: yes and no. the federal emergency management agency is the department's arm into the community. the extent to which they've become involved in biodefense was slow. i personally visited every fema regional administrator except one and gave them the scenario of the anthrax attack. this was in 2007. we started to talk about what would be required using fema's current operations. we are not there yet. the department of health and human services also has regional experts in preparing its response that are located in each of these 10 regions. they work with fema. host: first call for you comes from steve in florida on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes, i was wondering if you could answer this question. do you think the justification of all the money we spend on homeland security saves more lives than the poverty we are creating in our own country by devaluing the dollar by spending it on things that we cannot stop? guest: that is a great question and that is a question that congress deals with all the time. how much investment do we want to make in events that may not occur? that is easy when it is not occurring. i came to the department just after katrina. in hindsight, what should we have spent on levees and the mississippi river system? anticipate the wave coming up the canal? all the impressions -- why didn't we spend money to prevent of a balance.or i mentioned a minute ago that there are four pillars upon which the biodefense strategy is based. one is surveillance and detection and the last is recovering. we believe that the actions of our counter terrorism forces has significantly interrupted al- qaeda's capability when it comes to launching a biological attack. host: on twitter -- guest: we think of all sorts of scenarios. we were given 15 planning scenarios by the white house in response to 9/11. five of them are biological. food borne illness, pandemic influenza, anthrax, and interestingly, smallpox is not one of them. yes, in fact, that is the job of the medical readiness group, to plan off of scenarios. we do this with the local community. the work was begun in 2007 on what happens if there's a nuclear detonation. it turns out you can save 90% of the lives you will save -- people stay in sight. -- people stay inside. absolutely, planning goes on. host: jason in kentucky on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was wondering who was held responsible for the anthrax attacks sent from the u.s. military base a couple years ago. guest: i did not really understand the question. caller: anthrax a couple years ago. guest: are you talking about 2001? caller: yes, who was held responsible? guest: without rehashing that case, the fbi had a suspect. the suspect is no longer living. they believe it was a so-called lone wolf who knew the science behind how to engineer and r thrax. it's an interesting organism. they're like little seeds. they themselves are not infectious, but only after they sprout, if is -- it is toxic. it's a naturally occurring disease. ted turner's buffalo in montana came down with anthrax. it had to be a giant part of his ranch that was quarantined. this occurs with the ranchers. anthrax -- people do not get pulmonary anthrax from the anthrax that occurs in nature. it is in the soil. it's not much danger to people must bear eating grass that comes out of the soil. it requires a little bit of engineering to make its a weapon. although not tremendously sophisticated in this case, the engineering was sophisticated so that a relatively small number of sports in the letter that was opened was released and in health. host: tennessee on the line for democrats. caller: bio is a problem, but the real danger is our southern badeborder is wide open. i heard in 2001 that they were going to sneak them in then have sleeper cells independent of each other waiting with them and that's what will really destroy our country. guest: there's no question that the department is massively concerned with the southwest border. secretary nepalitano was recently the governor of arizona. for thethank you show. i worked on bioterrorism prepared as until katrina. i have some concerns that your panelists has mentioned. i do not think we have enough lab capacity or staff at cdc for a domestic or biological incident during a natural disaster like katrina. have those scenarios been worked out and now trade? who is doing communication for something like that? we are seeing more and more disaster, which would be a prime opportunity for something to happen. guest: the caller is very astute in that she points out that the analytic capability of laboratories to deal with lots of samples and characterizing what has occurred has not only happen at the federal level. the laboratories that are in the states and major cities really on the front line for this. oftentimes, the information that we have been attacked may have come from a clinical laboratory in a hospital, for instance, that sees a pattern. there has been a tremendous amount of work in pulling together this reference laboratory network so that they are all connected and they do receive a common operating picture, information, working with each other so that the cdc keeps the laboratories in form. the department of homeland security has an element that also helps that network. your question about capacity is absolutely true. the capacity of the local lavatories to do their jobs. host: jr. on the line for independents. caller: i drove a truck for all these years. they have all these services -- how easy with it before these people? how easy would it be for them to come in and contaminate the foods we are eating? i have watched this for years and years and often wondered this. every time you go in there, you have a different bunch of people. when is homeland security going to do something about the services? we do not know who these people are who handle our food. thank you, sir. guest: i do not know how we handled the problem of a very distributed networks. typically, the further out you get from a food source, the less impact contamination has on the country. however, the department has done a tremendous amount of work in trying to understand food transportation networks. cdc and fda both have surveillance systems set up for food. we've had instances where we have had contaminated food stuffs. they have been more central than what the caller is talking about. for example, contaminated peanut butter. we had tomatoes and peppers contaminated by salmonella in the middle part of this decade that shutdown a tomato crop in florida. we will always have vulnerabilities. the question is striking the balance between dealing with the boehner buildings and restricting trade. if every person who unloaded trucks has to have a security clearance, we will never get any trucks unloaded and food will rot. that's the stark reality. host: jim hines asks -- guest: this is an interesting topic. when we think about biological agents, we think about naturally occurring disease. for instance, a germ that is naturally occurring in a clinical setting is easily treated by antibiotics. what is the big deal about it? in the 1960's, the united states had its own offensive biological weapons program and it was the choice of our bio weapons scientist. it had to do with how small the particles were and how you could engineer a very small particles to get into the lung and caused death in a short period of time. if you add a little talks into that, -- little toxin, it is a lot more lethal. we believe that in the early and middle part of the decade that our number one threat was anthrax. we still believe that the major threat. you can kill a lot of people over a wide area with a relatively primitive preparation of anthrax and spread it with a fire extinguisher or agricultural sprayer, just like every farmer uses on his crops. in terms of ease of use and availability, anthrax is still a major concern, but if i am a country, for instance, or a terrorist network that has a fair amount of resources and some engineering knowledge, i think there are other organisms which could be every bit as legal and could cover thousands of square miles with a release from helicopter. we have probably underestimated the strategical threat from biological weapons versus a tactical threat on urban areas. which one would i choose if i were a bad guy? i'm not a bad guy. i do not know. it would really depend on the strategic objectives of the perpetrator. host: the commission that looked at weapons of mass destruction, when asked about biological attacks, gave our country an f as far as the grade is concerned. guest: they did. in 2010, they released a report card on how we were doing. the report card was not uniform. i think the administration has done a very good job in terms of biosecurity and securing laboratories that deal with dangerous agents and looking at who else in the world has these laboratories. they came up with a very good strategy. in terms of medical countermeasures, this is where the commission gave them an f, both in terms of the ancient vaccine technologies that we use versus moving towards a more modern generation vaccine, which is more effective. and in terms of developing other countermeasures -- treating people after they become effective, and the delivery system. the commission was not happy. i do not think any of us are happy with where we are. r dr. jeffrey fo dr runge. florence, alabama, chuck on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, dr. runge. i spent a lot of time around the world in the military. when i was in germany in 1983, they had a terrorist group and i saw the posters in subways and other places. it was "kill on site." if they sell them, they would kill them -- they saw them, they would kill them. i do not know what the future of terrorism was after that, but i do not hear much more about it in germany. there's not much options for going to court and argue in all kinds of pretenses about the wrong side of the tracks and all the other things. guest: i want to take a little bit of exception with the notion that somehow europe is safer than the united states with respect to terrorism. i do not think that is true. in some ways, they are a softer target. certainly, some of the countries in the eu are softer targets. some of them have attended groups that claim to act on behalf of islam. there are countries that do not feel they should make the sorts of investments in anti-terrorism or counter terrorism that we have made. frankly, they're closer to the action. i think that the germans are very conscious of their vulnerabilities and continue to work very hard, as does the majority of the rest of the eu, and certainly the u.k. i do believe they are in the firing line of the enemy as much as we are. host: is there a coordination effort between dhs and these other countries? guest: there is certainly a coronation at the highest level -- a coordination at the highest levels. there's a tremendous amount. host: grand rapids, michigan, thank you for holding on. are you go ahead go ahead. caller: i worked down there about 45 years ago. i went down there with some dogs. they could get the whole border fixed now. the way we did it, we got the pot that then. you could tear down the wall, do away with three-quarters of the men, and put 400 dogs there, and i could guarantee you no one will come across with pot or mexicans. guest: i think that would be a revolution to the people in the department who have been using all sorts of electronic technology, people, dogs, any matter of detection. the southwest problem is a real problem. host: linda on the line for democrats. caller: i often wonder how some nitwit with a very good scientific brain could not put together a remote control airplane or something that applies -- that flies and fly it over a football stadium. you could wipe out 70,000 people. someone with a good scientific brain -- takes all those things into consideration. that just seems like the simplest thing to do. i would think it would probably be a domestic incident. it could be international or domestic. it just seems like -- i do not even know what they would load it with. host: we will let our dr. runge guests. . ? guest: you are exactly right. that is a vulnerability. the e-mail that said, do we think about scenarios all day, yes, we do. a stadium center was certainly one of the things that we plan for. this is why it is extremely important to have a strategic plan that can be scaled up or down based on the size of the incident. if it is 75,000 people, that will require significant detection and response capability. 2.3 million people in new york magnitude order of higher. regardless of the size of the incident, we have to of plans, strategies, and tactical plans in place. host: how often did you meet with principles at the white house to discuss this kind of issues? guest: several times a week during that period of time. the difference between that time under president bush and this time under president obama is that president bush had a bio defense adviser. one of the things they graded the administration on was the attention paid to biodefense. to this date, president obama has not appointed a biodefense adviser. there's no one there. there are certainly people that care very deeply about this and have done a lot of work on this. i do believe personally that having a point man in the white house that coalesces all the efforts of the department's agency is invaluable. host: new york, you are next. david on the line for republicans. caller: i'm an epidemiologist. i've been working with this for 22 years. the department of homeland security is doing very little, if nothing right now regarding pandemic of ca tuberculosis. it is 100% fatal in almost every patient population we identify. it is 97% fatal in most healthy and normal adults. cdc has paid very little attention to this. until it comes to new york city or l.a. where airplanes fly in every day from russia, where they have the most egregious epidemic of this nature going on. in south apricot and a big part of this -- in south africa and a big part of this is that we're helping to drive this. it happens much more in people with hiv aids. we are keeping people with aids live much longer in developing nations through our contributions to the global fund and that the wonderful thing. guest: the gentleman knows what he's talking about. xdrtb is a multi drug-resistant form of tuberculosis. the usual way we treat tb -- these people will not respond to those drugs. as he suggested, with our transportation network that we now have across the world, a person with a with axdrtb can be in this country in eight hours or 14 hours and they are coming from parts of the world where this is rampant. the department of homeland security has very little to do with this issue. as the caller suggested, this is in the lane of health and human services and the centers for disease control. the one area where we did cooperate and in fact we were forced to cooperate because we had a -- our attention was escalated. there was a case of an adrtb patient who knew that he had tb and decided to leave the united states and go to italy and was intercepted on the way back. this led to a formalization of a protocol around cases of known communicable disease cooperating between the health officials, state, cdc, and the customs and border protection folks and tsa so that they are not allowed to fly and expose other passengers. cases. are known there are cases that are unknown, but patients are contagious. this is not just xdrtb. this is any communicable disease. you name it. because of the efficiency of our transportation network and frankly, the need to move people through customs when they get back home -- screening people for disease is very difficult. the cdc has a the vision of global migration and quarantine -- has a division of global migration and quarantined that focuses on this all the time. the problem is that there are not an of public health service officers that work with them -- even with people obviously ill. i'm not going to take issue with anything the caller said other than to expand that to other communicable diseases. host: california, ron on the line for independents. caller: dr. runge, i want to get your thoughts on in jesting sodium fluoride into our water c-span.org -- on in jesting sodium fluoride into our water system. we are the only industrialized nation that puts rat poison, basically, that is the basic ingredient. guest: we have the best teeth in the world, don't we? not to make light of the comment -- i believe you had a show on critical infrastructure. water is critical infrastructure in is a sure didn't -- infrastructure in a distributed system. there are very tight controls around water security. there have been tests done where they will put a dent in active agent in a water supply and look downstream at how effective is. they put it in via a fire hydrant. the fact is that there is, because of the delusional affects of the amount of water versus the amount of stuff it takes to adulterate the water, it's not really high on our radar screen. the caller has an agenda about fluoride, which i'm not going to get into. host: one more call. delray beach, florida. caller: thank you for c-span. i sometimes wonder if c-span is a real. and called twice in my life you let me speak. host: go ahead. caller: thank you. for example, getting onto an airplane after being inoculated with terribly communicable disease -- right after we had the anthrax scare, we were instructed to get back on those planes and travel the world. to me, you start in the morning, you get on one plane,

Related Keywords

Jerusalem ,Israel General ,Israel ,Montana ,United States ,West Bank ,Alabama ,Australia ,Brooklyn ,New York ,Delray Beach ,Florida ,San Diego ,California ,Syria ,Bahrain ,San Francisco ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Egypt ,Libya ,Cambridge ,Cambridgeshire ,United Kingdom ,Los Angeles ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Norway ,Canada ,Japan ,Germany ,Afghanistan ,Georgia ,Michigan ,Pakistan ,Tunisia ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Petersburg ,Sankt Peterburg ,Russia ,Sweden ,Boulder ,Colorado ,Maryland ,France ,Hawaii ,Louisiana ,Kennedy School ,Minnesota ,China ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,India ,Rome ,Lazio ,Italy ,South Carolina ,Marysville ,South Africa ,New Hampshire ,American University ,Texas ,Iran ,Kentucky ,Boston ,Massachusetts ,Columbus ,Ohio ,Mississippi ,Denver ,Cairo ,Al Qahirah ,Tennessee ,Christian School ,Gaza ,Phoenix ,Yemen ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,Americans ,Mexicans ,America ,Germans ,Israelis ,Israeli ,Japanese ,American ,Chinese ,Pakistanis ,Palestinian ,Michele Obama ,Jim Hines ,Aaron David Miller ,Laurie Montgomery ,Karen Hawkins ,Duke Ellington ,Abraham Lincoln ,Regina Williams ,Akbar Ahmed ,Eric Posner ,Jeffrey Runge ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Michelle Obama ,Herman Cain ,States Wade ,Jackie Kennedy ,Hillary Clinton ,David Mccullough ,