you don't discuss the intelligence matters at press. because i'm trying to get this kind of confirmation since a long time. each time you said this is an intelligence matter. but you started to discuss this issue with the press. is it a leak? >> is it a leak? well, i don't know where this report came from, and i'm not going to comment one way or another on intelligence. do leaks happen? leaks happen. regrettably. >> how is this report will affect your cooperation in turks? >> we have an endures, solid, strong alliance with turkey. they're an important part of nato. we have an important bilateral security relationship with turkey. and we're going to continue to work closely with turkey on the range of issues that we think are important to both countries. john? >> george, will the secretary be participating in any bilateral discussions on the sidelines of the nato summit? and will he be meeting with president zardari?

>> he will have bilateral discussions in chicago. i don't have the full list right in front of me. some of that is still being scheduled. i don't know that he plans at this point for him to meet bilaterally with president zardari. yes? >> george, as you would know, mexico is facing an incredible nightmare with the balance of the drug cartels. >> yes. >> and they're waiting for a sign of hope. and would like to know recently u.s. and mexico participated in some joint operations. how these -- increasing cooperation and maybe stronger -- drug cartels. >> the issue of counternarcotics and elicit crime was a top issue as you know at the recent trilateral meeting in canada with the secretary and his canadian and mexican counterparts. we fully understand the problems

that cartels are bringing to the people of mexico, and we condemn the violence. our counternarcotic efforts in the u.s. government are led primarily by the drug enforcement administration. and we're going to continue to do what we can to support their and other agency's efforts to support this program. this is a hemispheric problem, the issue of narcotics. we're monitoring very closely with our mexican counterparts the problem of violence in the country. >> what was the main purpose of these exercises from mexico? >> which exercises are you referring to in particular? >> from may 2 to may 9, there were joint exercises between the forces from mexico and u.s. i don't recall the operation. >> okay. i'm going to have to get back to you on the specifics for those

exercises. larry? >> george, is the u.s. offering pakistan monetary incentives to help persuade them to open up the transit routes? >> we are in the midst of discussions with the pakastanis right now on the ground supply routes. and it really wouldn't be prudent or appropriate for me to discuss our negotiating in public. >> jack? >> there is a lake of human sewage in the hand kandahar airfield. it's known afngsz natalie as the poo pond. i've been asking for months when it's going to be closed. i run into radio silence. i think it's a closely guarded military secret. the last i heard there was a plan to drain it and fill it in and replace wit an honest to god waste water replacement facility. can you check when the latest on when this thing will be closed? >> yes. >> all right.

>> i don't know quite how to elaborate any farther on that particular question. but i will take it -- on that one i confess that you're right, okay. mike? >> george, what would the u.s. say to nato partners who might consider the last phase of the campaign in afghanistan as looking ahead to perhaps grabbing a peace dividend from the end of the campaign in afghanistan and start cutting defense programs again, as they have done in the past? and is the surveillance drone that is currently buzzing around chicago a military one or belongs to the mayor of chicago? >> the -- i don't know about the particular aircraft you're referencing. but the u.s. military is providing support role through north com to support security for the summit.

that's in accordance with american law. on the issue of nato and defense expenditures and peace dividends, i'm not going to attach labels to what may occur in terms of european and nato defense spending. that being said, let me make some important points. important points about the state of play in afghanistan today. the principle of in together, out together was reaffirmed in brussels recently. we're confident that we're making progress in afghanistan. afghan national security forces are improving their capabilities. they're taking the fight to the enemy themselves. they are securing areas that were previously under taliban control. our isaf partners have been critical in that effort, and we

believe that we will maintain mission cohesion going forward. this is about implementing the lisbon framework toward the end -- to the end of 2014. and our european and other isaf partners have made it clear that they are committed to that lisbon road map, as are we. again, i would reiterate that somehow we're not on the path to probable success. look, i'm not going to say here that we don't face challenges. we do. but we are seeing a narrative of success. violence levels in afghanistan are down. and that's due in large part to not only isaf efforts, but to the efforts of afghans themselves. so we believe that we're on the right path. again, we're going to face some stiff challenges along the way.

but the way to do that is to take them head-on. and that's exactly what we're doing. in terms of peace dividend, again, we understand the pressures that many countries are facing, including our own with respect to tough economies and tough fiscal challenges and tight budgets. the important thing is for us to stay committed, top priorities like afghanistan, and to work when ever possible to partner on challenges moving forward. that's a key part of our defense strategy. i can't speak for european countries. but i will say that we're looking not just in europe, but also around the world for ways to strengthen innovative partnerships with other countries so that we can hopefully combine our capabilities, achieve efficiencies, and bring down the shared costs of our collective

defense. tony? >> barak, the meeting. i want to go back to that for a second. you've had several meetings with him and the secretary hasment you have been in a lot of them, i guess. did you get a sense today that barak is more willing than maybe the last visit to allow sanctions to play out? question one. and two, did you get the chance that israel is still not decided whether it will or will not attack iran? >> i'm going to let the israelis answer those kinds of questions about what is in their mind-set at the present time. but we continue to have a very good discussions with the israelis. but on those questions, i really point them in their direction. >> you can't give any kind of -- you've been in several meetings with him. and no sense of progression that he is more patient this time? >> again, i'm not going to speak for the israelis. we made our position known on iran. and we believe the israelis have heard our concerns. so that's where i leave it.

>> can you talk about the atmospherics a little bit on that? is the level of tension down from the last time barak was here? >> i would point you to the what the statement said today about productive meeting, about good discussions. >> all say productive discussions, meetings of mutual interest and concern. >> and often they're right. >> the specifics about whether is the level of tension down from where it seems to be. it seems to be down from the past couple of months. but is that your belief, your personal belief after sitting in the meetings? >> well, let me be clear. i was not part of today's session with minister barak. so i, you know, am not going to offer a characterization one way or the other about today's meeting. what i can tell you about the arc of discussions over the past several months is that, look, the important thing is to have these discussions. the important thing is to address areas where there may be disagreement, and to work through them. and, again, we believe that the

israelis have heard our concerns. not just meetings with secretary panetta, but other u.s. officials. and they understand where we're coming from. so i'm not going to characterize israeli policy. one way or the other, we'll speculate on what they may or may not do. they are an independent sovereign country. but we believe that it's very important that we have continued dialogue with israel, not just about iran, but on other issues too. joan? >> in light of what is playing out regarding u.s. defense budget, fiscal constraint, et cetera, how do you respond to the idea that the u.s. is spending far too much money on the israeli defense? >> we are strongly committed to the defense of israel. israel is in a tough neighborhood, and we have for decades supported their independence and their security.

we believe that an investment in israeli security is important for israel and important for the united states. this is a region of the world that is -- has faced and continues to face challenges to stability. and if we can invest in israel's security, we believe that it can also be an investment in reasonable security and in our security as americans. >> a quick follow-up. >> okay. >> turkish chamber of joint chief of staff was in town last weekend. he met with general dempsey. >> yes. >> did you discuss this issue with him last week? i mean this incident on december? >> i'm not going to get into the specifics of our discussions with them. but i don't recall a "wall street journal" story coming up in that discussion. >> but i'm trying to understand

is there a meaning of the timing of this, this incident as revealed by the pentagon officials just after the visit of turkish chairman? >> oh, look, look, i'm not going to comment on the particulars of what is reported in "the wall street journal." but i would direct the notion that this is somehow choreographed timed to anything like a meeting with turkish officials. i reject that out of hand. >> the turks are -- the turks want to purchase some drones, attack drones from the u.s. government since a long time. and this kind of practice will affect this kind of purchase in the near future? i mean your position was positive, but the congress was objecting to this sales. it will affect your position? >> we are looking -- look, this is one newspaper story.

and one newspaper story in my view does not have the ability to harm a relationship that goes back many years, and a very strong relationship that goes back many years. so let's not get out ahead of ourselves here and get into speculation about how this one media report may or may not affect the relationship with turkey. the relationship with turkey is sound. it's strong, and we want it to continue, and it will continue. all right. a couple more questions. >> george, a serious question. did barak and secretary panetta agree to meet again next month? >> i don't know of another planned -- pardon me? >> particularly here in this building. he has been here three times in the last three months. >> i don't know when the next meeting is scheduled, but i know the secretary would welcome the opportunity. okay. maybe one or two more. >> would it be possible to get a

figure on the caused by the communications since the end of november? >> i'll let you know if we can provide that information. again, the ground lines of communication are very important to us. we're at a very important stage in our discussions with the pakastanis, and we have to come to resolution soon. okay. >> just one more. in mexico two, high-ranked generals have been accused of corruption and links with the drug smugglers. this can interfere in your relationship between both mill tears or on their mind the trust between the militaries from mexico/u.s.? >> i don't know the specifics of the corruption allegations you mentioned, but, look, the bottom line is that the u.s. and mexican militaries have, you know, ongoing dialogue with one another. that dialogue will continue. we're looking for ways to expand

cooperation. and i think that, you know, we need to work through issues on both sides on occasion. and a -- but the fundamentals are there for cooperation. maybe one more. john? >> george, there are reports that north korea has resumed construction on a lightwater reactor that could enable it to produce more nuclear weapons grade materials. has dod seen any signs that these reports are accurate, and if so, would you consider this destabilizing? >> i wouldn't comment on those reports directly. wouldn't comment on intelligence at all. but what i would say is that we continue to want the north koreans to take steps to provide for their own security and for regional security. and steps they have taken in recent weeks and in recent years

have not helped. so they need to in our estimation heed the call not just of the united states but of other countries in the international community to do what is right, and to abide by their international obligations. thanks, everyone. all day saturday on book tv, the gaithersburg book festival is live. it begins at 10:20 eastern, and runs throughout the day. notables include timothy noah at 12:20. ken ackerman on j. edgar hoover at 2:00. and david linden on why the good stuff feels so good in the compass of pleasure. also this weekend on afterwords,

jay norlinger. >> there is this myth he established his prize for peace out of guilt over his invention of dynamite. i say in my book it's hard to know exactly what is in man's head and heart, but this seems not to be true. it seems he was quite proud of his achievements in the area of explosives. they built today what we call infrastructure, canals, tunnels, railroads. >> peace, they say. sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on book tv, every weekend on c-span 2. ♪ this memorial day weekend on c-span we'll take you to colleges and universities around the country to hear commencement addresses from members of congress and the president's cabinet, state and local leaders, and business executives. and we also want to hear from you about your commencement experience. did you graduate from college this year or attend a ceremony for a friend or family member? or maybe something about a past commencement sticks with you.

we want to hear from you. call us and tell us your story, 202-643-3011. and we may use your comments on the air. that's 202-643-3011. on friday, the social networking website facebook goes public with an initial public offering of $38 a share. on "washington journal," we talk to the editor of cq role calls about facebook's dealings and lobbying in washington. this is 35 minutes. >> well, we want to introduce you here on "the washington journal" to gautham nagesh. he is the editor of technology briefing for cq role gaul. mr. nagesh has been a frequent guest on our communicators program, but this is his first time on "the washington journal." welcome, mr. nagesh. and if you would, we're going to be talking about facebook for

the next 40 minutes or so. >> sure. >> what kind of political power have they developed in the last four or five years here in washington? >> well, when i think -- when you talk about facebook, their influence is really outsized to their perhaps traditional imprint as a company. and that's because so many people in town depend on facebook, either as a means of communication, or as a way to get their message out to voters and constituents. so being connected to facebook is important, not only on a policy side, but also, you know, politically. we've seen town halls with both republicans and president obama where they visit facebook headquarters, engage with ceo mark zuckerberg and their audience. i would say facebook has a lot of clout, other than maybe a google or a microsoft. they've got probably one of the highest profiles among tech companies in this town. >> and it's only in the last year or two that they have really developed this, isn't it? i mean that they've increased their washington lobbying presence? >> yes. we've seen them really hire a number of new lobbyists.

but facebook has been here relatively early in their life cycle for a washington company -- or for a silicon valley company being in washington. you look at google, they didn't establish a d.c. office until 2005. that's well into their life cycle. >> why did they choose to do cycle. >> why did they choose to do it that way? >> well, i think traditionally silicon valley does not have the highest opinion of washington and regulators and the way business is conducted in this town. they've really felt in the past that they could sort of ignore washington and do their thing and that they move quickly enough. but the government has trouble keeping up. we've seen that that's not really a valid business strategy. i think google, as you probably have seen google's lobbying spending is increasing dramatically. so are most teletech companies. because issues like online privacy, cyber security, regulation, they affect their business and they realize they have to have washington's ear. >> didn't microsoft start off that way as well? they started off with a very small washington presence and then ram upped up very quickly?

>> absolutely. that's my understanding. that washington -- or microsoft really pioneered that attitude of a hands-off approach from the technology industry from the east coast to washington. >> well, we want to share with you some of the contacts or some of the people now working for facebook who have political contacts. and we'll start with their chief operating officer cheryl sandberg. she's former treasury department chief of staff for president clinton and she's former vice president at google. there's also joe lockhart, who you will remember, former press secretary to president clinton. adviser to senator kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign. now, another new hire for facebook is joel kaplan. he is vice president of u.s. public policy. he served as deputy chief of staff to president george w. bush. deputy director at omg. and a law clerk to justice scalia. those are some of their new

advisers. the bipartisan thing. >> absolutely. i think the hiring of kaplan, who as you said worked in the bush white house, is an example of facebook learning lessons from the googles, who google was perceived largely as sympathetic to democrats. i think you saw at the latter stages of the bush administration, early parts of the obama administration, a really partisan tone in some of the queries and attacks from lawmakers on google. and the search giant has worked very hard to rectify that by reaching out to both sides of the aisle, but that's a perception that a facebook does not want. they are very careful to appear non-partisan, to reach out to both sides. and you see they've made some prominent republican hires. also we saw that mariah jordan from the bush white house is also assisting on the senate side in terms of outreach. it's definitely a bipartisan effort. >> and mariah jordan is the public policy manager at facebook. another former deputy chief of staff to president george w. bush, former counsel to senator

richard burr. greg maher say former aide to house speaker boehner. and he is a public policy director as well. and finally, marnie levine. she is the former chief of staff to larry summers at the national economic council. worked at treasury department. so those are some of the people that facebook has hired in the recent past to work on their staffs. we're going to be talking about facebook. its ipo is coming up. and we want to get gautham nagesh's take on it. the numbers rupp on the screen. republicans 737-0002. and 628-0205 are the numbers for you to call. gautham nagesh, the fact that we are doing a segment on facebook are we being a little outsized by this too as well because it's

facebook? >> i don't think so. i think the short answer is that facebook is part of something like 200 million or 150 million americans' lives. it's almost as much a part of our communication system as cable television or wireless phones at this point. people rely on facebook. they invest a large portion of their lives and their personal data into it. and it's really the fundamental basis for the real name economy which will transform the real name economy on the internet which will transform the way we conduct ourselves online. so i don't think you can overstate the impact facebook is going to have economically or on the policy side. >> we also are joined right now by russ choema. center for responsive politics. he is their money and politics reporter. mr. choma we asked you to come up to join us by phone to talk about some of the money that tech companies are spending on

lobbying efforts. how big is that effort? what kind of budgets do these tech companies have in their lobbying efforts? >> first of all, thanks for having me on. i'd say the budgets they have are growing and growing every quarter that we're looking at it. facebook is just sort of jumping into the game. but right now, i mean, one of the bigger spenders overall in any industry is google. and they spent about $5 million so far this year. facebook so far this year has spent about $650,000. and last year they spent $1.3 million on the entire year. so you can see how quickly their growth in spending on this is. >> do you know, are there plans to increase the size of the fshs fbs washington office? >> i don't know of any plans, but on our website we track all of the spending by each company, and when you look at their graph

over the years '09 is small, '10 is small. '11 is a huge jump. and they're almost halfway to their 2011 total so far this year. the trajectory is certainly going up. >> why is that, do you think? >> i think it's just sort of the evolution of a young company. they're finding out that they've got a lot of things that matter to their business that get talked about in washington. and when we look at what issues and what pieces of legislation they lobby on, there's a lot of stuff about privacy. there's a lot of stuff about internet security. there's a lot of stuff about intellectual property. these are increasingly important issues to them. as their company develops and they get more data, private data from users, it becomes a issue for the public and something politicians talk about. and for them not to have some sort of presence here doesn't make any sense. and you see that when we look at the other companies in the industry, like when you look at

google's history and look at microsoft's history. as they've grown and as washington starts take an interest in them, they start take an interest back and that's when you've seen lobbying take off and i think that's what you're seeing on facebook. >> russ choma, center for responsive politics, when we see that $650,000 figure for facebook, where does that money go? >> that goes to hiring lobbying firms. and they've got several different -- fairly important firms in washington that they've hired. they've recently switched firms. so it goes to bringing in people who know the issues and people who can make connections on capitol hill. and i mean it's pretty standard for what companies spend on lobbying. they also have a political action committee where they've started making contributions as well. and that would be in terms of donations to campaigns and two leadership committees. >> i was going to ask you about that next. do you have any figure yet for

facebook donations so far in the 2012 cycle? >> we do. they've spend according to our data which comes from the federal election commission, they've given about $74,000 to candidates. and when you go down the list of who they've given, to it's not a huge list. it's a little more than a dozen. but it's very well balanced, and they're hitting some of the important people in congress. i mean, you see john boehner on there, but you also see nancy pelosi and eric cantor and dianne feinstein and mcconnell. and so they're spreading the money around, not an outrageous amount compared to some political action committees, but they're sort of beginning to dip their toe into the water there. >> so you see about 74,000 so far in 2012, very balanced, rs and ds. and you see about 650,000 spent in lobbying. russ choma, can you compare that to a non-tech company, maybe an established company, a phone company or a car company and what they spend? so we get an idea what this

means. >> sure. if you take a phone company like at&t, for example, they're a huge company. they've got lots of interests. and they are sort of much, much, much larger than what facebook would be spending. but you also look at their history and how many different interests at&t might have. just pulling up the figures right now. i think in -- >> didn't mean to catch you off guard here. >> no, i'm sorry. i think so far this year at&t has spent about 6 or 7 million dollars lobbying. so -- and that's just in the first three months. they're definitely one of the heavy hitters. they're one of the largest ones. and facebook and even google, who we regard as one of the larger ones isn't doing something like that. but this is still a growing industry. and even though the ipo's going to be this huge financial event, they're not quite as established as some of the big companies ye