Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20120423

there are a couple of other ways to reach "washington journal." lots of different headlines of afghanistan start today. this is "the financial times." nancy green writes from karachi. here is a quote -- looking for your reaction to the headline this morning. we will get to your calls and a couple of minutes but we want to show you the "new york times was would headline on all of this. -- "the new york times" headline on this. your headline uses the word aid -- tellus exactly what the aid will look like if you have the details. guest: we don't have details yet because, among other things, the actual text has not yet been released because it has just been signed by the president and it is now being reviewed by the afghan parliament and by president karzai and i think a similar process is going on at the white house to make sure that it conforms to what everybody expected it to say. but i think the aid is going to be both military and civilian. i have said already they will contribute a significant amount of money for continuing to fund the afghan security forces and they are hoping for quite a large contribution from other nato countries. of the total they are looking at is between about $4 billion to $4.2 billion a year to pay for the afghan military. in addition, a civilian programs -- education and agriculture. i don't know what that will be, but the numbers have been coming down the last couple of years. top spending of almost $4 billion down to about $2.7 billion. and i am sure it will drop beyond that. but still it will be very substantial. host: what do you expect or by what are you hearing in terms of reaction both in afghanistan and back here on capitol hill? guest: i don't have a sense of how people would react in there. here, i think for most people, it is a great relief. people who are in our urban areas where they feel they have gotten some benefit in the last 10 years, there is a sense that the continued assurance of u.s. presence helps to perhaps guarantee or to reduce the chances of a return to the kind of chaos and civil war that we saw here in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, before the taliban arrived. so i think there is a desire to avoid that kind of chaos and a hope that the u.s. involvement will be that. whether it will, i am not sure. but saying -- we will not have, troops here. not sure it will fully have the effect that afghans held but that is the idea. host: what did it take to get it all together? we read a quote from ryan crocker, the ambassador. but what is your sense? guest: i think it took many things. it has been under discussion for, i believe, 18 months, according to the afghan national security adviser. i think it began kind of in earnest when ambassador crocker arrived last summer and really began to focus in a very concerted way on getting that done. almost a year now -- not quite, that he has been here and working on it. and it took partly rebuilding trust with the afghans. there has been an enormous difficulty -- which i am sure you read about in "the new york times" and elsewhere, and that president karzai does not have a lot of trust in the americans. not only because of the night raids with civilian casualties, but also a feeling that the americans said one thing to him and another thing back to the states -- in the states. a feeling that he was pushed into having a runoff in the 2009 presidential election, which he felt he had won and that was a very embarrassing and humiliating moment for him. so he had really an enormous deficit of trust in the americans. i think it is somewhat rebuilt. i certainly don't think entirely, but somewhat. and that allowed a renault negotiation to take place and then a deal to be struck. host:alissa rubin is with "the new york times" in afghanistan. thanks a lot for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will take your calls. a quick recap. this is based on "the new york times" and "the wall street journal" reporting on this, the u.s.-afghan pact which was agreed to and will be signed formally the next couple words. american support in afghanistan until 2024. 10 years beyond the formal troop withdrawal. no specific dollar amounts or military presence set forth. and potential to $0.7 billion a year discussed by the u.s. -- potential $2.7 billion a year discussed. michael, independent. welcome to the program. what do you think about what you heard so far? caller: i would just like to say to the american people that there is a parallel, given the religious values -- christianity, to a certain degree -- we would not want to be read represent -- misrepresented by radicals. for the muslims in afghanistan, they have been misrepresented. i know right now our economic state, we worry about it, to say the least. but still, it is important for the muslim religion to be just as effective in its entirety and holistic value as it can be without prejudice. and for a radical nation or a group -- as obama has put its "thugs" to lead people to believe that these are the holistic about is that they represent of the religion of the muslim, there has to be some distinction and i do believe that the united states is accurate in helping to make the government of afghanistan represent who they are as able and in their entirety, apart from the extremism. and that would be my comment. host: all right, michael. thanks. eric is on the line for democrats. good morning to you. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to say that nowadays it seems like c-span is operating as the gop political arm, it seems like you are operating as the gop political arm. you have "the financial times" and then a headline that says u.s. and afghanistan until 2024 -- it sounds like you were saying we will have troops until 2024 but we are not. we will pull our troops out next year. if you look at the map -- and ran -- afghanistan is on one side, iran is in the middle and iraq is on the other side. we went into iraq and afghanistan and was around that iran. of course, the israelis want us to attack iran because they feel -- fear i ran, basically will wipe is row of the map. -- white israel off the map. we are in pakistan, afghanistan, and iraq. this is bearing the daylights out of iran. into getting a nuclear weapon. host: are you saying the pact is not a good idea? caller: excuse me? host: are you saying the deal that was reached is not a good idea? caller: i am saying your headline, you look like a gop political arm. the headline says u.s. in afghanistan until 2024. host: we got that point. but i am asking about the policy itself. caller: it sounds like our troops will be in afghanistan until 2024 which is what john mccain wanted. he said we would have to be there for another 20 years to occupy the country. this is what john the canvassing -- saying. host: more of the headlines. post 2014 deal with afghans is reached. this is "the washington post." you go to "the wall street journal" as monday morning, here is the headline. they have a separate read here -- sending a message to the insurgency that the u.s. and its partners will not abandon afghanistan. chicopee -- good morning. caller: basically what is going on is we have treasonous the government embedded in there, sending us to more -- war, wasting the money, when they are the ones created the criminals in the 1960's and 1970's and 1930's. international policy is basically cut a type of ideology that basically bankrupt support, gives the power to the izes the system against their own people and this country while the top 1% director, the lawyers go into government, manipulate everything and then tell you that they are looking out for our best interest. the reason why they are going to be there until 2024 is until the band rocked the country and change the currency here to the -- one world order. host: cecilia from miami, florida. hello, cecilia. miami, are you there? now amoco everything he said is right on point. -- caller: everything he said is right. why don't they bring them home? they need to build our own country. we are putting money over there when we can't even get our own schools correct and get our kids educated. we are going to put schools over there to educate their kids out to come over here and bomb us later. we always build of these countries and an income and hate us and, as light. for real? we need to be smart. if you want to go over there and give them some assistance -- but we should put no money over there, they have their own money. if they don't, their own country, what can we do about it? we have to worry about our own country because we are already suffering and we do not have money for our own country. we need to be smarter than that. we have done this for years, build these countries and in a comeback and attacked us. host: thank you for your viewpoint. when to get some more callers and the next 25 minutes are so. back to "the washington post" story. again, we have to learn more about it in the days and weeks ahead. texas, charlene. caller: i have been sitting here watching brian lamb this morning, and people are not watching him, i don't know why they are not screaming at their representatives. this is just ridiculous. host: what is ridiculous? caller: that we are going to be there until 2024. we have already been there forever. host: what do you make of the point of the u.s. wants to express to the afghan people that they are not going to abandon the fight against the taliban. caller: people should watch "q&a" with brian lamb this morning. host: anything else about afghanistan? caller: i have been watching c- span for 25 of 30 years and this is the only time i ever called, and it just really set my hair on fire this morning. host: thank you for weighing in. jane, democrat from nashville, tennessee. -- james. caller: basically the same as the digging a few callers. we have no business in afghanistan. we don't need to be spending money in afghanistan. we've got another on problems. the soviets fought with the afghanistanis for years and it literally bankrupt the soviet union. why do we think we can spend money that we need over here and the u.s. to stabilize a country that has been at war for years and years? i mean, when the soviets were superpower, they couldn't stabilize it. they couldn't do anything. the cold war and the afghanistan war bankrupt them. we need to get the heck out of afghanistan. let the people alone. host: a little bit more from the piece in "the new york times" this morning. rutherford county, north carolina. james. caller: good morning. the policy of giving foreign aid to the afghan government is a stupid waste of money. not authorized by the congress or the american people. representing a silly attempted to bribe people who hate us and want to kill us into going along with us with a money. it also represents a policy approach of attempting to approach radical islam with appeasement, which doesn't work and never will work. this is as of serve as giving -- absurd as giving $8 billion to pakistan which secretary of state hillary clinton described -- at about the same time we found out the pakistani government intelligence people were siphoning information to the taliban. just totally appalled. host: ok, another viewpoint. from our facebook page. this from twitter this morning. chico, california. roberts, republican caller. caller: good morning. disabled vietnam veteran. that was the wrong war to fight and we should never went to iraq or afghanistan. and this form of capitalism we are living under has to be stopped. it is not representing our interests. it's only representing the rich. it's completely ridiculous. people wouldwhy not continue to understand that we have to have another type of financial system in this country. it's going to fail. we have to do something about. we all have to get out on the street for mass protests. thank you. host: let's hear from the line for democrats from clarksburg, west virginia. caller: i believe the protester, but i cannot ever remember in morning where you have calls from democrats, republican, and independents and everybody agrees. it is time to come out. a 2024, this is social security is going broke but -- if this country does not start taking care of our own needs, we need to stay out. i agree with every one of your callers have had this morning. the first time i can never say it. have a great day. host: mike from culpeper, virginia. mike is on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello? ditto the previous caller and everybody else. who did the state department and president standoff -- consult? just the defense contractors and foreign governments and foreign interests or did they consult with the american people? they are alienating the american people by doing this. we don't want to be there. we don't need to be there. and they don't want us to be there. why isn't -- is there even a negotiation? we have to negotiate to give bases and use our money? they only want our money to use back against us. host: more from "the wall street journal" this morning. clearwater, florida. brian, independent. good morning. good morning, brian. clearwater, are you there? i think we lost the line. let's try tony from hyattsville, maryland. tony, are you there. tony from hyattsville, maryland. one more call -- pennsylvania. alan, pennsylvania. good morning, glad to have you. caller: thank you. i want to just reiterated what other callers have been saying. they need to get a transcript of brian lamb's program this morning just prior to your show. host: the book called "funding the enemy." caller: yes, yes. i think it is long overdue. we need to be out of involvement in many of these nations. we have so many problems here at home to take care of. i think we need the funding back here. host: ok. appreciate your thoughts. brunswick, georgia. independent. good morning, rowan. caller: yes, this is a veteran, 26 and a half years in the military. this is all -- by john mccain -- hello? host: we can hear you. caller: this is done by john mccain. i agree with every caller. we don't need to be there giving our young mens all kille dup and everything. and this is done by the republican and we need to get all the young mens out of there. we will continue -- the headline -- this is 10 years after the formal pullout would expected in 2014. several callers this is in the interview from "q&a" that we ran last night and you can go to c- span.org to read more about the interview, what to the interview, the author -- the name of the book is titled "funding the enemy guest: how u.s. taxpayers' bank will the taliban." lots of other headlines of this monday morning and the papers including this one, "the washington times." senator susan collins, republican of maine, was on several of the sunday shows and talk about the role of women in the agency. [video clip] >> she acted decisively and appropriately -- and i wonder if there had been more women as part of the veto, if this would have ever happened. most secret service agents do in extraordinary job and they are very disciplined and professional. but what our secret service -- what our secret service personnel doing bringing unknown foreign nationals and to their rooms? regardless of their age. host: the hearings are coming. we will let you know when we find out more about any kind of schedule. northport, florida. john did the headline to read a book would u.s. in afghanistan in -- until 2020 for." in various forms. what do you think about what you heard so far? caller: i guess i agree with the rest of the callers. we need to change our system, more of a kennedy looked down where we continue to make arms -- it is all going to collapse eventually. it just can't sustain itself. use your imagination. as a union boilermaker i dealt with psychopaths in business and our government is very psychopathic. it is out of control. that is what is destroying the middle-class. the people taking them in this country are psychopaths and we need to address this month ... and as possible. host: the president is not a lawyer or any of those nasty things to some people -- lier -- from our facebook page -- democrat from detroit. good morning to you. caller: i think this afghan war, according to the various stories that are out there, funding the enemy, all kinds of books and videos exposing. i agree with the other caller -- this is a major scandal, the biggest scandal than the province -- prostitution and it gsa and the bp oil spill. i think the bp oil spill, citizens united and this war in afghanistan, how they are misleading the people, these are the major scandals we should be talking about. that is my comment. and i think both parties are in cahoots. mitt romney and obama, they are both tall, good-looking people, but what i've been doing for us? i think it is an atrocity. host: of want to remind you an event we will be covering live a little bit after this program, 10:15 a.m. eastern time -- afghan expand security and reconstruction, it will be live and be with the general john toolan who will update on operations in parts of afghanistan. we have a call from ohio now. mike, independent. what do you make about this pact that was signed yesterday questioned caller: big shock. not. we are never getting out of there. i am so sick and tired of what is going on with our government in this country. it is out of control and has been. we need to end these illegal occupations and wars. our military -- they are not fighting to defend america. they are fighting for the new world order, you know? and our government is just out of control. we need to take it back and have them abide by our constitution. they have no right to be over there. they had no right to go there in the first place. and they have no right to stay there. get them out, bring them home, both for ron paul, people, the only thing that will change in this country right now. if you are sick and tired of what is going on, the global lists are controlling both parties, it is so obvious, we need to wake up and start fighting back against these people because they don't care about america and they don't care about you. they are destroying our country, destroying freedom, destroying our money, and this is what happens when we sit back and just let them do what they wanted it. host: mike -- columbus, ohio. ann is a line for the democrats. caller: i am going to be the lone voice saying that we do need to stay there probably 10 years. we stayed in japan and germany -- not fighting, but helping them build their country -- or rebuild their countries that fought our countries and cost millions and millions of more lives. we stayed in those countries for 20 years. history shows us that as difficult as it was and painful for the soldiers who were drafted during the war -- and some of them stayed over there -- they did the occupation. it takes a long time to rebuild a country that you destroyed. i didn't agree that we should go there, but we did go there, and we promised that what we tour route we would help rebuild. h., somewhat of a lone -- host: somewhat of a lone voice. what about some of the viewers. they have been pretty vocal. they said 2024, no way. this is going to be forever. caller: it was not for ever in japan, was not forever in germany. they are very independent and strong allies of ours now. we helped korea rebuild the south after that war. i think history shows that if we help a country after war, we are doing the right thing. and if they didn't want us to bear -- i do think the government is corrupt there, but i do think it will change. it almost changed in the last election. karzai was almost defeated. this is a country with a 90% illiteracy, many, many young people. we pull out now and they are just going to be re-invaded by terrorist-types and everything we did would be lost. i have two relatives in the military who signed up for more time because they thought some good was being done. i do think there is probably tons of corruption on both -- it all ends with money and so forth. that needs to be straightened up. but that needs to take time. we need to build a friends and allies there. and obviously if obama got elected and people over there signed these agreements, they do see some value in it. i do think the correction needs to be straightened up. host: thank you for your voice this morning thisann. we will get -- this morning, and. we will get some more phone calls in a couple of minutes. a couple of more program notes. at 1:45 p.m. eastern time on c- span3, the treasury department will hold a briefing to discuss social security and medicare trustees' report. there are some headlines this morning. we will grab one of them in a couple of minutes. i wanted to tell you as well about an interview we are doing with vice president -- former vice president dick cheney. at the washington center. a bit later today. light of that. about one hour and 15 minutes. a broad range of topics, as you can imagine. 1:00 eastern, 10:00 a.m. pacific, right here live at c- span, dick cheney at the washington center. mays landing, new jersey -- duke, republican but caller: these wars in afghanistan and iraq are basically a waste of money for taxpayers. and basically, if we stay there, it doesn't matter if it is five years, 15 years, 20 years in -- when we leave, it is going to go right back to the same. these terrorists are going in all different kinds of countries and forming alliances against the united states. and we said it -- should basically worry about the united states. our economy, our oil, and basically the well-being of our people. it is ridiculous the amount of money spent on these wars and, sure that are a lot of americans to agree on exactly what we are saying. host: here is the story on medicare. "usa today" says the event we are covering live -- secretary of health and the secretary of labor as well. that will be on c-span3. the lead item in "the washington post" this morning. they write here that -- we will be covering that event as well. it will be live on c-span2 at 9:45 a.m. eastern as the president speaks at a holocaust museum. louisville, ky. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i can't believe i am agreeing with the republican who spoke before me but, yes, where were these republicans in the bush years? it is a huge waste of money, of our resources and our precious blood and treasure. i think the reason that our country is going downhill now is because the politicians and the media have the great majority of our populist believing that there is a dime's worth of difference between republicans and democrats. if we would have had a republican president, the headline would remain the same. there until 2024. and i honestly truly 100% believe that. when are we going to wake up? we need to get these people out of office and need to get people in there -- we need to pass some laws with the big money is not making our laws for us. that is what is going on. these wars -- we are going to stay there, sure, because we think we can run the world. it is not going to happen. thank you. host: jacqueline, a democrat. plymouth, michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call the -- michael. i agree with everyone who called. even with anne -- we do have a history of helping countries after these wars have ended. but at this point in time, i think it is folly because we have some of problems here with our unemployment, medicare, social security, with our veterans, with crime. we should stay focused on our country at this point in our history and its strong again and get our economics in order. i hope this doesn't derail president obama's campaign for reelection. host: 1 viewer writes -- a couple of more headlines this morning to let you know about. a fairly busy week here in washington. "clash over bills to protect women." they write the u.s. senate is poised to take up the bill over domestic violence. look for that on the floor of the senate and little more of this week. "the washington post." talking about senator lieberman. there is a short clip from the senator. [video clip] >> the white house ought to be conducting its own internal investigation of white house personnel who were in cartagena to estimate shorn of them were involved in this kind of inappropriate behavior. i understand the white house advance person does not have quite the same range of responsibility as a secret service agent, but on the other hand, the white house advance person knows exactly where the present will be at any time. anybody thinking the worst, if they wanted to attack the president of the united states, one of the ways they might find out the path he might follow in cartagena is by compromising white house and vance personnel. host: senator lieberman out there on several topics. back to the gsa story. the panel is asking the inspector general to look into spending in all the agencies regions. a couple of more minutes on the afghanistan story. mississippi. steve, republican. what do you think? hello, steve? , independent from georgetown, massachusetts. caller: how are you today? you know, i've got to go with the strong majority on the subject. host: quite a majority on the phone. caller: this is how i see things. our government, along with the media, tells us all how we should behave and how to think by these polls. they blasted over their bullhorns, which they have completely -- complete monopoly overcome a small group of people in the media that seems to be originating from one area and the world. which i will not see it -- say because you immediately get labeled something. these wars, when we first went into afghanistan and iraq, unlawfully, based on false information, which we know is factual now -- it is actually an attack on the independence of the american people. they are bleeding us, we are lying on the ground, the blood is spilling out. and we are being told by our leaders that we need to live there, the blood needs to continue to spill as we are dying and we can't do anything to help ourselves because we are running low on the band-aids and gauze but we need to keep the push going forward. we are on the offensive here even though we are lying on the table bleeding process easily -- profusely. it is obvious. russia was in afghanistan for a long time. their country toppled. it is hard to know exactly what is going on over there because everything gets filtered over here that we listen to. so i think that these external wars we are fighting are illegal as far as our constitution goes is actually an attack on the freedoms of the american people. host: all right been let's hear from bill from jacksonville, florida. republican. caller: how are you doing? i believe like most of your callers, we need to get out of these muslim countries. they never liked us. they are never going to like this no matter how much time we spend there. in egypt, now the muslim brotherhood in control of the sinking with libya -- got rid of the adoptee and now -- gaddafi and now the muslim brotherhood. next thing we know israel will be surrounded by enemies again and we will not be supporting them. if we put obama back for four years this country is doomed as a free republic. host: one more call from celeste, a democrat. good morning, celeste. celeste, are you there? caller: yes. well, first of all, i find your question to be deceptive. nobody is saying they are going to stay there until 2020 or. i don't understand. i did not see brian lamb's interview, but i don't understand your question? nobody is going to say they're fighting until 2024. so, i think the whole thing -- the new ones of your question is just deceptive. that is my opinion the host: anything else you want to say about the policy itself? caller: well, as far as the policy is concerned, i do not agree that we should have gone there in the first place. but now that we are there, we certainly have to work our way out. we don't just walk away. you have to do what you have to do. and as i say, i find your question deceptive. host: of clichéd ever but you got in during this first 45 minutes -- appreciate everybody who called in during the first 45 minutes of the program. we will give details as time goes on. we will take a short break and talk in a moment to jessica herrera-flanigan to discuss cybersecurity legislation before congress. several bills are up and coming. and then a little bit later on the program, spencer hsu from "the washington post" has put out quite a lengthy series about forensic errors and what they mean and what might be done about them. and while we take this break, we'll take a quick look at 70's constitution party nominating convention. [video clip] >> are you ready to take on mitt romney, barack obama, and establishment in washington, d.c.? if you are, say, yes. pro-life viting record -- [applause] and that certainly distinguishes me from president obama who has one of the most pro-abortion records and positions ever for a president and certainly during his service in the united states senate. i also would like to submit that over time, my pro-life voting record is better than that of bids romney -- mitt romney who has converted more recently to our position and thinking on that issue. [applause] with regard to merit, i always supported the proposition that marriage should be between one man and one woman. while i was in the virginia senate, when i was in the u.s. house of representatives. if you look closely at president obama's position, you can see that he is moving ever so directly in a direction of pro- civil unions and really pro- homosexual rights. if i am president i will veto legislation advancing that cause. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now of the table, jessica herrera-flanigan, former staff director and general counsel for the house homeland security committee and also a fellow now at the center for national policy. the topic, cybersecurity. lots of action in congress and the last several weeks and months. but coming due in the last several weeks and months. but coming to the floor this last week. when we talk of cybersecurity, what exactly are we talking about? guest: i am not sure everyone knows what it means and there is debate and that as part of what is playing out and what will continue playing out of the next couple of months. there are different definitions but what we are talking but this week is cybersecurity in terms of protecting critical infrastructures within the country. talking about protecting the chemical facilities, the smart grid, the electrical grid more generally. things that operate and make us run our nation essentially. guest: so, when the house starts its action this week, where does it start? it is a really big topic. guest: the most important bill that will be considered is called the cyber intelligence sharing and protection act, coming out of the house intelligence committee. what that bill does allow for the sharing of cyber-threat classified information from nsa and intelligence agencies with the private sector, some of the critical of the structures, as well as others helping to protect -- for help to protect infrastructures from cybersecurity. that is going to be the key bill. it does that as well as allowing the sharing of information from the prime this sector to federal government with liability protections and allows those entities. host: why is a bill like this needed? caller: going back 20 years, looking for ways of how we shared in permission government knows about the threats, whether our nation or terrorist, with the private sector. the private sector does not necessarily have that information. likewise, the government does not run operate critical infrastructures. they need to have information about what is going on in the real-world. there has been confusion about how do you share the information, what you do about it? this is a way to try to facilitate that. we have been trying for a while. it has not worked. host: the main bill -- guest: mike rogers from michigan and -- from maryland. there is a bill from mike mccall from texas which will look at research and development efforts, trying to facilitate the national science foundation efforts to do it cyber work- force research and development and also to increase workforce development -- effort. also a bill by representative rand paul which will deal with research and development more on the scientific side, so looking at r&d and networking. a cyber bill per se but expanding an existing program to cybersecurity. and from representative issa from california which looks at information security with the federal government. fifa -- federal information -- fisma 2.0, fixing what was not fixed the first time around. host: once it is done -- what happens? does it get rolled into a single bill? guest: i think after this week what you will see is a rule and a bill -- the rogers bill, going forward under that and possibly pass. they're concerned about that as we can talk about. the other three bills would go into -- and it is likely they will be sent over as a package. it will be debated as the week unfolds. host: the phone numbers at the bottom of the screen -- quite a knack of wheat this week at least in the house and the area of cybersecurity -- quite an active week this week at least in the house in the area of cybersecurity. the push back -- who may not like what is going on in the house for? guest: the mike rogers bill, there are a lot of privacy and liberties concerns. as well as several leading democrats, including house homeland security ranking member thompson has raised concerns about it, partially because of the information sharing that might happen between the private sector and nsa. there is some concern some of the information given would go straight to the intelligence agencies and essentially you are creating an opportunity to create surveillance on domestic citizens that an essay and others are not allowed to do. guest: how the -- host: however concerns being followed up on? guest: in the last week, putting privacy and several -- civil liberties provisions and also an attempt to make sure it relates specifically to cybersecurity as opposed to any purpose. host: here is one headline -- democrats seek to shape the agenda as cybersecurity bills had to house floor. tomorrow, maybe wednesday? guest: it begins tomorrow. host: you can watch it live here on c-span. we will touch on the senate, of course, as time goes on but we wanted the callers and bob in this conversation did hunter is on the independent line from california. early out there. good morning. thank you for weighing in. caller: no problem. i just wanted to ask the guests about the nsa building just about to be completed in utah and how she feels about that. i have a love-hate religious of with it. i think it is important but it is also a little bit scary that every single solitary -- beam that originates on earth and ed.s to satellite is catalog my basic thing is, as an american, i have traveled the world and i have seen a lot of projects get completely out of hand. my basic question is, you know, how does she feel -- how does one feel about the climb it in d.c. about the huge building, with all the servers. host: we do get the point. let's hear from the desk. guest: i am not familiar about the building. one thing about the nsa -- policies are set up that the surveillance efforts are supposed to be on the international front. they are not supposed to be doing surveillance on domestic and in -- individuals and any efforts along the lines, where the buildings here or in maryland, i think ensuring we have the latest information about threats around the world. host: pennsylvania. warren, a democrat. caller: my question isn't about to -- about the cyber question right now but it does as the department of home and land security, how is it they placed an order for four runs and 50 rounds of 40 california level hollow point bullets -- 450 rounds of 40 caliber hollow bullets? what would that department need that instead of military? guest: the department of homeless security has a very important law enforcement mission. and as a lot of entities engaged and law enforcement, including the secret service, border patrol, immigration and customs enforcement, all doing important criminal and law enforcement efforts both along the border and within the interior. any weapons they may be obtaining is in advance of that effort. host: chuck, republican. you are on the air. caller: i would like to ask your guest about the center for national policy and what impact groups like that have on the policy of the united states government. guest: the center for national policy is a think-tank which looks at a lot of the international and strategic issues that are happening both in the national security front and the foreign affairs from. i think they do a variety of things. today all the events in which discussions are held. -- they hold events in which discussions are held and a speak out and write papers. their role is to offer somewhat on biased views of farm policies and international issues. host: cybersecurity, the topic for the segment here. the house the date is, of this week which you can watch on c- span. speak about the concerns and how the debate will play out. guest: i think what will likely happen is there will be a democratic amendment that takes the position of adding more privacy and civil liberties protections to the bill. host: what kind? guest: one of the things people have talked about is rather than sharing information directly with intelligence agencies, sending it to in the homeland security poorman as a civilian agency. that is one debate. one bill that did not make it, offered by representative lundgren of the homeland security committee that would deal with homeland security as the lead on cybersecurity and would also offer some what of the voluntary standard for more critical infrastructure protection. that bill didn't make it. there is a lot of controversy where there dhs should have a leading role and i think it will play out in the amendment process. host: what is the white house view on everything cybersecurity wise? guest: the white house was very it -- was supportive of the london approach which did not make an on the floor. one liberty concerns and also and lack of sufficient role for dhs in the bill. there is a role for dhs but it is looking more on the intelligence side of things and are concerned if that is the only bill moving that there is something lacking. host: our guest is jessica herrera-flanigan, former staff director and general counsel for house homeland security committee 2005-2008. she is not a fellow at the center for national policy. we have a call from dave, from britain's and, florida. independent caller. host: fine. caller: my topic may be off what your talking about, but homeland security to me, that is not afghanistan and iraq. homeland security should be more worried about mexico and things that are happening on the, you know america continents, instead of what is going on over there in the, you know, middle east, over there in the far east. host: go ahead and finish up. caller: i think we should be more is about what is happening in mexico and what is on the other side of our borders. host: he is repeating his point. joe, democratic line, good morning. joe, are you there? one more time for joe. run island? -- rhode island? how about sandy, pittsburgh, pa.? caller: yes, i have a question about employment. my son is computer oriented, just graduated from college, $35,000 in debt. where can young people go to apply for jobs in cyber security? what kind of jobs are there? give the young people some inroads into how they can get a job in this field of cyber security. where do they go? host: thank you for calling. guest: cyber security is one of the fastest-growing areas right now. the federal government is looking to hire a number of cyber security experts. the bill this week talks about development in getting cyber security experts on board. there are a number of companies looking for cyber security. host: cyber security is quite broad. you mentioned what is happening in the house this week, but when we talk about cyber security, we are talking about a lot of other entities, are we not? >> another element of this that will probably affect more and -- more elements of everyday security is data breach. if you do any shopping on-line, you have received e-mails about your information possibly being compromised. there are a lot of groups out there, even individuals, doing the same. host: john, a democrat, good morning. caller: i have a question about what you said earlier about real time information. cyberspace, internet, exchange of secure information, the finale since the 1990's and so on, my question, might be more of a comment, it always puzzled me. donald rumsfeld came out during 9/11 and said the department of defense did not make sneakers. it has always puzzled me, that he did not have the television on and that is what they were not prepared. -- why they were not prepared. can you explain why he may have said that? caller: i am not familiar with the comment. unfortunately, i do not think i can comment on that. host: there is a headline this morning for the security bills and their fate, which rests with the senate. what is percolating in this area? caller: we have a bill that has been -- guest: we have a bill that has been hanging around since last year. the lieberman collins bill, which takes a more comprehensive approach. it does a lot of the things that we talk about. it has and information sharing section. more importantly, it has a section that looks a lot like a lumber and bill in terms of critical structure for volunteers standards that allows for the federal government to help with critical infrastructures and an agreement on how to protect citizens. that is what has held up the bill. it was originally going to be considered in january and february. a bipartisan bill, there has been republican push back. senator mccain offered an alternative. they have been in discussions to resolve that issue and they have not been able to do that yet. host: here is another piece from senator lieberman. this is from our weekend program, "the communicator's." [video clip] >> it is to protect everything we have in cyberspace from being stolen and from being attacked. the theft is going on thousands of times every day. most of which people are not aware of. that is to say that -- some from inside, most from outside the country, going up to internet systems and companies, stealing industrial, intellectual property, taking it and building the stuff that american companies spend millions and billions of dollars to develop. it takes a lot of jobs from america. the other thing is that it for tax all of the cyber structure in america that is privately owned from becoming targets of an enemy wanting to attack us. the electric power grid, transportation systems, financial systems. this is all very vulnerable now. probably if there was a major conflict, an enemy would cut less first by cyber attack and we're simply not adequately defended. host: to our guest, more from "the hill." a democratic aide says that this is a priority and they expect to take this up in the next few weeks, but it is not clear if there are enough votes. how do they get past the mccain issues and concerns with the bill? guest: there is some interest in seeing what happens in the house this week. if the house sends it to the pentagon, we will increase the pressure on the senate. the first or second week of may they will try to go forward on the floor, regardless of support. that they will see which amendments come out. if amendments come out, you may see things like supply train and intellectual property issues. host: they also point out on the hill that the powerful congress is against this. where's the white house? they have been -- caller: they have been supportive. it is something that is of interest and one of the things that the white house thinks is necessary at this point. host: gainesville, florida. jeff, republican. caller: thank you for c-span. good morning. i was wondering about homeland security, when it was established, how many employees does it have, and what do they do? since 2006, the government has 1 million more employees. what do they do we have the fbi, we have the national guard. what is the need for it? i understand the need for taking the internet, the devil and everything. but what is the need for these employees and what are they doing? caller: i can tell you about the 1 million jobs. they are from dept. homeland security. created after 9/11, there are various components of it. many of those components came from other places, trying to put together an effort to counter what happened on 9/11 to make sure that we had the correct information, with recovery mechanisms in one place. the individuals were part of the protections on the border and with enforcement of undocumented workers. cyber security efforts were larger around protecting buildings, the secret service, the coast guard, recovering from emergency situations, whether they are created by terrorist acts or natural disasters. also, the psa. there are the major components, -- tsa. those are the major components. host: one viewer asks through twitter -- guest: that is one of the criticisms leveled by the white house. we do not want to get into a regulatory scheme, a concern that republicans have had, but if they do try to upgrade their systems on the smart grid, there are requirements that there is the cyber security provisions. it is a fine line to draw. it has become overburdensome and keeps us from being innovative. there is the struggle going on in the issue. host: jesse, good morning. caller: how are you? host of good. caller: thank you for taking my call -- host: good. caller: thank you for taking my call. it seems to me that we have enough security. i think we should be pushing for more peace, not more police. we have the highest prison population in the world. we have more children in prison. when is enough enough? caller: homeland security department is an important part of the commission and an important part of that is prevention. when an attack like this occurs it is also about how we recover. part of the mission is on the protection side, with components like the secret service, but part of it is really about preventing and recovery. host: vicki, good morning. florida, hello. caller: yesterday i watched the c-span coverage of the los angeles book festival. there was a lady who said -- talked about her book. her name was anders. she made a comment about homeland security and making efforts at a point where they feel threatened to slow down the internet so that people cannot access as quickly or get on as fast. caller: i have not heard of that happening. there has been some discussion about what happens in an emergency and how we ensure that the ability to get on the internet and telecommunications systems are made in such a way where first responders have priority. we have not heard of the department attempting to slow down the network. if anything the u.s. has taken the position of the internet liberty being important. they have spoken out against other nations, especially during the arab spring uprisings last year, where they tried to keep their citizens from speaking out and getting on networks. host: rick, independent line, good morning. caller: i would like to get your guests views regarding civil liberties and privacy. the director of the nsa that is also the commander of cyber com within nsa, the fact that it is predominantly intelligence officers, how do you make that situation -- separation when they have access to the military and private sector information within the laws associated with intelligence communities? host: let's hear from jessica herrera-flanigan. guest: the president is looking at the domestic issues and the private sector, but there is another important part of that. what are the nation's overseas problems? the military has an important role to play and it is important not to forget that. some of our investors come in from other nations. some of the worst offenders in terms of stealing information from private systems comes from nations like china and russia. so, we need to have a role for the intelligence community and the department to counter such efforts. we have learned what opponents may be doing. those hon not necessarily nations, but roe groups or terrorist organizations. the question is -- where do those lines get drawn? of between the department of homeland security and the fcc to take a role. host: give us a broad sense of the resources dedicated to this. host: the department of homeland security has a cyber security section that looks at cyber security and communications issues. the division is called the national protection division. run by a gentleman named ronald peers. those of the physical security efforts, along with other security measures. that is one area. that group works closely with the private sector and the department of defense. so, as the last person asked, you have a section where they are looking at those issues. in the form of justice the have the cyber crime division. various other agencies have divisions that look at cyber security from their perspective. right now you have a few experts. on the intelligence side they have really taken the lead. you have several, like lieberman and collins, dan lundgren, who has been mentioned. you also have peter king, chairman of -- chairman and member of the house full committee. there's also the cyber security caucus, where you have the caucus cochairs. one other person who has been very active and the house side is the congressman from texas, who has been on top of these issues since the beginning of the committee back in 2002. host: gives you a sense of how big this issue is going to get in the years to come. guest: to the degree that everyone of us has internet connected televisions, smart phones, and technology to run our everyday lives, the infrastructure, the financial industries, the goods that we talked about earlier, the our online for cyber services. host: indiana, a democrat, wayne, good morning. caller: i would like to know if all of this homeland security is supposed to protect us from threats outside, but most of the actions taken are against american citizens. this is like where they get to spy on american citizens rather than go after the terrorists from outside. from our guest. guest: the part of homeland security is actually looking across the border. to not spying and individuals. unfortunately, we do not know what the terrorists look like. we have to take a cautious but realistic approach to the people who would attack us on our borders. caller: i would like to know what this is going to cost and how much you make in a year. [laughter] guest: tell us about the scope. how much money -- host of tell us about the scope. how much money is being spent? guest: we do not know the exact numbers, but experts have said the cyber security spending is in the millions of dollars to protect all of our systems to develop new technologies. we have to change how those systems are protected. if we do not do anything, the costs can range from the billions to the trillions of dollars. if it is not addressed -- think about how much it costs just to deal with identity theft and the billions of dollars being spent just to prevent that. that is an important asset where we have to look at the cost. host: what are the bigger companies in this area right now? guest: many of them have to protect their own networks. companies that have personally identifiable information will have units that just look at fraud. more and more companies will have to be engaged. it is a financial property as people make the decision to steal. almost every company out there is trying to gauge how they protect their assets and the information of their customers. host: explain the intersection between the government and the corporate world when it comes to cyber security. guest: critical infrastructure is where we have focused the government, up until fraud. that is for the banking and telecom industry have mechanisms in place. we have created information sharing advisory groups. companies within sectors have spoken to each other and talked about what is happening to share that information and protect themselves. host: our guest is a graduate of yale and harvard, jessica herrera-flanigan is on the executive council for the house homeland security committee and is a fellow at the center for national policy. and democratic line, thank you for waiting. caller: this congress doing something to legalize training? i have seen a lot of issues getting jobs here, giving someone a think resume -- fake resume, getting paid $56 per hour, despite having the small degree. is congress doing something to legalize the software where they can get a job here? host: -- guest: there are a number of efforts going on to increase domestically the education efforts, technology and mathematics so that students in college contrive to focus on those efforts to increase the work force on the technology side. the immigration side has been exposed to make sure we have the number of workers. typically educated here, but they can come from foreign countries. we're looking at ways to improve that. also looking at ways to make sure that no fraud has occurred. certain immigration groups and companies have addressed that. congress is taking those issues very seriously. they are not look -- moving quickly in legislation, but they are looking at ways to address this issue. host: does that will make a bit -- distinction between a cyber- attacks and cyber-activism? guest: it does not. much of what they discussed is about protecting the networks. less focused on the attack and more focused on the threats. host: russell, good morning. hello hello? -- cal -- caller: hello? host: hello, is this russell? caller: it is not. this is bonnie. host: well, we are glad to have you. go-ahead. caller: homeland security, i think of their spending too much money on that. they are infringing on us, the united states citizens. they came to my house and told me that my husband could not write a letter to the president on the way that he felt about what he was doing with his job. he refused to give his identification, showed us his gun. i think that was very wrong. and no one would listen to us about what they were doing. now, i do not think that that is right for homeland security. host: thank you for calling. something you want to respond to? guest: i cannot really respond to that, i am not familiar. host: phoenix, good morning. caller: good morning. i read in some of these papers that some german scientists have just come out with new research that they had done which was basically about being able to hack prove any internet -- proof any internet connection. it was a very technical article about lining the bottoms, or supporting them. there is a third-party it comes in somehow, with communication that would be nonexistent. do you know anything about the german researchers? and this new attempt to secure cyberspace? guest: i have heard a little bit about that, as well as others. the only way to make something hack proof is to disconnect it from the internet. computers are locks, and there's always someone who can pick the lock. it is true with the anti-hacking efforts that are out there, it is a constant game of trying to keep up with the automation that is going on, that you know who is trying to get in, and once they are in, how you get them out. host: the senate might have their bill in the next couple of weeks. what kind of timetable is there to put the pieces together? caller: it would have to be quickly, because congress -- guest: it would have to be quickly, as congress will be busy this summer with the elections. the real question is if they will be able to go forward. host: there is a passage in the piece where they say that and added bill could come in the future and that this was just the start. can you give us a preview? guest: sure. there is still the question as to whether this was scheduled for last week. there are questions about whether that bill will move forward. other questions include potential data breach bills that would deal with commissions, so that states do not have to put up their own laws, you are supposed to be notified when someone steals your information. there is a secured a grid bill being considered in the energy and commerce commission. looking at whether or not we have strong enough laws so that the bad guys will be deterred from committing acts in the u.s.. host: kelly, chapel health, tennessee. caller: this is tony, from chapel hill. host: go ahead, tony. caller: i have two real concerns. the first one involves homeland security. i do not know about these not see references anymore, but they need to think about this. when they retroactively allow at&t or any other communications company that handles the internet to retroactively be innocent of the crimes they have already committed, this is step- by-step the new gestapo of america. she said that there was going to be a lot of small bills, but this would be one big bill? the reason it is one big bill is to confuse everyone and not bring out the real issues. if you think that american newspapers and media are going to tell us anything at all, that is a dream. host: any thoughts on that callers perspective? caller -- guest: essentially, what they are intending to do is, when the government shares information with a company and the company acts on that information and something goes wrong, the company has protection based on what the government said. those are the protections in the bill. if you take the four or five bills along this line, there will be bills on the other four that will be considered. host: will they be easier to understand? is that the word? last call, david, a democrat, good morning. and caller: i really enjoyed the previous show with brian williams. that was wishing.com, for the people that missed it. i think we are wasting tremendous amounts of money in afghanistan. 2000 service people dying, tens of thousands injured. the people, we have almost destroyed their water system the the need for irrigation with this random, and synchronized oil drilling. if we can stay there but improve the water system -- when we say stay there, i am not talking about combat, but giving them aid that they can use, not the global corporations can come in -- host: let me jump in. we are talking cyber security. can you bring your comments to that area, if possible? caller: i came in to comment on the afghan -- host: this is our cyber security segment right now. afghanistan was our earlier segment. just about out of time. wrap this up for us, final legislation, what is your best guess on the factions out there? guest: you will see some kind of information sharing between the federal government and private sector. whether that is intelligence or dhs is unclear. you will see a lot of r&d efforts, work-force training, how do we develop these efforts? there may be some efforts to try to put all five security under one leadership, be it at the white house or the department of homeland security. the critical structure of voluntary standard language, it will be difficult to see what happens. host: jessica herrera-flanigan, counsel at the house homeland security, thank you for your time and insight this morning. guest: thank you. host: a couple of other guests this morning. coming up in a couple of minutes, spencer hsu will join us for this bet -- our several part series recently about forensic errors in the united states. we will explain that and tell you about the impact around the country. david givens will be on later to talk about the bureau of federal land management, what they do and their work. here is an update from c-span radio. >> congressional committees are widening their investigations into alleged u.s. secret service scandals involving prostitutes in columbia ahead of a trip by the president. in remarks earlier, peter king, chairman of the house homeland security committee said that he is confident that the investigation is moving forward as callous agents interviewed the women involved in the incident and other secret service employees in colombia. he went on to say that in the next day or so they expected to see several more agents being forced to leave. the british broadcast from regulators said that they are investigating e-mail hacking at rupert murdoch's sky news channel. it follows the admission that they authorize journalists to hack into people's e-mail accounts on two separate occasions. sky news insist that the breaches were carried out in the public interest. rupert murdoch and his son will be testifying tuesday to thursday of this week. you can hear live coverage beginning at 5:00 a.m. eastern time tomorrow. u.s. stock futures are lower this morning as political uncertainty in europe raises new questions about how effectively the debt crisis is being handled. the first round of the french presidential elections are just some of what is contributing to that uncertainty. futures are down 131 points, those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> there is room for positive government policy. it is the private sector that drives developments, the private sector that really fuels it. always in our history we have had some vision about where we are going, encouragement and policy, and if we ever needed that it is right now when we have this imposing an opportunity creating infrastructure of the 21st century. host: tonight, michael cops on legislation to reform the sec and the state of the media, at 8:00 eastern, c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest right now spencer hsu, invested reporter for "the washington post." first, the program. here's a talk about the series you have been putting out dealing with u.s. forensic errors. big topic here. lots of copy in recent weeks. here's just one of the headlines. "forensic science not as reliable as you may think." tell us more. guest: for many years the nation's science establishment has had more and more skepticism about forensic science. in the journal of science there was an editorial several years ago saying that a forensic science was an oxymoron, which was crystallized in 2009, when a panel chartered by congress put out a 300 page report about this. they reached the conclusion that the greatest question for the courts is how much science is in forensic science. specifically they talked about disciplines. not like a laboratory disciplines that people think of, like chemistry or blood, but these subjective pattern-based analogies, fingerprints, marks made by firing pins of guns on bullets, hair, fiber, bite marks, that these were sort of sciences developed by law enforcement, for law enforcement, but they did not have scientific studies on how common matches were. like something developed for medical applications, sometimes it was brought down to experts saying that based on their subjective analysis for a number of characteristics, there it is. host: let's take this to the legal area. one of the other for room -- headlines in the post was about how the defendants were unaware in these cases. host: -- guest: we dealt with hair and fiber analysis, spanning many years, since the 1950's, the cases we were looking at went back to the 1970's and 1980's. what we found was that in cases where clear errors were alleged, or specific agents were identified for misconduct, the justice department and the fbi would review those cases as one agent. but they never told the majority of the men -- there were so concerned that they completed an independent scientific review, but word never reached half of those defendants, including a man in the district, who served 28 years for a rape and murder the dna showed he did not come -- did not commit. he was finally released in 2009 when he could have been released 12 years earlier. the second part is those identified by a task force. these are the 250 cases from 1996 through 2005. they were finding these errors, even with mounting concerns that other agents were conducting their business in the lab and the court room the same way. issues with overstated testimony, testimony exaggerating the significance of a match. one in 10,000 chases between one in 10 million chances. the odds of someone having the same hair looking alike, they do not know, because they have never done the work on it. furthermore, they have implemented dna testing as a backup or confirming test. they knew enough to change their testing standards to a dna standard. they waited six more years to determine the error rate and found that it was 11% under the best of circumstances, meaning the agents under the best controlled circumstances, they found it surprising, because it was not with the random public, it was the individuals where there was already evidence about probable cause. host: our phone number is on the bottom of the screen for our viewers. this is a two-part series recently on u.s. forensic errors. the investigative reporter is with us, spencer hsu, of "the washington post." their web site is where you can read this lengthy and interesting piece. as we get more detail from spencer hsu about what they have been reading about, we look forward to hearing from you. we talk about science, the courts. guest: so, to pick up where we left off, this was an example of the man whose case was handled by the fbi. he was a different agent. it turned out that in 1978 there was a murder of a taxicab driver. he and a friend were identified as suspects. the case was shaky. basically, the childhood friend turned out to be a police informant. the same police had believed that there were murders of taxicab drivers being committed by the same caliber of weapon. other than that, they had a reported confession to the informant that did not jive with the facts of the case, but it was one block from where you shot. the agent said that this was a match. in court he said it was highly unlikely that it was anyone else's. in other cases, examining it only one in 4000 times, for all the thing you it was one out of 10 million chances. the jury deliberated for two hours and ask one question. the judge said that this was the one that contained his hair. a couple of years ago, they learned of the other exoneration. they were able to get the hair tested. none of the 13 were his for the co-defendants. one of the hairs was a dog's hair. meaning that the fbi could not determine dog from human error. the defense attorney said the the odds were zero. the errors that the agent made were fairly typical of those that scientists may. host: your reporting has been done. reaction out there? what kind of reaction has been presented? legislatively, what might be happening in the future? guest: each one of these agents, there 10 in the fbi laboratory. doing the math, that were cut to tens of thousands of examinations per year -- that could work out to tens of thousands of insemination spree year. you're looking potentially at the universe of 100,000 examinations and tens of thousands of potential cases, hundreds, if not thousands of convictions that rely and this method. the district of columbia had decided that the results were strong enough to commission a review in the nation's capital, relying of hair testing for conviction. the fbi is assisting with the innocence project. question now as if to should be a review in the district of columbia. folks who are calling for the review include the public defender's of criminal the set -- defense lawyers and people think -- seeking post-conviction dna testing. the justice department says that they are reviewing it. right now we have not heard an articulated reason as to why. there were these other cases with a third man. host: we want to get the viewers involved in a conversation. california, cathy, thank you for waiting. your question or comment? caller: i am aware of this report and i certainly will go -- . i really appreciate your presenting this. i have been very interested in the innocence project. i am wondering if there is anything at all that the average person like myself can do to further the efforts of the innocence project, or this report on forensics. thank you. guest: i am sure that folks can get information on the innocence project online. i think that some of the areas that are up for debate that you might see -- you were from california? california has engaged their state legislature and law- enforcement. the american bar association opposed model ethics rules. prosecutors having to turn over potentially exculpatory information, those rules are murky. the american bar association has proposed stronger ethics rules from any time the may know of that information. three states have adopted this. another information would be california, because it is a state level commission with a freestanding independent expert agency that is available that would subtract in these situations. researching potential issues, highlighting when they come to bear. others the you can consult with our, keeping in mind the active discussion right now, with state bar association's, opening their case file, should laboratories have to file reports? finally, there is something like a final review by entities like the national academy of science. science is such a specific issue for these lawyers and journalists, they have a hard time understanding what a match means. one in 1000, 10 thousand, 1 million? this may all sound alike, but to a scientist and, ultimately, for a suspect, such evidence is used and can be critical in definition. host: independent caller, hello. caller: i have a comment and a question. in a lot of these cases, where people are falsely imprisoned and then released, they're not really care and anything as far as compensation. you can say that they're getting their freedom now, but these people who have been locked up for a decade, three decades, the have pretty much lost their ability to have any kind of american dream. faced of your expertise in this subject matter, do you think it is feasible, or what sort of practical plan could you come up with, based on your knowledge, that would really stop this sort of thing from happening? feels like as far as us having the highest prison population of all the industrialized lent -- nations, how many people are imprisoned falsely? that is my question. thank you. guest: you raise a lot of good points. let me try to respond. i and our example case, he served 28 of the next 33 years in prison. he was in ninth grade dropout with no work history. the convicted felon of a murder. you can imagine a difficult time of having a job, it is hard for anyone to get a job right now. practically? yes, depending of the ruling of the court, with proof from a clear and convincing standard, he could seek damages from the government. how practical that is, obviously it would not matter for his children. part of the toll was that his parents died and his sister passed away without ever knowing consequence of this case. as you point out, it is more likely that they will compensate people with reduced conviction in the first place. the error rate, while another the -- not inevitable, they have the lead is extremely low. then there is the same, rather 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted. what is most concerned is that there has never been a test for a forensic evidence. it cannot be proven wrong, until dna. there have been dna examinations since 1989. rates and murders, the filing material for genetics, it comes from a universe of capital and where they were cowed a wrongful conviction -- where they work out a wrongful conviction, wrongful conviction is an illegal action. next step, anyone who looked at criminal convictions and 1983 to 1988, there is biological evidence in the final period the governor of virginia ordered a review of these cases and, of them, they found all the cases in which they were able to determine genetic profile. 16% of these profiles did not match, they excluded defendants and suspects. there may be other factors in their. this is another set of numbers that says if you include all of these, for one of a reason, it dropped 5%. whether it is 5% or 16%, it is far higher than anyone believed. host: we have some questions coming in over the twitter for our guest, spencer hsu. guest: we have not done enough research to be able to answer that. we know that the incarceration rate of minorities, as are the number of crimes committed, we know the area of discipline that we looked at, hair and fiber with different racial characteristics. the hair of an asian might be harder to distinguish, with fewer features. likewise, brunette -- brunette hair. there is a lot of pigmentation where it cannot be divined and know that one of the issues we found in the lab reports of the defense that we look at, there was no set number of the match in the air. some said 15, or 20. in other words, the of the but it you could verify this was to have another examiner look at it. we could not tell from the notes. the same examiner might come up with -- different examiners might use different terms for the same hair. it is a very subjective, and the process of we're talking about. when describing the hair of the defendant, they usually use only three or four characteristics. black, ethnic origin, and it is a broad range. people wearing their hair in a short, close cropped way, that is not a very distinguishing feature. host: adam, good morning. he wore on with spencer hsu. -- you are on with spencer hsu. caller: the governor of texas executed a man a few years back with a suspected had burned his house down with his three children in it. now they believe the man may have been innocent. a panel was convened and quickly dismissed by the governor. thank you for your time, but we do not need you. these things are just swept under the rug. are you familiar with this case? thank you for c-span. host: he may be referring to the case of kevin todd. i am not an expert. i have heard the accounts of it. the one that i thought was the most revealing was the new yorker magazine article a couple of years ago. what is striking about this case is that critics of the death penalty have looked at this case as a possible example where a person who may have been innocent was executed, but that hasn't happened, because as the column mentioned, there was a panel that stop short of the final conclusion. from my interests, again, it has to do with forensic science. there was a quotation in the new yorker that had one of the leading experts in the nation saying that it is better than which hunting. in other words, if she thinks she is innocent, it must be the way. arsonists have been examples for decades. handed down from older to the less experienced. what has happened over the last 20 years is that government agencies and the commerce apartment have started to to test earnings under controlled circumstances where they found that much of what was considered to be telltale evidence of arson happened in many different circumstances. like where the glass shatters and micro-fractures. comingan's hose of water on to a window, window breaking leading to thermal ventilation, things that everyone had thought were caused by excellence. behavioral people, possibly started misfires, with fewer miss attributed work experience. host: why is that? what is the reaction to that? guest: there are two sets. anthe mid-1990's, there was allegation of misconduct at the fbi lab stealing with high- profile investigations. even the o.j. simpson murder investigation. agents were faulted for lack of qualification and bias, potentially influence in these prosecutions. the laboratory had to start a wholesale reorder in the documentation. including their certification requirements, approving the level of the scientific training. as far as the inspector general report, it triggered a review by the department of homeland security on all their work and potential information that should be turned over. according to that review, they set out to review 7000 cases with material and evidence that was critical yet problematic. the reason they were not notified was the legal position that needed to be turned over. . whether it was legally actionable, whether a bill in the category of bad things happening in the world, they could not answer. short of a prosecutorial acting out of malice, the best thing you can do is to notify people now. the second was that almost all the cases we look? had many other examiners who, because they lacked the rules of protocol, the note taking practices were the same. the lab was not tracking the testimony. we have seen multiple examples including the two other d.c. agencies given the same misleading testimony, statistics and numbers from their personal experience that were not backed by any scientific research. ultimately, there was an error rate that they had researched by comparing it with the dna test results that leads us to think that the potential affected cases reached in the thousands. the reason the department had not looked for it is the inspector general report and no one else had supposedly put two and two together. i think another reason is, legally, they had not had to. you always wanted to get to a closer version of the truth. the law, for various reasons, is based on precedent. it was good enough then, it is good enough for the court. that is a practical matter so you do not get people in with small claims that do not have merit. the science proves that the culture is at odds with the legal culture and have a different value. given how rapidly science advances and given how there are no tools that can be used to answer these questions once and for all and the cost of incarcerating someone wrongly over the years -- would it not be economically feasible as well in the interest of justice to do a review and commission these tests? host: fabio from manhattan. democrat. hello. caller: i have a question for you. i know you are mainly focused on dna evidence, but what about those cases that do not have dna evidence? i'm talking about the case of my son which is close to me. my son was tried, found guilty and we went through appeals twice because it was considered double jeopardy. both appeals was the double jeopardy appeal, we won. the prosecutor then took it to the supreme court. this is a case going on in connecticut. when he took it to the supreme court and the rest of appeal, they overturned the appellate decision. then we won with a double jeopardy and brought it again to the supreme court in connecticut in which, to paraphrase, they agreed to double jeopardy, of but two justices wanted to hear the case in that is why they did. after that, they're going to lead it stand that it agrees is double jeopardy but because the direct appeal they overturned which is basically a bureaucracy going on. host: do you have a question for our guest? caller: i have tried to go to reporters and everyone tells me they are not interested because this is not anything that is new. guest: i'm sorry about that situation. it will be hard for me as an outsider not familiar with the case to be able to respond to the specifics. something you started with it is, if there is not dna, that is the game changer here. it is the rise in a specific technology or test that actually is a scientifically proven to be able to determine if a person contributed a particular piece of evidence. i think the other peace to keep in mind is, absent that test, it's very hard to disprove a negative. in the law of defense, it has evolved to handle this over hundreds of years in these kinds of situations. it is the best we have. however, a person who headed the national academy of sciences panel in 2009, the co- chairman was the judge for circuit court of appeals, the second most influential circuit in the country. his point was that the adversarial system we rely on to work out these disputes that your son is involved in is ill- equipped to deal with scientific disputes. lawyers may not have the scientific training. judges often rely on these cases as they happen and they cannot often refer to scientific manuals. the technology and science are evolving to such a point that is difficult for even experts to keep up with the latest. the adversarial legal system cannot do this alone. they need higher standards for labs and examiners, standard and control our testimony is processed and how the jury hears information and, most of all, have a commitment to the overall system. host: russell, independent, in florida. good morning. caller: i am involved in a veteran research program and they want to take blood for dna research and they cannot 100% guaranteed that it will not be shared with other federal agencies or the public sector which, pretty much, begs the question that if the informations is available in such a tight steady in the government, is that dna available in the private sector to anyone? it seems to me that the dna being taken, whether it be for the va or your private physician should be sacred sites and not available for scrutiny by the private sector or the federal government. host: a privacy concern there. guest: i am not aware of this, but that sounds like it is really on the cutting edge. it sounds like you have hit the nail on the head as far as i have had to the question which is the collection of biometric datum in general, fingerprints, i scans, dna -- eye scans, dna, is a priority and is rapidly growing. with the questions i'm sure that the defense bar association has it is -- what are the rules? how do you apply the tool or the technology? who can apply and under what circumstances? do you only collect for particular universe is? can you only convict from people who are convicted or accused of a crime? does that create a supposition or tilt the field when it is used later? and you are collecting on everybody else, are there any privacy safeguards, or are there adequate safeguards? i remember several years ago in the department of a man security, secretary michael chertoff said he was not sure people should limit data collection to people in the justice system. but someone in a private scenario wants to know where i have been it, they can take a saliva's wall off of a glass sample -- a saliva swab or what have you. host: if you want to read more, there is a chart here along with spencer hsu's reporting. how accurate is the analysis? dna, handwriting, hair and fiber. it goes on and on. except for dna, known that it has been able to accurately link evidence to a person or a single source. mr. hsu, ky about broadening this inquiry to of the parts of the country. do you see a legislative response in washington to wall of this? >> senator pat leahy of vermont has legislation undergoing revision that would attempt revisions of the 2009 report. senator jay rockefeller is also interested in the issue and has tried to carve out space for scientific agencies to set standards for law enforcement. the top scientific adviser for president obama has set up a process to see what policy steps could be taken administratively without the need for legislation. i think the progress for legislation is slim because it is an election year. budgets are tight at every level. you could set up an office independent from the fbi to take over research. each of these practice groups, so to speak, have panels of experts to set standards. for a long time coming practitioners set the standards. the people conducting the operations were also is setting best practices. that is great if they want to convict you. you may want a second opinion. there is some discussion about whether agencies like the national center for technology, a commerce department agency, should be involved. but there the agency that investigated arson and fire. i guess, also, i did not want to the people with the impression -- it looked it. these have worked for a long time. -- look. these have worked. just because they have not been validated does not mean that they do not work well. even with hair, error rates about 11%, and hand writing it may even be much smaller, 2%-3% when you are not trying to fake their writing. fingerprinting it may be even higher. it is a rare example. before dna, it was the gold standard. they call dna genetic fingerprinting. the fbi has long testified they have a 0% error. in 2004, it was the first time someone convicted with fingerprint evidence was exonerate it. the fbi first publically -- publicly apologized for the train bombing in madrid. they thought they found his fingerprint on a bag of detonators in madrid, but they were completely wrong and had to apologize. this shows the fingerprint identification process is highly subjective. three drug reviewers reached the conclusion that his fingerprint was on the bad. even if it fingerprint turns out to be correct 90% of the time, it has never been steady. both sides are saying we should start with the fingerprinting. there's nothing to worry about, but because this is the best known discipline, other disciplines are likely to be weaker. let's move on from that to the others. host: last call, charlotte on the republican line from pennsylvania. caller: i was wondering if he did speak to was a little bit about the current status of the federal judge's serving under maritime law and how they are not down to uphold their constitutional rights. how can the citizens protect our constitutional rights and be heard by constitutional lawyers as opposed to maritime judges? host: you can try to tackle that one or wrap up the reporting on forensic errors. guest: i'm not familiar with that issue. i would say the conclusion with the forensic errors is not to challenge it the hard working scientists that have been working on this for a long time nor the men and women who have been using these tools to keep the public's faith and the prosecutor criminals. -- keep the public safe and prosecute criminals. what is the best way to incorporate it advancing science in the legal system? can it be used to improve? host: you can read more on washingtonpost.com and reported by spencer hsu in april 17th and 18th. thank you for joining us this morning, mr. hsu. next, the topic of the federal land management, how it works, and how the entire process works focusing on the bureau of land management. our guest will be david givens of argus media. we will be right back. >> this year's video competition asked students to create a video telling us what part of the constitution is most important to them and why. today we take you to cherry hill new jersey to talk to madeleine. hello. >> high. >> why did you choose women's suffrage? >> i had considered doing the first amendment, however i felt that the 19th amendment did women's suffrage was a topic i would be able to do well. it was also a matter of what resources i had and i chose this around the same time my parents decided we would take our summer vacation up near the famed ruhr lakes -- finger lakes were the first women's rights convention would be held. >> why do think the founding fathers included women's suffrage as a part of the constitution? >> women's rights was a radical idea at the time of the constitution. there were a lot of controversial issues already being brought up, such as slavery. these issues really threaten the the constitution. women's suffrage would not have gone over really well. while there are some that may have thought about it, it was such a controversial, radical issue that would not have gone over well. >> there were a few leaders in the women's rights movement. can you tell us who susan b. anthony was? "she played a critical role in the 19th century. she founded the national women's suffrage association and she wrote what is now the 19th amendment. she dedicated her life to women's suffrage. she held demonstrations, gave speeches, and she played a pivotal role in the women's suffrage movement. >> who was alice paul? >> she organized the march on president woodrow wilson's inauguration and she created the national women's party. she picketed outside the white house. she won the sympathy of the nation as women were arrested and brutally abused in prison. when the 19th amendment was passed from she continued to fight with the equal rights amendment, which did not pass in congress. >> what are some of the other things women did to fight for the right to vote? >> in the 19th century it was largely convention than speeches. in the 20th century, it got a lot more militant. while still peaceful, it was not as passive. >> what do you think we can learn from the women's rights movement today? >> one person or a small group of people with great conviction in their cause can make a change to an entire nation. when we learn about the women's rights movement we begin to see the parallels between women's rights movement and the civil rights movement. susan b. anthony said resistance to tyranny is obedience to god which is very similar to the wuotquote.her king can begin to see the strategy is involved in the peaceful resistance and the non-violence. >> congratulations again on your win. there is a brief portion from her documentary entitled, "voting for women." >> she argued the 14th amendment enabled her to vote and her trial received national attention. she is charged with illegal looting. the 14th amendment did not include women but it specifically excluded them. word"men" -- the owrword "men" was used in the constitution referring to the sexes equally, but in the 14th amendment they specifically used "male." the strategy was to end women's suffrage tran amendment to the constitution. they formed the and women's american suffrage association and wanted to have an amendment to individual state constitutions. >> you can see all of the winning documentary at studentcam.org. continue the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: another installment of "your money." the topic today is federal land management. david givens is with argus media and he is an oil and power services analyst. thank you for joining us. we are here to talk about the bureau of land management, the blm. guest: blm is the story of federal land mostly in the western states responsible for access for recreation, for conservation, but also for access by mining, oil and gas industries, and others. >> there are a lot of acres, more than 245 million. how does one agency watchdog of that? guest: actually have subsurface coverage. they have been spread rather thin. every professional approach to land classification has developed so they can know what purpose every single acre will be used. host: how far back as the topic of land management go? guest: back to the territories. it was formed out of other agencies within the interior. originally, the concerns were to poll, the management of land for grazing and mining. -- the concerns were two fold. host: we read a lot about energy companies wanting to use federal land for their own efforts and profit. how does the process work and how was the role in that? guest: it is a very lengthy process. the orioles and gas industry always wants more access to federal land. first, land has determined suitable for oil and gas production. that will start with a geological study, environmental studies come into cannot be too close to where people live. then a lease sale is hold. just because a lease has been let does not mean there will be production. if they want to drill, they will have to do some extensive environmental work and permitting. finally, we get to the production phase, that lasts many years depending on the life cycle of the well, there is also mediation of the acreage. host: let's talk about approving federal permits for drilling. the approved number of drilling permits -- 7100 back in 2007. then there is a drop in 2010, and roughly the same now, about 4200 as of last year. can you put that in perspective for us? guest: i would not read too much into it, but overall the development of hydrocarbon from shale has not primarily been from federal land. it has mostly been from private land where you can get to the commodities soon. get it in production sooner. the process of producing from federal land it takes quite a bit of time. i expect federal land production to rise over time. overall, i would not read too much into the permitting statistics. host: i would like for our viewers to call in. the phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. we will get your calls in a few moments once we learn more about how this works. we have this map on the table. it is the entire country and you can see a lot of activity, a lot of color in the western part of the country. explain what we're of looking at here. guest: if you are a westerner in the rural states come you cannot go single day without bumping into the federal government. a lot of these lands work, and if not come up they always have belonged to the federal government. in some cases they were land that no one wanted or, on the other hand, everyone wanted and the government had to administer to avoid conflict between interest groups. host: when did the federal government receive money when the federal -- when the companies want to come in and use the federal land? guest: there are lots of ways that the revenue is received. the leases themselves are not particularly costly. there is a loyalty -- royalty scheme for production. the bureau is very proud of saying that we take in more money from royalties than our budget, which is true. it is expected to be $4.40 billion in 2013. there are similar royalty schemes in place for other commodities and permits, so if you were a miner, raise cattle or sheep, you pay. host: what about conservation and? guest: it largely has to do with how land has been classified starting from the very beginning but evolving over the years as public policy has evolved, as the environmental movement has grown, as needs for recreation have grown. it could legitimately have been set at the beginning that they were a hodgepodge of other federal agencies and they do not quite know what they have yet. most of the classification issues are dealt with and it is a matter of dealing with pressure from various groups. the bureau would also like people to know that some of these places are just fabulous, rare areas just to drive out and see. that is part of their mission also, to conserve those areas. host: more statistics bl on them. the budget request, $1.10 billion. revenue generated in 2011, $4.20 billion. the first call for our guest, david givens, from los angeles, tom, independent. caller: i live in a national recreational area, but over the years i have seen environmental groups create environmental sensitivity and the government goes along with it to create a land as a preserve which means you cannot use it. is there any way you can divorce yourself from that? two, on the extraction of fuel, carbon, etc., i'm sure there could be a process within government by where the current regulations are expended for a period of time while we get back on our feet. we can drill for oil. i would like to see that done. i would like to seeblm land being leased for housing so they could give money to the government for a decent place to live. what do you think of the process in that happening? i appreciate your input and i thank you for your time. guest: the caller had on several of the key issues that we face. environmental groups have increased their influence, let's just say, in in howblm lands are -- how blm lands are used. to use some extreme archetypes, why should a sierra clubber in connecticut have any say on how lands in utah are used when ranchers and gas hands need to feed their families? again, that is an extreme argument often raised. the process for drilling on federal land, industry always says is more onerous than they would like it to be treated with the industry would prefer is consistency and not changes in regulations. over the years come and over the coming years, we will see more production of oil and gas from our federal land. there is no doubt about that. as far as long-term leases, this have been discussed at various times in the agency's industry and it has not come to fruition. some people are afraid of a dictatorship with deep pockets controlling federal land. there are people who think we need to look at the management of the federal land in different ways but it has not taken root in the policy field yet. host: sacramento, calif., some good morning. caller: i'm so glad to talk to you this morning. in our area, blm up to snow mountain including 500,000 acres, they want to put that land in a national monument. from what i understand about this, once it is in a national monument, the land goes away. there will not be any land use. they say they allow grazing, but the audubon society is very active and i think they will say that maybe you can still graze cattle, but it would be for a very short time before they have to leave. i just want you to may be explained to everyone what the difference is between working with the blm, which is workable and is a good arrangement, and what will happen if that goes into a monument? guest: i do not know the details of every situation, but declaring a piece of land of the blm a monument is the number one way to make sure to upset interest groups and local citizens. this may be a unique place that the bureau believes it needs to conserve, but you will wind up a certain acreage being taken out of the use for other individuals. that is a matter of everyone who is opposed weighing in. national monuments to create quite a bit of controversy. host: how long is the process? guest: a matter of years. it does not happen overnight. host: brooklyn, new york. roberts, republican, you are on with david givens of argus media and we're specifically talking about the bureau of land management. caller: the morning. i have a question i would like to rescue. every four years republican party says we need to drill, drill, drill. we need to see where the money is going. there is so much oil produced in america. host: drill, drill, drill. that is a phrase we've here are some much of the come perhaps injecting politics into land management. can you speak to that at all? guest: the bureau cannot say at any time that they will not do this or that without a justifiable reason. if we continue to allow access for oil and gas production, which we will, people do say it is healthy for the economy. there are also people who say the price of gasoline and diesel fuel will come down. what we cannot say is that there are no externalities' to drilling. there always are. there is always a need to mediate -- remediate or make whole what has beebn done. at what rate and at what scope will this be ramp up? host: arizona, ladonna, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i know there has been talked about drilling in the national parks. they do not belong to the government. they do not belong to the koch brothers and things like that. when it do you think he will start letting them drill in the national parks? guest: it is easy to confuse the different agencies. the national parks service and the bureau of land management are separate. right now, there is no drilling in the national parks for the most part. there may be a few exceptions. i do not expect wholesale drilling, although congress could overturn that and some members would like to see it. host: does the blm have jurisdiction over animals in these lands? can you explain how that works? guest: the health of the entire ecosystem has to be studied. there are a couple of animal issues out there that are very important. one is the grouse which soon may be declared an endangered species by fish and wildlife. that decision will be made in 2015. in the meantime, the bureau of land management has decided we need to improve the environment for the sage grouse which means some land may have restricted access. another issue are wild horses and burrows. there are too many of them and it is expensive to to cull herds. you cannot replace a cowboy with a machine. host: twin falls, idaho. capeline, an independent color. -- kathleen. caller: why has the blm overseen the killing of the wild horses? is the blm taking into consideration the large ranches and the grazing rights and rich land owners? why is there no longer room for wild horses? who does the blm really represent. guest: thank you for the call. it is not that there will be no wild horses. there will be a reduction in the herd. they get diseases from time to time that necessitates additional action. but there is a necessary balance between the horse population and the interest of ranchers who want to graze on these lands. host: rosedale, california. are you there? caller: i have a question. people need to keep in mind that our country is really only about 230 years old. if we keep bumping b-- keep building and building and thinking we have vast areas of land still left that we will end up in another 100 years without anything. i used to live in northern idaho and our town was in a national forest but they still did logging. they did it reforestation and were able to make money. any comments? host: linda, can you say that again? caller: peneus to live in northern idaho and the town i lived -- i used to live in idaho in a national forest. they also did logging but they also did reforestation to keep up production. that was fine because it gave jobs. if we use all -- people see 500 miles of empty space around a lake, but we do not have these vast expanes of land like we did 20, 30, 40 years ago. guest: the national forest service is an entirely different agency and history. it works closer with industry. there is encroachment of development over the years. the bureau has done a decent job in satisfying the interests of everyone in that no one wants the entire system to be changed. most of the parties like the way things are. host: we have been reading about efforts in utah to take federal land away. what has been happening there? is it a model for some of the other western states? guest: these issues have been going on since the agency was started. it will be difficult for this to happen because once states policy will not work. a 50-state policy does work, but the pressure is enormous on the bureau and washington to allow more decision making in the hands of locals. it is difficult to resolve. host: a message off of twitter. guest: congress wants say over every single specific aspect of the bureau. it is quite diverse. we have not talked about some of the other things that it does. they fight wild fires, coal mining policing in parts, renewable energy is being developed. congress would like a say on every single aspect of the budget. host: wayne pritchard county. joe on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: i am from wayne county, west virginia, and i am calling about the east land lake project which is the u.s. army corps of engineers project and a dam was installed in 1969-1972. the u.s. government bought 12,000 acres and then bought up to 24,000 acres and the mineral rights. they enacted a revenue bill in 1991. they wanted to manage this property over the corps' objections. they gave it to blm. immediately after it was purchased chemical company started applying for visas and are congressman did not like the fact that the army corps -- applying for leases. now there are 13,000 acres under lease from blm. it is difficult to fight this. west virginia is one of the richest states in the united states with coal, minerals, and we are the poorest state in the united states. we currently have mining above it, but it will be stripped under arrest in the army corps of engineers says if the mining occurs that it would endanger the dam. i would like to know what the gentleman could possibly look into this or is possibly familiar with it. host: david givens. but i i'm not familiar, appreciate the sense of history in this gives a good example of what the bureau does. for instance, it is responsible for the management of mineral rights for other federal agencies like the army corps of engineers and it often works closely with it. it sounds like, in this case, the bureau is in control of the mineral rights of the property and it is not too unusual for the land to be let out for coal mining production. i and stand an average citizen saying that this is a difficult situation to fight. this is very common of the divergence of interest groups where blm land and blm mineral rights are observed. host: another question of of twitter. guest: i do not know. looking at the map again of the western states where so much of that is federal land, not blm land, it is possible to have some functions outsourced but you need your own employees in the field to cover that much territory to some degree. host: republican line from san antonio, mary. good morning to you. hello, mary? mary, are you there? caller: yes, hello? i understand the oil companies are still reporting so they can under-report very easily. they can buy these leases up and keep them off the market to keep the price of oil higher. the grazers can graze for $6 on blm land but in texas it's $32 a head. ranchers think they own every blade of grass on their lease. that is why they are killing off the wild horses. they want that grass for their cows. they have lived there for so long that they think they own it. people do not understand how much water this takes. that will probably be the next biggest problem -- water. thank you. host: several points there from mary. guest: self reporting by oil companies touches on the realty accounting. it is very complex in the public and private sectors. very often, individuals outside the government will say blm is interpreting to liberally to get more revenue, but there has been a charge that not enough royalties are being collected. recently they have said blm is simply overwhelmed and they do not have that the power. oil companies also look at a portfolio of properties in terms of competitive possibilities. there is no production on some of the land leased. for ranchers and grazing, there is a 10-year permit and there are 18,000 of them outstanding. you pay based on the size of your heard and market factors. private sector grazing rights are much more expensive. that is the way it is supposed to be. the government does not out to make a profit. she also talked about water. we are extracting oil and gas from shale. it is a big issue on private and federal land and it will continue to be scrutinized. host: to explain what significant changes in land policy, if any, have happened under this current administration? guest: one of the number one efforts of this administration is to put renewable energy development on the map with blm lands. wind farm, solar, geothermal, and also power transmission lines to get this electricity to market. that is one of the number one changes. host: charlie in south carolina. caller: i do not have much of a comment, but i will take a shot at it. the caller from arizona? when she mentioned the koch brothers, i just wanted to get my shot in about -- from being a republican caller, who is the guy with the million-dollar tax man at? walter or whatever his name is? help me out, feliz. the guy that mr. obama wants to name a tax after. host: keep going, caller. make a point. caller: i can't think of his name. anyways, i just wanted to mention about the -- i can't remember his nam.e host: i'm pretty sure he was talking about mr. buffett. salt lake city, utah. good morning. caller: as far as federal land management, that is a big subjects, but what comes to mind right away is that the reason this state once the the land back as you have wackos like bill clinton who slapped 1 million acres on that monument in southern utah and never checked with the miners that live there. a lot of these states want the land back because they are scared these extremist administration they're going to take the land and go environmental crazy with it. and this wind powrer thing, i'm not sold. you see them going up. what good does it help the individual citizen? i am not so sure that this wind power is helping out everybody. host: let's get insight from our guest, david givens. guest:, declaring a land to be a national monument often draws the ire of the people. who is in 1600 pennsylvania avenue will often be the driver on these issues. he will see this come up again and again. as far as wind power, individuals have benefited. we have a very low power prices particularly in the west and throughout the country. some of that has to do with a variety of sources of electricity at this time. that is not to say car prices will not go up again, but wind power is -- not to say power prices will not go up again. but wind power is cheap. caller: i would like to ask mr. givens if he could give us did little synopsis of mr. jack abramoff's involvement with the bureau of land management? just a summary of what his illegal activities involved. thank you very much. guest: i cannot address the caller's concerns on that. host: michigan, you are on the air. caller: i would kind of like to know about access to the blm land. they tell people they cannot go on the other 20,000 acres. but you guys have so much control over the land and these people have to come to you for oil rights, but i cannot tell them any oil is for the benefit of the american people not to help your budget? how about my budget? the price of gas needs to go down. guest: access to blm land is closely regulated. i will not say it is closely monitored, but we do have some responsibility to keep people and cattle separate. that does not mean individuals cannot step on it, but prudent management practices would suggest you cannot allow everyone and his brother and near a heard. as far as using oil for the benefit of the u.s. people, one of the issues that will keep coming up, these are international commodities and they can go anywhere in the world. host: last caller, republican for david givens. caller: good morning. i worked as a management for hess corporate, a midwestern sue, and have served in marine corps and my concern is the agenda 21 movement. it was 40,000 acres recently purchased out of the everglades set aside for future use by the federal government. how did the democrats managed to sneak in a $40 million in increased on energy? anyone else in opec gets to maintain their current rate with the same tax. host: final thoughts. guest: i am not sure about the $40 million tax increase, but the bureau of land management is always looking at either buying, selling, or exchanging land. there are always purchases being considered. there are sales and exchanges being considered. i'm not sure what is happening in the everglades. it takes years and years to do these. policy and budget can take a part. if it is something the caller does not like, you should step up and fight. host: our guest david givens has been, an oil analyst for argus media. argusmedia.com. it is a london-based company providing intel, data, market information? guest: we published news and pricing information about energy commodities worldwide and the prices of these commodities that we come up with are put in contracts between buyers and sellers including the federal government. host: david givens, they do for your time this morning. thanks to all of our viewers, to all of the that called in, wrote tweets. we will see will tomorrow morning. have a great day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up in 15 minutes on c- span, we will get an update on afghan security operations and rebuilding efforts with marine major general john toolan. he heads a nato-led group of nations that had a reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. it is hosted by the atlantic council. coming up later, a conversation with former vice president big cheney -- dick cheney. steve scully will moderate the discussion and we will have it for you at 1:00 p.m. eastern. while we wait to take you to the atlantic council, we will bring you calls and headlines from this morning's "washington journal" on afghanistan.

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Brooklyn ,New York ,United States ,Madrid ,Spain ,Hyattsville ,Maryland ,Connecticut ,West Virginia ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Egypt ,Massachusetts ,Libya ,Karachi ,Sindh ,Pakistan ,Miami ,Florida ,Japan ,Germany ,Afghanistan ,Indiana ,Virginia ,Georgia ,San Antonio ,Texas ,Michigan ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Kelly Chapel ,Iraq ,Salt Lake City ,Utah ,New Jersey ,Idaho ,Clearwater ,Capitol Hill ,District Of Columbia ,France ,Clarksburg ,American Bar ,California ,Vermont ,China ,Russia ,Washington ,Brunswick ,Niedersachsen ,Chapel Hill ,Tennessee ,South Carolina ,Rutherford County ,North Carolina ,Sacramento ,Chicopee ,Mays Landing ,Northport ,Wayne County ,Gainesville ,Iran ,Rhode Island ,East Land Lake ,Colombia ,Washington Center ,Mississippi ,Maine ,Israel ,Phoenix ,Pennsylvania ,Ohio ,Americans ,America ,Soviets ,Pakistani ,Afghan ,Israelis ,French ,British ,American ,Afghans ,New Yorker ,Britain ,Soviet ,German ,Martin Luther King ,Los Angeles Tom ,Hsu Ky ,Mike Rogers ,Ron Paul ,Woodrow Wilson ,Cheney Dick ,Los Angeles ,Alissa Rubin ,Alice Paul ,Peter King ,Brian Williams ,Steve Scully ,Michael Chertoff ,Spencer Hsu ,Mike Mccall ,Barack Obama ,Dan Lundgren ,Ruhr Lakes ,Lieberman Collins ,Dick Cheney ,Kevin Todd ,Jay Rockefeller ,Ryan Crocker ,Pat Leahy ,Susan B Anthony ,Mike Columbus ,Donald Rumsfeld ,Hillary Clinton ,Rupert Murdoch ,John Mccain ,Jack Abramoff ,