to the southwest border. this is "washington journal." . . host: democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also reach us by

twitter and in-mae-mail. this is from daily finance.com. lawrence summers will bring his case to the national constitution center in philadelphia on thursday evening. the question is whether members of congress will have the stomach for the $200 billion spending plan he advocates. some argue it is needed because of the impact of last year's spending plan is starting to wear off. unemployment remains near 10%, though there are signs that the job market is starting to come around. larry summers argued that the u.s. remains of eight million jobs short of normal employment,

and that the gains recently seen in the economy may be undermined by weaknesses in europe. he also remains concerned about the cumulative federal deficits expected to average about $10 trillion over the next decade. for the next 45 minutes or so, we will be talking about what you think should be the priorities. what are your priorities? more stimulus or reducing the debt? before we get into that, we want to talk about the president's expected news conference. we have a jonathan with "the wall street journal" on the phone. good morning. on the front page of roll-call, the headline talking about when the president faces reporters before heading to louisiana. he will be going for what they call a hat trick, trying to neutralize the tax on three

issues. break that down one issue at a time and tell us what the president will be trying to achieve in the news conference today. >> his major goal is to address the oil spill. he will open a news conference by announcing an extension of the moratorium on offshore drilling that he announced right after the explosion of the deep water horizon. tightening rules dramatically to make it much tougher, or to make the oil companies have to show that they have a plan if a disaster occurs, and the impact of their plans on the wildlife, marine life, and environment.

and he is going to cancel or postpone many of the offshore leases that were planned to be auctioned off in the next six months. that is his main goal. obviously, this is a press conference. he will get questions on other issues. immigration is likely to come up. he has brought up. he has talked about the arizona rule. i'm not even sure if spending is going to come up. that will be up to the press. host: has the white house laid out any sort of guidance on what they will and will not talk about? do they want to focus this in a particular direction? is it just the fact that you cannot pick up a newspaper without seeing anything about the oil spill? guest: this was called because of the oil spill. the president has not had a real

press conference in the east room since july. along this stretch in modern presidential history. this is because barack obama will be receiving a report today. it is called the 30-day review report from the department of interior on what happened, what went wrong on the deep water horizon that led to the explosion and sinking. he will open a press conference with announcements regarding future offshore oil leases and drilling permits. host: how much information is the president getting on this top kill operation that is under way? no guest: no doubt he is getting information all the time. right now, this is the issue. there is no top three. this is the issue.

the information that we have received about top kill is surprisingly positive. the longer that positive news is out there, the more chance top kill actually works, that will be cause for celebration, not just in the west wing, but in the whole country. host: as the president looks out beyond the podium and takes your question, what are you going to ask him? guest: when we go into these press conferences, we do prepare questions. i have not yet prepared my questions. i am sure it will be about the future of oil leases. there is one particular set of leases that are due very soon. it is a shell oil project in the arctic. it has received a lot of attention lately. if there's any kind of disaster there, relief and rescue

operations would be 1000 times more difficult than the gulf of mexico. it has become the real attention grabber right now. i would probably ask him whether shell oil would be able to go ahead with the exploring for oil in that region. host: jonathan, thank you very much for being on the program this morning. the president's news conference is scheduled for 12:45 p.m. this afternoon. you can get more details on coverage on our web site. to our question, and this is based on a speech that the white house economic adviser lawrence summers will be delivering in philadelphia later on today at the national constitution center. it says that he is eradicating old school keynesian intervention.

"the atlantic" puts it this way. heavy spending is still required to reduce long-term growth. such sentiments are bound to make fiscal conservatives recoil in horror. we're talking to about more stimulus or reducing the debt. what is your priority? first call comes from georgia in beaumont, texas. caller: i'm for more stimulus. we need it to build up the country. once we build up america again, then we place our priorities on the debt. the republican party wants to drill baby drill. they do not believe in bailout, but now they want to be billed out in the gulf of mexico. bp is the problem. barack obama is doing the right thing.

we need another stimulus package. thank you. host: next is michigan on the line for republicans. caller: i think we need debt reduction. host: why is that? caller: you cannot keep on spending. there's so much poverty around. i do not think that will help stimulate the economy at all. where were host: to cut federal spending to bring the debt down? caller: i would reduce the spending on the border, since it did not work last time. he is spending too much money on that. i do not think he is paying attention to what is happening with other corporations in the world have proven 70% or better that they can fix the oil leak.

obama is not making a decision on it. i do not think this will work. i think that he should check his priority -- his priority should be checking other options that have been known to work, not wait and see. host: let's move on to this editorial in "the financial times" this morning. "first the good news. "

host: back to the phones. on the line for independents, larry in north carolina. go ahead. caller: yes, we definitely need another spending package. i would invest into our infrastructure mainly. i think the infrastructure has been neglected. also, i would bring our troops home from these waters. it is costing a lot of money. i would close a lot of the basies around a world. that is a lot of money that could be saved. i would nationalize -- we do not

even have the ability for the government to clean this up because this is something we did with private industry. there's really nothing obama can do. if we had it nationalized, we would have the equipment and technology to stop this. as it is now, we have to depend on them. . host: we move on to marcia alto springfield, ohio on the line for democrats. caller: how can any of us be against the debt reduction? and this plant, all the experts -- at this point, the stimulus package needs to be examined carefully for wasteful spending, but we need it now.

i want to say to all those elected fiscal conservatives, where were they in the last eight years when bush was giving tax cuts to the wealthy and starting unnecessary wars? i also want to make a suggestion to c-span. if you can turn on msnbc for five hours in the evening and not hear in mention of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. this oil spill is dominating everything as if these wars are over. and the the flotilla headed toward the gaza -- nobody is talking about that. host: on the front page of politico this morning --

host: we have this twitter message. back to the phones. sheila in ohio on the line for republicans.

your priorities, a stimulus or debt reduction? caller: debt reduction. it starts with getting out of the united nations and charging them $10 million for the place to have their building. host: how would getting the united nations out of the united states bring down the debt? caller: it does not have to be out of the united states. how much do we spend on our thing in the united nations? that is, what, $25 million or something like that for our registration to be in the united nations. we should get out of the united nations. host: allen on the line for

independents, calling from las vegas. caller: more stimulus is ridiculous. we need to reduce the deficit spending we are doing right now. host: where would you reduce the spending? caller: across the board. defense is crazy. matt amounts of money going into defense right now. -- mad amounts of money going into defense right now. across the board. another stimulus package would be devastating to our children and my children's children. that's where we need to stop. host: roll call has a special section this morning. five months until election day, and five ways lawmakers hope to spur economic recovery. we are taking a look and that. back to the phones. for me to the hills, mich.,

dorothy on the line for democrats. what is your priority? caller: lemme make another comment. -- let me make another comment. the election is in november. yesterday, the caller said that the democrat had been in since 2006. they were sworn in in january. the blame will still go to the republican party. the moderator's never correct people when they say the democrat party had the year 2006. they did not. back to the stimulus. i think we should have a stimulus package. host: where would you like to see that money spent? caller: have soldiers in japan. we have soldiers all over the place. what are they there for?

they should bring them back home and save money that way. i'm pretty sure that japan and all these other countries are not paying. it is coming out of our pockets. i would like for the soldiers to come home. that's a decision that the president and congress made. i do not like them been over there -- being over there. i agree with the other person who said we need to get infrastructure moving. i think we should have the stimulus package. host: next is a caller from north carolina on the line for republicans. jonathan? caller: yes, i would like to see a reduction in the debt, a strong focus on deficit reduction. host: where would you cut back on spending?

caller: i would start with a lot of the new environmental spending. a lot of focus on trying to spend a lot of money on various programs, new programs. i would cut those immediately. i would then focus back on the largest entitlements. the health care entitlements are more spending on health care then there is on medicare and social security then there is on the defense of our country. host: jonathan, hold on a second. you are talking about health care. in this special addition of a roll-call, speaker nancy pelosi rightwrites -- what is your response to that? caller: this is playing politics

at a time when our country is in crisis. i'm frustrated with that. there is a time when we need to bring republicans and democrats together to solve problems like our deficit and stop with the special programs like health care reform. it is not reform. it has been a ton more spending. it's a huge debt visit this year alone. -- it is a huge deficit this year alone. i would like to stop where we are and take an evaluation. host: adam joins us from florida on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. host: your priority, reducing the debt or stimulus? caller: i think we need both. i really do.

these wars rehabing are really worthless. worse served two purposes. it cuts down on our life and it creates jobs. this war is doing neither. first, we have the stimulus package. that will help a lot of people. president obama is not a superman. he cannot be in 1000 places at once. we are trying to stretch our president out too far. host: we are looking at some different items from this morning's roll-call policy briefing insert. in one section, senator demint writes --

what is your thought on that? caller: that is his opinion. we have a lot of people that are very opinionated about the administration. president obama is doing all he can. we have both stimulus and the debt reduction -- that would help a lot. get rid of some of these worthless wars and programs that do not even need to be in existence. host: steve joins us, also from florida, on the line for democrats. welcome. caller: thank you. i would attack the deficit. clinton president to attack the deficit after the 1990's and thit was so good that everybody

had a piece of the pie. during the bush administration, we were told that if you cut down the size of government and put all the money in the private sector, that the private sector would create jobs. all these corporations got these obscene tax credits and loopholes. they were deregulated down to the ground. they had every opportunity to create jobs, and they did not. basically, what we are doing is subsidizing all the private industry, all these corporations, for not creating jobs. as a matter of fact, they got tax cuts for outsourcing jobs. i would attack the deficit on being fair to the tax system. tax every dollar earned. we are a community. we need these tax dollars for schools and roads and fire departments and such.

host: on the front page of "the washington post" this morning, below the fold -- back to the phones. your priority, a stimulus or debt reduction? our next call comes from washington, d.c. on the line for

republicans. richard, go ahead. caller: a lot of people are missing the point. we need more effective executive management in government. we need the president and his cabinet officers to cut back drastically on functions of government that are unnecessary. reorganize the government, as some past presidents did. focus on the present and the coming threats to our nation. we need our government effectively managing drilling, whether it is onshore or offshore, and effectively helping in the clean-up. this is like a democratic version of katrina. the government is not functioning after six weeks or more to clean up this oil spill. we need to look at the national security threats, nuclear missiles, threats of genocide from iran, the continuing

threats from al-qaeda and others. we need effective management. we need to increase income for the government by drilling, not stopping the drilling, but drilling with the highest protective measures so we can get all the domestic natural gas to start with. host: richard, you talk with a bipartisan effort. who on capitol hill do you think the white house could reach out to on the republican side of the aisle? caller: many members would be willing to do this, if they felt the president and the administration really believed their own campaign promises. linzie gramm and john mccain and many others would be willing to work in an honest, decent bipartisan effort. for dearly to cut back on government. there are whole departments --

particularly to cut back on government. most of commerce could go. you could put -- if there was some imagination in the white house and sound management, there could be big cuts and effective government so people could trust the government to regulate drilling for natural gas onshore and offshore, and to trust the national government to defend them against threats. that's what we really need, a bipartisan effort. end the partisan finger- pointing. host: this is an editorial in "the wall street journal" this morning. they write --

host: you can read more of that in "the wall street journal" this morning. back to the phones, in new jersey, max on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. we certainly have to work at reducing the deficit, and concurrently reducing the interest payments on all the moneys we have borrowed. i hear very little bit about the revenue side. when i hear on television that

exxon mobil made no income tax -- paid no income tax. general electric paid no income tax. so many american companies have moved their money offshore. we need to also consider the revenue side of our deficit. i also think, in time of crisis, we have been very blessed. we have a strong country. we get a leader in times of crisis that we really need. i'm very pleased with obama's first year in office. host: senator hatch must oppose tax hikes, conservatives insist.

host: that to the phones. columbus, and georgia on the line for democrats. welcome to the program. good morning. caller: i think we need a little of both. i think everybody had a great point. i think everyone needs ta little stimulus and debt reduction. i think the debt reduction should begin with some of the

stimulus we've already received. a lot of programs are at a standstill. i think it goes back to a lot of the regulations we've lost in our country. i think our government is for regulations and rules. i think there should be penalties applied. i know this government is looking at a lot of provisions on how contracts should be done for homeowning and businesses. i think we had a great start when the clinton administration was in office. when the next body of government came in and changed some of the regulations to big business, that's where we had a lot of our downfall. also, when we have a party of no, when you are at work and you do not want to do something, you lose your job in america. they may need to have less of a

retirement program and things like that. those are some of my opinions. host: in roll call this morning, this is by stephen dennis. host: washington, d.c. is where our next call comes from on the line for republicans. good morning. caller:. thank you for taking my call. host: what is your priority? caller: stimulate the economy. i sent a memo to the white house some time ago asking that

the president considered a 1- year moratorium on mortgages for households $250,000 or less. i just got a bread and butter note. that is the stimulus for working people. the banks are not hanging in there. for households, a 1-year moratorium would give the working people a stimulus. host: where would you spend that money? caller: many would pay off credit cards or paid tuition. it would work for the working people. right now, the working people have nothing. host: we are talking about a stimulus or reducing the debt. what is your priority?

our next call comes from north carolina. ron on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. do i feel better about the debt? host: we want to know what your priority is. caller: actually, both. first of all, we can start by bringing our soldiers home and putting that money on the deficit. we're spending $12 billion a month to put people over there. we put more and more soldiers over there. you know all the equipment we have over there -- we are trying to pay off the terrorists now. we are going to pay them off, they're going to hide, and then they're going to come after us again. not only war spending, but wasteful spending. the health-care bill will save us billions and billions. with all the fraud and abuse in

medicare and social security, that will save us billions. the republicans are trying to stop that because they figure that is a loss for obama. host: give me a specific example of how the health care bill will reduce spending. caller: waste, fraud, and abuse. how many people will not have to go to the emergency room now? they will get this in 2014. that will save a lot of money. medicaid is probably the biggest part of the health-care bill. when people get the savings from the hospital'ss -- people go under basically for medical bills. and imagine the people who will not be losing their homes because of medical bills. host: the lead story in "the washington post" this morning.

president obama is holding his first conference on the oil spill thursday afternoon and will announce recommendations from a 30-day review of oil drilling that he ordered when the crisis began. we have this twitter message. we are talking about your priorities, stimulus spending or reducing the debt.

next call comes from michigan on the line for democrats. henry, go ahead. caller: good morning. i agree that we can do both. our president should bring all of our troops home and use that money here in a huge public works bill. we need to put people to work here on the country's crumbling infrastructure. we can get money by going after all of our corporate special interest groups who have robbed our treasury over the last eight years under george bush. i think we can cut the subsidies to all these states like south carolina where jim demint and all the racists are. we can cancel all of our government contracts to all of those racist states.

i think we can allow louisiana to clean up its own mess, which it should have had a plan for in the first place. host: let's move on to tom on the line for republicans in maryland. caller: i was not going to say much about health care, but the previous caller -- i just got in a position where my company has changed our health care. now i have lost my orthopedic surgeon. i have lost my doctor. to the deficit and a stimulus question, let me ask you a question. what would you do if you were $20,000 in debt? would you proceed to get more credit cards and buy cars? what would you do? host: what would you do?

caller: that is what i do. i'm cutting all luxuries'. i'm saving cash. i'm doing whatever it takes to make my position more stable. host: how long do think it will take to bring down that $20,000 you are in debt? caller: i was comfortable in the last 10 years. i figured, in my budget, i could handle it. that is how i got in this position. i got in this position one time before and the 1990's. it took me about four or five years. host: in about six minutes, we will be talking to matt apuzzo, reporter for the associated press, about the obama administration's new national security strategy. a story about it in "the washington post" this morning.

the article goes on to say -- deat we will be talking to matt apuzzo about the national security strategy in about five minutes. let's go back to the phones. franklin, tennessee on the line for independents. roseanne, welcome to the program. caller: thank you. i have seven things and i will be very quick about it. one, we can tax the wealthy, who

are clearly under paying. they need to pay their fair share. they need -- we all know they are not paying their fair share of income tax. two, focus on green energy, not oil. get serious about creating american jobs. 3, and the wars. eliminate those budgets by the pentagon. no more hidden extensions. four, limit specialists, medical specialists with tastronomical fees. five, eliminate our space wars program and focus on people on earth. we have an infrastructure that is crumbling. 6, end corporate welfare.

7, no raises for government employees until our unemployment goes back down to 4%. that's all i have to say. i hope one of those items works. host: lou, you are next on the "washington journal." your priorities, debt reduction or stimulus? caller: i think we can do both. basically, it would be for america just to reinvent the marshall plan that we created in europe. i would identify -- let's say, 10 cities. new york, cleveland, chicago, philadelphia, on and on. i would take certain parts of those cities and i would basically level them. and build factories, schools, apartments, infrastructure,

roads, and bridges. we would immediately start employing people in america if we start leveling these areas. we would also hire, literally, hundreds of thousands of people per month. host: you are not talking about leveling the entire city, are you? caller: no, i would identify parts of the city that need to be rebuilt. i can take you through parts of chicago today that look like post world war ii germany. there's nothing there but dust. rebuild those cities. hire people. let these people get salaries. they can start paying taxes. those taxes will help reduce the debt in america. i think we can do both. host: the last call for this segment comes from alabama. larry on the line for republicans. go ahead, larry.

caller: i think we need debt reduction. the problem is that the first $787 billion stimulus did not work, so why do we need another one? we spend $30 billion -- $30 million to refurbish a plane in pennsylvania and then create 13 jobs. what is the point? we need debt reduction, clear and simple. host: larry, where would you go about reducing spending? caller: cut the earmarks and entitlements that the government gives to everybody. host: we will leave it there. we will take a short break. when we come back, we'll be talking to matt apuzzo about the administration's new security strategy. that is right after this break.

you are watching the "washington journal." ♪ >> survivors of the deep water horizon oil rig explosion testified this morning. the hearing will focus on liability issues related to the explosion. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, the house appropriations

committee will work on additional spending for this year. the measure contains over $37 billion for the worse in iraq and afghanistan. live coverage at 5:00 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. >> clay was a rock star. >> sunday, david and jeanne heidler on henry clay. >> this holiday weekend, nonfiction books and authors on book tv. and former shell president on why we hate the oil companies. three days of book tv.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: matt apuzzo, reporter for the associated press, joins us to talk about the administration's national security strategy. give us some of the highlights of what is in this document that will be released later on today. guest: basically, it talks about how the united states can maintain its security, both with military, and also on homeland security basis, and it talks about soft power in a way that previous presidents have not. it talks about co need to work with the international constructs, the diplomacy, development, and therat is becoming a signature of the obama administration's policy. it talks a lot about foreign

partnerships around the world. host: you have written about this. two items that we picked up yesterday afternoon. you have addressed some of the nonmilitary moves. tell us how this strategy breaks with the previous administration. guest: previous administration put out two documents. the 2002 national security strategy laid out what is now regarded as the bush doctrine. saying we have justification for pre-emptive war. that was the underpinning for our justification to go to war in iraq. we back away from that in this document. we talked a lot more about our partnerships. we talk about the military and the ability to attack al-qaeda

anywhere in the world. it is much more of a holistic approach, i think, and they do not embrace the pre-emptive war doctrine. host: we're talking about the president's new national security strategy with matt apuzzo. if you would like to get involved, give us a call. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us a twitter message or an e-mail, especially if you have called in the last 30 days. the speech president in at the west point commencement address below the of this last weekend. we will hear what he had to say, get back to matt apuzzo, and take some of your calls. >> america's armed forces are adapting to changing times, but

your efforts have to be complemented. we will need the renewed engagement of our diplomats. we need development experts who can support agriculture and help africans build the capacity to feed themselves. we need intelligence agencies that work seamlessly with their counterparts. we need law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad and protect us at home. in the past, we've always had the foresight to avoid acting alone. we were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through world war ii. we stitched together a community of free nations and institutions that ultimately prevailed during the cold war. host: matt apuzzo, your thoughts about what the president had to say over the weekend?

guest: it was clearly a preview of the document. in talking about working with international partners, there's a line in the actual document that talks about how you do not -- the best way to preserve national security is not to step out of the current international framework and partnerships. it is to steer that current in the direction that is in the best interest of the united states. clearly, that is what the president was alluding to at west point, the importance of working with our foreign partners. host: tell us a little bit about the document. is it required by congress? why does the president put this out? guest: it is required by congress. it's never released on any sort of time line. it is one of those great documents that congress requires on a set schedule but never gets released on a set schedule.

it basically sets the priorities and goals for national security for each administration. it is not just another washington document. there are actually consequences and changes, both current and historical. it can decide how agencies are spending their money and how they are prioritizing. as we saw in 2003, if you put a doctorate in your national security strategy, it can be a big part about our decision to go to war. host: call for matt apuzzo from seattle, washington on the line for democrats. caller: i am a first-time caller. the best thing we can do for foreign policy and national security is to change our foreign policy and make it more fair and equal to the rest of the world. that is the biggest problem.

people are reacting to and causing problems for our country because the policy is so one- sided and really against the other people of the world. thank you. hostguest: i think his point is that u.s. actions abroad have consequences. regardless of what administration you are talking about, whether it is clinton, bush, or obama, i think any one of those presidents would agree with that. the question is, how do you balance your interest at home, and how does the president of the united states balance the interests of the american people with the interest of the international community, our treaties, and our partnerships? every president strikes that bounce differently. -- strikes that balance differently. a change in who we are friends

with abroad is not something we will be seeing. host: you wrote yesterday, john brennan said the administration will add homegrown terrorism to the document. tell us a little bit more about that. guest: it is interesting that there's been no real mention of homegrown terrorists in any one of these national security strategies. the closest was in 2006. president bush said we are starting to see some terrorists domestically within democratic nations, that is troubling, and the way to fix that is to expand democracy across the world. president obama gave it a little

bit more of a higher profile in this. frankly, the thing that nobody is talking about is neither the united states nor any of our allies really knows what to do about homegrown radicalization. i do not think anybody has come up with a really good answer for how to preempt the alleged times square bomber. in the united states we do not have a good profile of what a homegrown terrorists looks like. the names you mentioned -- a lot of them have united states citizenship. the national security strategy document talks about how do we balance the freedoms that we hold dear in the united states

with the need to be watchful and have security? host: talking about the obama administration's national security strategy, the document to be released later today. daniel on the line for independents, go ahead. caller: i'm wondering whether the obama security strategy includes the stability of the family in the united states. without families, you do not have soldiers. we have something of a matriarchal -- we're shifting from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society. people from mexico coming up our patriarchal. the people from the iraq area are patriarchal. that is part of the conflict. i see a good deterioration of families in the united states. guest: i do not believe the talks directly about family security.

it sounds like you alluded to -- part of your concern is border security, and it does address that. that is obviously a hot-button topic these days. there is reference. obviously, the united states needs more secure borders. this is the first national security strategy to really take a good hard look at homeland security and bring that into the national security fault, and to treat -- national security fold, and to treat homeland security and national security as the same issue. after 9/11, the focus was the nation was moving so quickly towards an offensive strategy. how are we going to respond in afghanistan and iraq? the national security strategy became a doctor and about what we believe and how we are going to -- a doctrine about what we

believe and how we will fight these terrorists abroad. here, perhaps because politically president obama has dealt with a number of near disastrous terrorist attacks in the united states, homeland security has really been brought into the fold. host: mary on the line for republicans. caller: i want to know how he can act globally to secure the nation, but he cannot secure the nation itself as far as its own borders. guest: i think, as you said, and as the other caller alluded to, border security will be a huge issue going forward. the immigration issue will be very contentious. we know that the president just

sent about 1200 troops to the southwest border. i do not think that the national security strategy as outlined by the white house really requires the united states to bring people from abroad in, or even engage them in a way where they have signed off on our policies. the feeling was, we have international collations like nato and international bodies like the united nations. our foreign policy should work through those bodies. that is not historically a republican-democrat issue. this document actually has a lot of similarities to the 1990 national security strategy that the first president bush put forward at a time of great upheaval in the world structure.

communism was falling. the first president bush said we need to work with our allies. . we will be steadfast in strengthening the old ones that have served us so well. as influence extends to new

countries in cup of, we have to build new relationships, and build stronger institutions. this engagement is not an end in itself. the intentional order we seek is one that can solve the problems of our time, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, extremism, securing nuclear materials, combating a changing climate, helping countries feed for their own, heal wounds. if we are successful in these tasks, it will lesson conflicts around the world. it moved be supportive of our efforts by our military to secure our country. guest: i think what the

president is talking about, what is really emerging as a theme is partnership. this administration has talked about engaging, for instance, the muslim world. you do not engage for the sake of engaging. you do so because it is in your interest. i was having a conversation with some administration folks, and it was, do we want to be seen as the country that fights terrorism, for the country that you want to do business with? you cannot commit terrorism against the country that you want to do business with, but if you are only that country fighting terrorism, you allow them to define what terrorism is about. we did not win the cold war

because we were true to our ideas, we spread those worldwide. that is a simplistic summation of the cold war, but i think it is interesting, this administration is looking to teams from a cold war. he is looking toward those alliances that got us through world war ii, as evidence that this is the path. host: germantown, maryland. thank you for waiting. caller: i will be the first to say this. i like where you are going with this. we are not the biggest, we are not the best -- we are, but it

is better to work with the world rather than taking it on unilaterally this whole thing about border security, while i do not condone illegal immigration, i think this was sort of an excuse. let us try to work with the world can cooperate and try to do business. another thing, on ways that we can cut costs -- i know that was a different topic -- host: yes, we are going to move on. guest: immigration, border security, these are complicated issues, that frankly, do not fit into one common the partisan

box -- one, neat partisan box. host: how much is border security addressed in this strategy? guest: it is certainly in there, but do not look for a spell out plan of what border security is. these documents in general, they are policy documents. you are not going to see a lot of "we are going to send this many troops by this year" or anything like that. and is more of a mission statement. it was pretty rare for president bush to use it to lay out a

doctrine. this is the new policy of the united states. it is much more common to see these documents as a framework, list of goals, priorities. host: who is the audience for this document? guest: historically, the government, national security structure, bureaucrats, people like you, me, listeners who are going to read and study this document and call in to talk about it. it is interesting. this document, more than any other, is trying to be more of a communications document. that fits in with this administration's method. this administration came from a campaign using the internet,

communicating on different platforms. this document has more of the writing style than your typical document. it is still a government document, so do not curl up by a fire with it, but it is written so that anybody can try to understand where the administration allies on this. -- lies on this. as well, it is one for history. most people recognize that. you can read the 1995 document and see where weaver. that is interesting, terrorism was not as big of a deal as it ii compared to drugs. host: officially, where will

people be able to find this, when? guest: i have the utmost certainty that the administration will be putting this on the web. i do not know for sure. i know secretary clinton will be giving a speech today. she is going to outline the diplomacy aspect of it. the speech will probably be unveiled at that time. host: saratoga springs, new york. caller: just a few comments. you mention the war on drugs and terrorism. there is always going to be drugs and terrorism. people think we live in utopia. on the border, it seems like we were about other borders come in

mexico, iraq, mexico. the only ones worried about the borders as much as the us is perhaps the roman empire. you were talking about infrastructure. we go into these countries, we destroy the country. now we are spending nine years building and new schools, roads. the abuse of our tax money is ridiculous. our policies have to be geared to this country. how are we going to get our country going, not these people tend thousand miles away?

the policy needs to be strong first here. >> people tend thousand miles away? -- people tethousand10, 000 mil? guest: when people see them kind of not reach we are doing, i think it is worth noting that development and the policy, these types of partnerships, is going to cost money. the president recognizes that that is an issue, but there is a pretty in-depth discussion about the need to reduce the deficit

and try to keep the u.s. as an economic power and improve our economy at home. in the end, that is our strength, the economy. you cannot find a war without getting into debt. host: secretary clinton will outline the major points of the administration's security strategy, including preventing nuclear weapons, terrorism, and other topics. next up, indianapolis. paul, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i used to work with the department of defense in indianapolis as an auditor. i am fully familiar with the amount of money we spend for

overseas obligations. between 25% and 30% is directly connected to our nato commitments. why, at this stage in the game are we spending that much money to defend the you -- the eu? if the europeans are never tired of telling us how much better and more sophisticated they are, maybe we should tell them that we are not going to protect them? >guest: you are probably not going to like this document and. they described nato as a peace- keeping body that we need to engage with. it singles helped our longstanding relationships with countries like england as the

partnership's that we need to keep a secure world. those are not going to go away, at least in this administration , and but i do think there is a point about the money issue. that is one of the fund entered question of the document. how do you do both? how you stimulate the economy and cut deficits? how do you fight wars and diplomacy and cut deficits? host: in the philadelphia -- in the "philadelphia inquirer" --

guest: and again, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the framework of national security. i would guess that hillary clinton will either allude to that or talk about it directly today. we saw her go to china to try to engage them on the north korea, south korea issue. the feeling of this document is we reserve the right to go it alone if we need to, but we try to work within the framework.

host: falls church, virginia. david on the republican line. caller: i have three points that i would like to make. you talked about north korea. i think they virtually declared war. this country is very erratic. i wonder if the national security document reflects that. i am ethiopian. that is right next to somalia. this is the only country where there is complete anarchy and lawlessness. the country is running free with no answer with respect to terrorism. my friend here beside me is a brazilian. is president -- his president negotiated an agreement with turkey.

i wondered if this administration will take them seriously? guest: the document us talk a great deal about north korea. their nuclear program is of great concern. as south korea talked about sanctioning north korea, cutting off trade with them, north korea needs money. the concern is, will they be selling more weapons to our enemies? on countries like somalia, you are correct, it is basically an govern -- ungoverned. we have seen counterterrorism operations in somalia. i do not remember the exact date, but our military did

conduct counterterrorism operations in somalia. host: it seems like what they've been getting too, in part, -- they were getting too, in part, serving as -- to, in part, serving as the world's police. what does this document said in terms of that? guest: it does not say that, really. we are the only country with the economic, military capability to do these broad type of thing worldwide. as a superpower, we have to take a leading role on some of these

issues when there is confrontation. the feeling of this administration is that we do not go it alone, blind to the issues facing the world. we try not to go it alone wherever possible no president is going to say, however, we will only go on the approval or not on our international friends. host: matt apuzzo is here to talk about the administration's new national security document. he is a member of washington's ap team. oxford, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for c-span.

in regards to foreign policy, how much difference does it make that we allow these businesses to go into other countries and have slave labor, but we give millions to the government of those countries, but it does not get down to the people that we are really trying to help. yet, we allow them to go in and underpay the people. if we are really interested in world peace, we should be expanding our peace corps. i would be putting more money into that, instead of the military. guest: one of the things that this administration and the last

administration agree on is the value of organizations such as the peace corps. the document does not talk at length with what you are talking about, the role of corporations, but what you are planning is correct. national security is not limited to what we do with armed forces and diplomacy. it is about our image worldwide, our corporate stewardship. the document does talk about how globalization has brought all of these things together and you have to look at it politically. -- holistic pleally. a couple hatters on the document is that we need to see the world

as it is. that struck me as reminiscent of a first bush's 1990 strategy. we have the opportunity to make it as we wanted, but we have to see it as it is. host: from london, britain disclosed that it has a stockpile of 225 warheads. what does the document say about our role in trying to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons? guest: it talks about the administration's goal of reducing weapons worldwide, talked at length about the start treaty. as long as there are nuclear weapons, we have to have them. as long as they are out there,

we have to arm ourselves. frankly, it also said its nuclear weapons represent the single largest threat to the united states, not just what nations have the capability to launch a missile, but if they were to get into the hands of non-state actors -- al canqaeda would love to have some of them -- and that is what keeps some people of that night. host: robert in fort lauderdale. caller: i disagree with your analogy with regard to the cold war, the parallel to the war against terrorism.

you said we won the war against the powers that be on the communist side through cooperation. i agree, that is what ultimately came to fruition in the end, but the stand that we take now is the same as back then. we do not acquiesce and try to agree with everyone else. we do the opposite. we take a position of strength and the authority and do not acquiesce to political correctness. we should be in a lightning rod that takes the strikes because we have sufficient power and it is a moral and ethical obligation to the rest of the world to be that lightning rod, to stand up for what is correct

and ethical. guest: what you are saying, i am not at funds with what -- it is not at odds with what the white house believes. again, we are talking about two different times and two different wars, so to speak. with the oobama administration giving speeches, like ronald reagan in shanghai, they want to be able to say, let's be that beacon of the american ideas, talk openly about freedom and democracy, the importance of free speech, openness, the open exchange of ideas. but they are also saying, let us see the world as it is and know

that we have to work and engage with nations beyond the military. i wrote a story in march in which i quoted someone from the nsc saying, it felt like four years, we would go into countries and the vast majority of people were not terrorists, and we would build them this hospital for school so that they would not become terrorists. well, the vast majority were not going to become terrorists. it is the way that you engage countries and individuals that they see as a parallel between this and the cold war. host: matt apuzzo, thank you for being here. in a couple of minutes, a conversation with mary landrieu.

perce, a news update. >> president obama plans to announce a moratorium on new deepwater oil permits will be continued for six months, while a presidential commission investigates. controversial lease sales off the coast of alaska will be delayed pending the result of the commission's investigation. the president news conference will be live on c-span radio and c-span.org. bp says it should know today whether efforts to shut down in 0 well in the gulf of mexico has been successful. the so-called top kill that that has worked aboveground, but never 5,000 feet beneath the surface. congress is headed to landmark

vote on whether to let gays serve openly in the military. the house could vote on a proposal that would repeal the don't ask, don't tell law. the senate armed services committee is expected to take up an identical measure. the house will be voting on a bill that would extend jobless benefits through november, but they are finding some opposition over the overall cost of the bill. those are some of the headlines. >> years from now, when you return, when the shadows have grown longer for you, i have no doubt you will have added your name to the book of history. >> memorial day weekend.

watch past speeches on line at the c-span video library. commencement speeches your way, every speech from 1997. host: senator mary landrieu is not only senator from louisiana, but she is on the committee for small business ownership. you are looking at the effect of the oil spill along businesses -- for businesses along the gulf coast. what do you expect to hear today? guest: we are trying to get some help for the people of louisiana because they desperately needed. i almost feel like this is deja vu. when we went through katrina and rita, we found there were not the right tools in the toolbox to give people the immediate need me -- immediate help they

need. we already have too much debt, so we are going to try to convert some of those loans to advances. let the person borrow the money, but the entity that would pay them back would be bp, because they are the ones responsible. it will take some work legislatively and administratively, but i think we can get it, or come up with an idea to advance some funding. if you make $50,000 last year, and you cannot do it this year, bp will be writing you a check. if you are a charter vote captain, all of your charters have cancelled on you, then bp will be able to compensate. but to make this happen will take some legislative work. host: the president has a press

conference later on this afternoon. he will be primarily addressing the gulf of mexico. what did you want to hear from him? guest: i hope you will help the american people understand the risks with deep water drilling, which we have been doing for 20 years. anything below 1,000 feet is considered deepwater. anything under 5000 is considered ultra deep. i want him to make a difference between the risks of deepwater and shallow drilling. when you are working 1,000 feet and above, the blowout

preventer is on the surface. it can be manually controlled. we are trying to control this one with robots. the president will help the american people understand the differences. we cannot and should not shut down drilling operations in the gulf coast in the shallow water. we will throw thousands of people out of work and we will start to impact the overall economy that depends on oil and gas. host: we are talking about government response to the oil spill in the gulf of mexico with senator mary landrieu of louisiana. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205.

we have reserved a special line for louisiana residents, 202- 628-0184. as always, we will take your electronic messages either by e- mail or twitter. the president is doing this news conference in advance of a trip to louisiana on friday. will you be going with him? guest: i will not be travelling with him, but i will be meeting him. i have been down, of course, many times, with cabinet officials, myself, meeting business people and staying in touch as much as we can with parish officials. host: what is it specifically that you want him to see that will drive home the message of what you want to see done? guest: it is not so much what i want him to see but what i want

him to do. i want him to take a strong position that gulf coast states, particularly in louisiana, is at great risk of offshore oil revenues. this is not a louisiana well. this is a u.s. government well. anything of time of 3 miles off the coast is a federal government well. the government has been drilling off the coast of louisiana, mississippi, texas, alabama, since the 1940's, but none of those states have treceive virtually any money. it is pouring salt on the wound. this is just the tip of louisiana, the most southeastern section.

saint bernard parish is here. that is the greatest land loss in america. i have been saying this is occurring, our marshes are weak. we need protection. you are taking billions out of the gulf. please allow these states to share the revenues, just as the interior shares when the government drills on federal land in wyoming or new mexico. i hope the president can give some hope to the people of the area. and that will bring hundreds of millions of dollars to us to restore the coast, which we will need, once the leaves. and they will. there are other things that are more immediate. there are $750 million of

treasury dollars had is when to be sent to the gulf. i also hope that he will be expediting a program for coastal construction. i have asked for that money to be advanced immediately. there are several things that the president can take to bring hope and support to the people of the gulf coast. i hope those things are included, as well as the barrier islands, which officials have asked for. we may not be able to do the overall plan, but there are some targeted pieces of that that i hope he will say he will do. host: we are taking a look at a map in the "new york times."

we will start taking your phone calls. little valley, new york. melissa. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions and two. . first of all, -- two comments. first of all, the oil industry employs americans just as much as any other industry and i hate to see them painted in in that picture because people know the risks of oil drilling. the talk about reducing the deficit, i think the first thing we should start with is reducing government official pay. obama has 20 people listed who make over $100,000 a year. nancy pelosi racks up hundreds of thousands of dollars on her

trips. guest: i heard about the question about pay, but it was a bit fuzzy over oil. i think you were talking about explaining how we need these jobs, the difference between shall and offshore drilling. there are risks associated with all sorts of drilling. but the risks are exponentially higher the deeper you go. the industry has sort of come to terms with the idea that deeper than 1,000 feet is the comment deeper than 5000 is ultra the. -- deep. we know deep water drilling can be safe, but something terrible happened on this break.

there will be investigations and ultimately we will find out. i do not want to get into the details of that. what i want the american people to know it is you can drill safely shallow, and indeed, and you need tight regulations. in defense of the administration, they have been in office a year and a half, they inherited a mess on wall street, a mess on the deficit, a mess on mms. they have a radical cleanup to do. i hope people understand we need this oil and gas. america uses 20 million barrels of oil a day and we only produce nine. if we stop producing that, we will be 100% dependent of places

to are not our friends and do not share our values. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first one is regarding something i saw on "60 minutes." there was a dent in it -- definitive description of the problems and how they were caused by someone called dr. b. apparently he was also used during hurricane katrina. i have not seen any other broadcast to use that information. i wonder if anybody else has seen an interview in understand that. -- and understands that. i also have heard that europe has a double blowout preventers,

possibly in the black sea, the north sea. guest: you are absolutely correct. dr.b is a friend -- dr. b is a friend, he is a very respected scientist in his field. he has given some analysis of what happened. what you have to realize is there is another sign of the story. that is why we have courtrooms and investigations where people are sworn under oath. you are right, that interview and others that people have given, things in the newspaper, indicate that there were many things done wrong. believe me, bp is going to pay heavily, lost it, potentially punitive damages.

one thing that will come of of this is better regulation and -- out of this is better regulation and better oversight. remember, we have been drilling deep in the gulf of mexico -- 200 wells, as i said, in the past 20 years. but the people of louisiana deserve the best regulation. and they should be going under review. host: anthony from new haven, connecticut. caller: good morning. i have to go back to what you said. you said bp will be paying.

is that in writing or is that a verbal commitment? guest: no, it is the law. after exelon delaware best -- exxon-valdez, there was an act passed that home oil company as the one responsible. what is known under the law, what bp has said and put in writing, although it is more about the law, bp will pay every economic injury to businesses, individuals, as well as pickup

the federal tax. we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars. the coast guard has been called out to these southern states. the national guard has been on the scene for a while. hopefully, at the end of the day, the taxpayer will be paying virtually nothing, bp will be paying billions. right now, bp is not working fast enough, and that is a problem. host: susan on the republican line. caller: i had a couple of questions. you said president obama would be speaking later today. something about the treasury, was that about? was that for the clean-up? what was that money intended to be used for? guest: in the last funding bill,

i was able to get some assistance. it was money that we needed to preserve and fix however shorelines. -- our shorelines. as usual, a lot of the money has been caught up in bureaucratic red tape. the money that we have gotten we have put to good use restoring our shorelines. there is $750 million left 9 was already allocated years ago, and i want that money advanced quickly, and down into the hands of texas, mississippi, louisiana. host: some of the numbers associated with the oil spill,

as provided by "usa today" -- back to the phones. missouri. and john on the democratic line. caller: good morning. you keep on talking about rules and regulations. we do not need rules and regulations, we need laws.

there needs to be criminal prosecution. if i take a drink and get in my car and cause an accident, i am prosecuted for vehicular homicide. these people killed 11 people, 29 miners. that is 40 people in the last six months because people did not want to follow the rules. we need criminal prosecutions. maybe that will stop some of it. guest: in fact, maybe that should be considered. some of these funds to not seem to be high enough. -- fines do not seem to be high enough. but there are lots of dangers businesses. if they feel like they could go to jail if something happens, they may not feel free to run their business.

it is frustrating that these fines and rules do not seem to be enough of a determined to force people to follow strict safety precautions. i just met with one of the families as today. it is tragic. a young man was killed, left his wife come at a two-year old, and a newborn. i think congress will be looking at a gross negligence. maybe there should be criminal charges, we will see. host: ron in homa, louisiana. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. first of all, whatever politicians them voted for the cap on valdez should be booted

out. my business is in the seafood business. i buy and sell shrimp. i called bp four weeks ago and gave them an idea. they tried that dome but they should have kept it over and pumped water up there, oil would have gravitated up the dome. they have too many diplomas of there and there are not listening to anybody. we need to get that oil captured if we cannot cap the well. we need to get these people go in because they are going to ruin it louisiana. guest: thank you. there are literally hundreds of

individuals like yourself that are familiar with the oil and gas drilling, giving bp and the government's suggestions. one thing that will come out of this is new technologies. some of those technologies are hopefully being deployed now. we are relying too much on old technology. thank you for the suggestion. if you want to call my office today, we are forwarding a steady stream of the suggestions to those responsible. the man in charge of this is not going to be pushed around by anybody. he held in katrina. he was made the incident commander when he retired from the coast guard. about the cap. it is a liability cap that will be adjusted.

but even with that $75 million cap, even with that, and bp has to pay full economic injury in the event of an accident of this nature. do not be discouraged about the cap. what we want to make sure it is that we are not doing it in a way that prevents an independent or small oil and gas operators to not get any insurance. then we will shut down the oil and gas industry in the gulf coast and that would be an economic disaster for our region. host: what are you hearing about how well or not this top kill operation is working? guest: i am hearing that it is working to plan now, but it is a

very difficult operation. there is great pressure at that depth. it took several weeks to put this in place. as you know, there are multiple defense systems that are supposed to manage a well let this, as we have seen. much of those failed. stop gap measure has not been tried at this depth before. we are hopeful that it will work. the only solution that is relatively fail-safe -- and i said relatively fail-safe, because everything can fail -- is the second well that is being drilled so that we can plug the first one. that is still a tough operation. host: some might argue that fail-safe is no drilling at all.

guest: that is true, but it would also jeopardize our economy and therefore national security. i do not think that is a risk that people want to take. is a balance. we want to make sure the oil and gas that is drilled, is done so safely. we are focusing more on natural gas because of its environmental properties. hydrogen is also clean but it has its risks, damaging to the rivers and streams. every way that we produce energy

has risks. the windmills, for instance. we could run the country on windmills, but we would have to get rid of every acre of farmland i know people are frustrated, and but if we think through this, we need to make trade-offs and make sure that things are regulated while. host: last phone call coming from shreveport, louisiana. anna. caller: you made a comment a few moments ago that this has never happened before. apparently, she does not remember the same thing happened in 1979. the same things were also done in 1979 to stop this leak. it was not done.

eventually they had to drill another relief well. to say that this is ok -- this is not ok. guest: i did not say it is ok, and i am familiar with that. i said this has not happened in this area of the gulf of mexico. we have been drilling for 20 years. i understand the relief wells that is being drilled. it has been done before successfully. i am not saying this is good. it is horrible, terrific. what i am saying is this government needs to continue to produce oil and gas and we need to do so more safely, and then we need to move to alternative that are less risky. whether that is more hydro, wind, nuclear, that is something we need to pursue.

a good analogy is when dream mile island blow up, the country reacted -- three-mile island blew up, the country reacted, but now we are years behind that technology. we need to be on the front end of cutting technology. to me to make it safe and keep our environment as clean as possible. host: it is being reported this morning in the "washington times" -- did you have a response to that? guest: they now have criminal records of these four gentlemen. they said it was a prank but it did not seem funny to everyone

observing it. now they have to live with their criminal record. host: thank you for being here. we will be speaking with david shirk about the national guard going to the u.s. border. first, more from c-span radio. >> the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits dropped last week, but it was still higher than expected, indicating only modest improvement in the job market. applications for unemployment benefits fell by 14,000, to 460,000. the rebound last quarter turned out to be slower than first thought. the government says the economy grew at a 3% annual rate as consumers and businesses spent slightly less. that is weaker than the initial 3.2% initial growth rate.

a u.s. general offer strong support as korean allies send a strong message to north korea, do not try it again. however, pyongyang said that it would release "immediate physical strikes" against ships that entered its waters. for the third time this year, congress is scrambling to stave off a hefty pay cut to doctors treating medicare patients, even as the administration now is out a brochure in german senior citizen that the program is on solid ground. the 22% cut will take place on the us congress intervenes. people riding amtrak train between new hampshire and virginia today can expect to encounter more police, the explosive-sniffing dogs, and

random inspections. they say they are doing so to test incident response capabilities, and that the drills are not in response to any specific threat. those are some of the latest headlines. >> the future will show we have other women serving on the court. it is hard to be the only woman on the court, which unexperienced for about 10 years or so, in a population that these days, produces 50% of law school graduate, being women, it is logical to think that there will be a number of women on the court. >> learn more about the nation's highest court from justice sandra day o'connor. conversations with all of the justices active and retired.

host: david shirk is the director of the transborder institute, here to talk about the plan to send 12,000 national guardsmen to the border. what is the trend border institute? guest: we are centered in san diego, focused on u.s. and mexico relations. host: your institute's response to the president ordering 1200 national guard troops to boost security along the border? guest: i think he walks a fine line along the border. he is under a lot of pressure from republicans who have a strong border control approach and are demanding more effort on

the southwest border. on the other hand, he had to look at immigration rights activists who say that more troops at the border is not effective, and that is also an affront to mexico and raises risks for americans at the border. . . faugh is this just way for the administration to buy time to figure out what to do with this

new arizona law and to advance their own immigration reform policy? >> well, it definitely increase it is security presence. prior to this deployment, i think there were about 300 national guard troops at the border. the question or operative question is does it actually increase security at the border? and i think that is much more in debate. some ways we have a greater presence at the border than at any point since 1910 when mexico exploded into a revolution, and we put half our troops on the border. we have 20,000 border patrol agents up 15% from about two years ago, and i think it's five times as many as we had at the start of nafta. we have around 3,000 ice agents at the border, which are doing southbound inspections for fair to arms and southbound cash

from drug traffickers. so in my m waysly reduce either illicit flows of drugs or undocumented workers into the united states. so i think the real question is is this going to make any real difference? i don't think it will in the short term, but it is seen by the administration as a necessary first step in a grand bargain of some kind on immigration policy reform. they think that they have to do this under the pressure of republican opponents in order subsequently negotiate some kind of deal going forward. >> we're talking to david.

if you want to get involved in the conversation, call us on our democrats line or republicans line or independents line. you can send us emails or twitter messages. and we especially would like to hear from folks along the border states if you want to give us a call and let us know what you think about the president's proposal. more from the a.p. article. it says that the national guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and analysis and training and support efforts to block drug trafficking and temporarily supplement border control agents until new officers and agents can be trained and begin serving on the border. how long is it going to take to

get these new protection troops out on the border? guest: i haven't heard a specific time line on when they will be prepared. i can't comment on the specifics of the training procedures. the -- as i said, we've already got just between ice and border control alone, we've got 23,000 who are trained and have been vetted and who are supposedly ready to go. so i think deploying, the the point is administration is trying to make by this support role is this is seen as a temporary measure, and that temporary could mean six months or a year, but this is not intended in any way for this to be security or border protection. host: ronald on our line for

independents. caller: good morning. my first time calling in a long time, but anyway, mr. shirk, the -- recently we had the minutemen on the border who were just standing there as observers. ok? and during that period of time, ok, the flow of immigrants coming into the country was reduced by over 40 some odd percent. now these are not hands on. they are just eyes on the ground. anybody who says less people or less technology is not going to stem this illegal transfer of people from metroplex dough to the united states. i think it's sadly mistaken. and what's your opinion on that? guest: that's a really good question, and a question that i think a lot of americans ask -- about the border.

how significant has the impact of increased presence at the borer been? and i think it's really difficult to judge on the one hand, because i think the three most important factories in affecting the flow of immigrants spot united states, the three most important slide factories are these -- demand, demand, and demand. the demand for undocumented black labor is what has fundamentally in terms of pull factories, did you haven mexican migration to the united states or historically. oye >> and so it's really dot judge, in the midst of a global economic recession whether the increased true presence is what's slowed mexican migration or whether it really has to do with these economic factories.

as we all know, despite increased enforcement. i mean, we started to ramp up immigration enforcement right after 1994. in 1994 we had about 4,000 troops on the border, we had doubled that. by 2008, twirne, we had -- we had federal forces on the border. and every time there's been a significant jump in u.s. economic demands, a jump in the u.s. economy, it brings more my

grants into the united states to fill that demand. so i'm sceptical how much -- i wouldn't say there's no effect for putting things that you can only wash at the cleaners. host: next call come from early morning field. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: thank you. i don't think we need reform as much as we need existing laws more so enforced. forced deportation, i think that should be taking place. this reform is doing nothing else but helping the wealth in the country. it's not helping the working people. not that we don't want to jobs. s it's just we can't take the workers if but would be the --

host: we'll leavitt there. david? guest: i can completely understand your sentiment. i think many americans are frustrated because it's an a front to u.s. laws. but one of the things that is fortunate understand about undocumented immigration. undocumented immigration is worse than fax machine suddenly when people are here without papers, and they scute about 3%-4% of the american population and a massive black market for labor. their can't ask for necessarily the same wages they would otherwise get if they were here illegally. they often work under table for less than minimum wage or ask

for accident standards for every american worker. so moving these people out of the shadows which is what i think the reform effort is to do and into the main stream, into the legal system for regulating u.s. labor, it would actually in many ways help not only u.s. my gants but easy in as well. the question is do we need an extra 12 million mexicans to do what we do in the united states or should those jobs right. want to be meat cutters, whether they want to be picking lettuce. john mccain famously offered $50 an hour for american workers to go out and the question is do you want to pay $8 for a head of lettuce? >> the idea from i can't hoo

news, they write that pentagon if i believes are worried about the perception like gar goals do -- some of the troops will be armed, but others will not. so it's only let's say half of the troops are armed. what kind of a security presence are they going to be able to provide on the border? >> well, i mean, first of all, the obvious concern about putting armed troops on the u.s. border on u.s. soil is the concern for when u.s. troops were deployed to the border on operations a worker was killed when they thought he was a drug trafficker.

>> they shot him from a distance mistaking him for a drug trafficker. at the end of the day, i think what concerns many activists who are opposed to placing more troops at the border is the idea that it could lead know. -- guest: we mean, the last time we sent national guard troochings to the border, stherp namesed in helping construct fences and engaged in technical support. doing office work so actual border patrol agents could be deployed. and so i think it's those kinds of roles that the administration expects these 1,200 troops to play in the next six months or however long they are going to be there. host: our next call from --

call comes from delecks. -- from dallas,, texas. caller: yes. i am here in dallas, texas. they just walk across the border when they want and it would be a different thing if they were coming over simply to pick food. in dallas, texas they have all the contracts for the city work. you can hardly find a hand full of black and maybe three white. they tear up our roads. they don't fix them properly. every piece of concrete they put down. i blame -- for it. he's the bun that said don't mess with texas and why should anybody give him the -- i don't see the reason they are going to go down there with no guns or anything. host: before i let you go. if you say putting more troops

on the border is not going to secure the border, what would you do? >> well, i let them come on like they been doing. caller: if you're not going to get guns or having them locked up or send them back, what good is a man on the border sitting there? guest: and her frustration her she made a valid point. what are authorities doing to make sure that people are not being hired for these jobs. again, if the issue is demand for labor and the willingness of customers to turn a blind eye to hiring indocumented immigrants for frankly in any way, it's not that they want to turn a blind eye, but they have overwhelm expertly-forged documents. it's really difficult for

customers in many cases to make heads or tales whether someone here illegally. and it's the government's responsibility. but there's no veem in place that effectively makes customers share. so i think it's a huge problem in a north we recollecter a nafta economy, where we have free movement of goods, free movement of capital. but we have this odd paradox where we don't have this free movement of labor. we can't send our workers into mexico, and you can't extend food here. 15 years running is the north american fmple well, good morning. my first time getting through. caller: mr. shirk, i agree with barack or. sma to send troops there. but tell your other viewers

what would hgoodspen when i wou go in their country illegal? would they arrest me? >> if they get rid of these things throughout the city and makes you resizz nafta. i think that would solve the whole problem left turn there. host: what would you try to do? i'm sorry, we've lost her. guest: well, first question about what are mexico's immigration laws? there are about 1 million mexicans living as we said about 3% 4647 of the american pop haitian. mexican nationals, people who are from mexico. i forget the that tisk. it's a mucpinmore percentage wh are foreign-born from mexico. thelosuestion is -- so in terms

of us going to mexico, i have to admit, and unfortunately im on this side of the border. i've overstayed my welcome in mexico a number of time. as a bored residenoin you have up to 72 hours to be in mexico without any kind 06 u.s. i.d. blemve been there and know that many americans do that kind of illin tal entry into mews?co. if you're there for 73 hours and you haven't filled outtyisa paperwork, you're technically in violation of fosme if you go deeper into mexicworke it's rea difficult to get there without your proper pgoodserwork. mexico has increasingly cracked down on u.s. undocumenteds in mexico. by making sthur that they are

carefully monitoring who comes and who goes fell one, what is mexico doing to create jobs for it's own people and to reduce the demands problem that we have on the u.s. side, but creating a supply of good-paying jobs in mexico. 24rr plenty of good jobs, the problem is they don't paytyery well. the minimum wage? mexico is about $5 a day. so what is mexico doing to improve wage around living standar job there and the secon question is how does mexico treat other my grants from other countries? not necessarily u.s. citizens. as i said, as we go into mews?co. but whasht central american my grants who are passing through mexico? and mexico has done a rather

poor job of secureing the southern border, and the treatment of immigrants passing through mexico is often mump worse than what we find in the united states. there's a lot of corruption and abuse from l t enforcement officials who are sort of the official representatives of the united states. they are not doing this officially, but will frequen6 c3 y shake down passing routes in the united states. or otherwise take adroutntage o this. host: our next call from rafael in mlotmi, florida. allerou hello. how are you doing? i am a spanish guy of dep sent and not necessarily, but the 7 the hours very explained it to me. and there's a war zone going on down there. we have a right toal protect our border. i feel bad for the beam on the border line. but you know,ism, a civillotn

was kiment on the stand. but you can use that on any aspect of society. something goes wrong. fax machine i'm an american itghoen. im l a -- i speak spanish. some people know i'm spanish. they don't do that. but they could pull me over and say can i have your drivers license, pleaseg for whatever reason. and then o'bama, please, im l a republican, but i love you. but please, hire people from exxon and bring them in. so you know all the people of all the number of -- host: all rigery. im l not sure that's so muy. question, but your sentiments agaiwha estatorce the l ts we have on the books. with regards specifically, you mentioned -- guest: rafael mentioned some of the provisions guarding the

be id.'s. the issue that launched this grand debate about whether to send truth ott try to at least within its state, require people to demonstrate that they have lin tal documented status be in the united states. basically, to estatorce federal immigration l ts at the state level. and i think there arelosuestio about whether that's appropriate for jurisdiction. there arelosuestio they about whether the arizona law would have contributed to racial inrofiling as tv's wri's.en an whether that's acceptable or not. they've since moved the bill or created a second bill which erically moves those provisions so raclotl profileing is no longer the issue. >> well, reafloin you may feel

with mlotmi. 80% is foreign born, if i'm not -- ariocumna and other parts of the southwest are not necessarily comfortable places for an -- a lin tal resident of the united states who is foreign born, necessarily to walk arounrie and they may feel much more intimidated by law enforcement. and many america they would say it's our right to not have to prove that we're citghoens. to walk around freely in this country. that it's an invasion of our inriroutcy. that's what's driving our concern, immigration with rights activists. and o'bama wants to doing?

about it and we can have an honest conversation about this in this country. host: the director of the transborder institute. he has been there since 2003 and has been with the -- from the un, conducts research and research on topics related to u.s. mexican border agents and and -- at san diego,.edu/t studies didibi. you're on the "washington journal" for democrats line. allerou good mothroing. host: go ahead, henry. guest: i want to make one of two statements and one question. in america we have something

that's referenced totyague ran as i. if you don't have i.d., the police have the rigery to take you to jail. and that's in every state and we ery down. s. rules of trespassing and keep out foumple there's nothing can uong with the man wanting t work and provide for his family. and maybe he snuck in last month. but shouldn't he figure out a way to make it right and not just stay for 10 years and not inay tf ses? >> the mpeot important thing is taxes. if you loure at bikiness and ho the world is made up. it's about that money. it takes plunge on the l, the love of it is the root of all evil, but it takes noun pay uctlls.

guest: we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to receiving immigrants from around the world. we admit more mexicans to this country legally than any other group of people. so why should we do more? why should we wide at any investigateds? but the reality is as many -- why should we widen the gate? but the reality is as many mexicans as we allow in the country, as many as 400,000 who come again, depending on the demands for labor, but who come here without documentation, so it's suggesting people in the

united states are eager to hire mexicans, eager to bring mexicans into the country, and there are more of them than there are visionas to be had. so i think that's where some of the fundamental discussion has to be in talking about reform. but the other point about taxes i think is really important. every single person, every living person who eats in america who buys a shirt or does practically anything in america pays taxes. anybody who pays rent pays taxes indirectly through property taxes through their landlord. so immigrants may not -- many of them do. many of them file a fake social security number to pay tax ins various ways but taxes are as we say unavoidable. like death. and the immigrants who pays sales tax in your state, the

undocumented immigrant who pays sales tax, who pays rent, who provides a social security number that's not even his own and pays into a system he will never benefit from will pay taxes but not pay enough because they are not here legally and not able to pay into the system as a legal resident or worker within the united states. so again, undocumented is bad. so we need fix the problem. >> what's been the response to the mexican government to the president's announcement that he wants to put 1,200 national guard troops on the corner? because guest: last week president coldiron was here twh washington, d.c. in some twaze statements he made during that state visit provoked this confrontation

even more. he said two things that angered republicans. one, he said the arizona law is an affront to mexico. two, he said that as mexicans are dying by the thousands to help wage the war on drugs to help prevent u.s. consumers from buying drugs, the u.s. needs to do more to stop the flow of firearms into instead of the u.s. needs to reenstate the assault "web gems" ban that we had previously, which mexicans believe would do a lot to stem the flow of high-powered weaponry into mexico. that really touch ad nerve for a lot of republican legislatures. and i think that's partly the response to this rush to move more troops to the border.

the o'bama administration, barry of our -- but they said look i'm not going to put 6,000. i'm put the 00 troops at the fworder. e4's trying to walk this very fine line along the border. between his interest in comprehensive i want integration reform and working with the republicans on the one hand and his interest in recognizing and maintaining a good relationship with our neighbor, mexico, and in particular, rick is about the drug of caller: good morning, and how are you? i got two foints make. the second is about the poll sticks of what's happening and

what's going to happen in november. to this fellow's agenda, and it's not good for him. i'm sorry to say. he looks like a nice man. working hard. i can see it in your soul what you want to do for these folks down there. but we can't take that poverty called vone pushing up. basically in my view, the southwest has been invaded, ok with, this poverty. we can't help the if i'm fortunate enough to have a home near vegas and toufts -- i watched las vegas turn from a multi cultural city, which was a terribly beautiful thing into just a strictly mexican city, ok? i watched all those casinos expand and get rebuilt. guess who is down there doing the jobs?

i don't want to hear about lettuce picking and that, they are taking good jobs. your boy down there in d.c. is going to get neutered this november and your window is going to closed. you better get something done now, because the way it looks for politics of the whole thing, he's getting neutered and you're not getting nothing. host: we'll leavitt there, greg. guest: well, a lot of interesting comments so ok. we're not talking about the world. we're taking about mexico. mexico is our number one neighbor and the number one source of imports into the united states. if we can just solve if -- solve it. we're not talking about

importing all of the world's workers into the united states. we're trying to figure out how to handle the excess supply of black market labor in the united states. and we're talking about 12 million or so people. there's only about 100 million mexicans total. so we don't have to absorb them all but we have to figure out what are we going to do with the obvious de hands that exist for mexican labor? whether it should be all tosme -- i think that's a valid ninth we really need to look at as we consider a comprehensive immigration reform. now whether my boy, as you sy or right president barack obama is the able to negotiate something before november, i think it depends entirely on the republicans. whether they are willing to play ball in response to to

say ok now let's talk about immigration reform. i don't think republicans are really willing to do that. it would be a win for the "boy." it would be a win for the administration. and i don't think that republicans want to give him a win going into the november elections. and so i think we're going to have a stalemate through the rest of the year. host: i want to get this call in from corpus kristie, texas, you're on our republican line. caller: yes. thank you, c-span, this is my first time getting through. i have a few points here. first of all, i believe we have to enforce the law and i am a mexican-american. fofere i think forced -- as for theer guns he mentioned earlier, we have asked mexico

for those serial numbers and they have refused to give us those serial nuns so we can identify where they came from. so they are not cooperating and i can't believe you compared your one hour compared to those who have been here over 10 years, and they stim don't want to learn to speak english. host: maria, before i let you go, were you born here or a naturalized citizen? caller: i was born here. guest: i'm confused by the comment of one hour. host: you mentioned in the conversation about staying over in mexico an hour beyond the 72 hours? upper oh. good point. and i don't mean to suggest the problem of u.s. undocument immigration fofe equivalent to the large number of undew

pointed mexicans we have in the united states. that was not my implication. the caller was asking what are mexican. guest: you say we need to enforce our laws and i completely agree with you. i'm totally pro law enforcement. but is what we have adequate enough? we have a tremendous demand for labor in the united states that is not acome dated by our existing laws. the people who are breaking the law are the customers who hire undocumented immigrants. and the people who cross the border. is that right so who are the biggest beneficiary of that? we are. the consumers who are able to get not just the lettuce cheaper, but they can get lower construction rates or on anything where you hire an

undocumented there are tremendous dissnevts to do the right thing all across the board. and i this i it's going to be tricky to try toal negotiate a reform package. in the meantime, you talk about billing a fence. the only thing building a fence has done is ironically to do the exact opposite of what we want it o do. enhance border security as we call it. putting more forces at the border has had two results. on the one hand with drug traffickers, it's actually made them more significant fop today you need to be a sophisticated, multi-million dollar operation in order bribe the right people, in order dig tunnel. so we've stweal created a to by making it -- by useing a

concentrated border to the sneaves mix can my grants have to go home. they used to come here on a seasonal basis but by increasing the rely on, to more heartache and tragedy at the border. because every year we have about 400 people who died trying to cross that border. we can say that's their choice and their fault. but the reality is we've pushed my grants to ever more deaths and extremes. in the years we have been doing, this thea that he keys come. it's going to require words that are are distant to the american landscape.

>> it's also going to require more time than we have this morning. david shirk, thank you so much for being on the "washington journal." >> thank you. host: this item you can read in hard copy or online during our break. the headline, house committee approves bill calling for black boxes in cars. the autosafety bill passed the house economy on wednesday mandating houses on -- we're going to get your thoughts on our conversation after we take this break. we'll be right back. >> survivors of the deep water horizon oil rig explosion testified this morning. the committee hearing will

focus on liability issues related to the oil rig explosion. that's live on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> the house committee will work on additional spending for this year. the sub mental measure sfoach >> in the today he was rock star. >> david and gene hideler. fife-time presidential candidate, henry clay is discussed on c-span's q & a. >> this holiday weekend non-fiction books and authors on c-span 2's book tv, and the perfect storm houffers -- 6

three days of book tv. memory cal day weekend get the whole schedule at book tv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we've got about 20 minutes left in this edition of the "washington journal." and we wanted to take your calls regarding black box ins cars. comes from an article in this morning's wash post. house committee aproves bill calling for black boxes in cars and the article goes on to say the measure passed on despite come paints foff >> and that some of the requirements would cost taxpayers and consumers too much. the bill, however, leaves the black box technical requirements and thus the cost,

up to the national highway traffic safety administration. waxman and others have argued that unintend acceleration have seen this nitsa, the national highway traffic safety administration was critically underfunded. the bill calls for a $9 fee. we peel talk more about this. let's take some calls. ski incorrectty, new york on our line or democrats. let's take your calls on that. >> hello. i'm calling about the to -- host: what do you think about black box ins zphars caller: i think it's more important to have chips in cars so that cars that are stolen and not

working, police officersical use a want from his car and stop the car that is offending. you're trying to leave the scene. and eliminate a lot of unnecessary debt with police chases. think that's the biggest improvement that you can that you could put in the national agenda, and the automakers should consider that. host: are you concerned at all. do you have any privacy concerns that maybe the government or car companies or whatever are going to be able to track your movement answered know a little more about you because these black boxs are in your car? >> no. i don't believe that the police are out there to are out there to intimidate you in any way. i think once you take an attitude like that, then you can't really succeed. and i think it damages the

police to even think about that. host: let's move on to warren, michigan, jim on our line for republicans. what do you think about black box ins cars? caller: i don't agree with that. i do agree with them being in planes and other things such as that. but we do have a right to privacy. caller: it's private property to attach black boxes is an invasion of my deprive have i. host: what if a loved one was in an accident heaven forbid and there was an accident that could tell investigators what cause that had accident? caller: well, that's a good thing, but they already have such a device in the vehicle called the three-second delay box. that will tell the investigators who if he braked

on time faund ask regulators about this little black box, they would be able to give you more information about it. but it's a three of second last pavep -- host: joseph on our independents line. your thoughts. caller: i just think in general it doesn't seem like it's something that would be that fwofle be mandatory and everything. it seems to me very little investigation is done in autozepts and the amount that would result until court cases over autozepts are pretty high. but i still don't see it could be that fwofle make it mandatory for every car to have a black box. >> jason, you're next on the "washington journal."

caller: yes, the thing about black boxes and cashes, i wouldn't be surprised if the insurance companies have money out into the legs, because it's something they can use her, and i just don't think it's right that people like insurance companies, attorneys and stuff like that, have intent mple host: in the article it says the bill also seeks to make the regulatory agents more effect if6. and it pro hibts hits ina employees from lobbying producers within a year of their unemployment. an analysis from the washington post found 33 former hits ina directors have been playing leading roles in three regulations. >> black yellow phones?

our next call from patricia on our republicans line. caller: good morning. my concern is that the bill is written. i think more in the interest to be more aggressive. and to have another venue of vehicle. a vehicle of getting money from the auto industry. from the auto industries. if this was mass transportation, i could see the need. these are privately-owned vehicles, and i'm against it. host: thanks for your call. next up is orlando, florida on our line for independents. go ahead, beng anyone? caller: about the little black boxes, sounds like government control to me. anyone whop knows anything about the simples, the newer

cars and how our earlier even if they did put this up there and next year's car pat rn, we have millions of cars that are older that will not have them, so what are we going to do about that? i think it's probably skwlust a boy to get money from our information and sell it to somebody or some how get moore taxes. you know. host: benjamin we're going to leavitt there. we got tweet, what's next black box ins people so o'bama can check every move you make? this from the associated press this morning. former justice says judicial experience is not an issue. former justice sandra day o'connor says lack of judicial experience shouldn't delay

o'connor's justices came without serving the -- the first woman to serve on the supreme court said that kagan, a former dean of harvard law school seems very well qualified academically. >> go ahead. caller: hello. i just wanted to let people know that even though i'm calling from arkansas, i am originally from oregon. i purchased a toyota tercel. in 1988. and on that car they told me at the time that i purchased it that it had a little black box in it. and they -- and that they were required to reveal its presence there. host: what does that little black box do, what you any tae?

>> well, it gives information if you were in a car accident, were you speeding? caller: were you going your normal speed? were you cautious? where were you at at the time the accident occurred? well, it happens that i have never had an accident, and by the way, i still drive. host: do you feel that that black box was an invasion of your privacy? caller: answer lutely not. that black box serves to show and serve that if there were an accident that i was not speeding or doing radical things, the fomple caller: i was the part of that and i

don't feel intimidated by it. there are so many people on the roads doing so many weird things, it's almost a safety factor. host: we're going to move on to david in missouri on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about black boxes in cars? caller: i think it's a sin. it's the old thing our president and congress have been using. never let home the is no and to get more control over the car companies, and basically in the end control us, because black boxes do more than what that lady said. they tell you where you go, ouven you go and all that. and they have been wanting something to get information like that so they can find out where we go. if we try set up blocks and

reno ever faux i am calling to say that i also feel that it's an invasion of privacy. and no matter who gets killed in a car wreck, does that bring the person back? i don't think so. and remember, those who are willing to give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security deserve neither. thank you. host: in the "washington times" this morning, this headline, iran urges o'bama to accept new swap deal. the iranian president warned lit miss hi as a ploy. host: details over iran's nuclear program have threatened to close the door on president o'bama's already fading policy

of outreach to tehran. rita on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say that i agreed with the last caller that an invasion of privacy, absolutely. but i also want to say i have an onstar in my chevy truck and i believe it already does all those things already. and i don't know sfow caller: but still check and see where i went and see who i'm talking to and i hear there's an intercom so they can hear inside the camplet that's a total invasion of deprive sifment we deserve neither if we're willing to give up one. thank you very much. marv: host: from "the new york times" this morning, saided to democratic lunch, senator arlen

specter is a politician who suggested losing but in pennsylvania it was it is first time that senator harry reid, the majority leader, and no doubt other lawmakers had heard or met mr. sestak. and this is apparently where the meeting of the minds took place. buster from mastercard on our line for -- from mass which you sets on our line for republicans. caller: they should be focusing on the 7 million people that have fallen off the unemployment rolls. not where they are eliminateing the employment thattisty, to

they want to get the people too take away their own rights and manipulate people to want to strip away their own civil liberties by putting black boxes in cars. they create a problem like these priuses and they supposedly have a problem. oh, yeah. we're upset about the computers not working in the cars. host: and we'll leavitt there. sandra from lawton, oklahoma. caller: i agree with what the previous caller was saying that these black boxes are an invasion of our privacy. i think that this is one step almost like the big brother shurks once you're inside your car, it's a very intimate surrounding. you have private conversations and i just feel very uncomfortable about it. >> even though this black box might be able to provide information should heaven forbid you get into some sort

of an foff >> because i know that we have experts that can recreate accident scenes, and i would just rather keep it like that. i like my privacy. host: below the fold, u.s. debt flirtsswith unlucky number 13. that is 13 trillion. steve writes news reports have jumped the gun in declaring it. lawmakers and staffers on capitol hill are awaiting it with a morbid glee, and some congressional aides suggest the government slow walking it. this case it's the nation's debt which has hovered at $13 trillion for days and according to the you been secure foff -- which is hovering right now around $12,995,779,490,442.52.

next up is hilliard, florida, roy on our line or independents. go ahead. >> yes. i think the black box is an invasion of your privacy. to me it's just a sign of the time. like i said. like it they are still going to to caller: people and congress and everybody can control your whereabouts and your movements and all. i think it's wrong. i don't think it should be in the vehicles. host: thank you for your call. next up is gaithersburg, joe. you're on our show. caller: thank you. first of all, i'd like to ask a question. is the black box going to transmitt information wirelessly? is that one of the features on the black box? if not it can't possibly be an

invasion of privacy. because we're constantly in our vehicles, with oufferses, and seems to me the people that cause accidents and me being one of -- i'm a safe driver and sometimes i speed when i'm in a hurry and the black box said that. and it seems to me that these are the people that are offended by the invasion of the black box. but without the wireless transmitting of information to a satellite or something, where is the invasion coming from? host: we'll leavitt there. in the baltimore sun netanyahu and o'bama to meet. out of jer reduce lem. president barack obama has invited benjamin netanyahu to the white house for a fence-mending visit.

white house chief of staff rahm delivered the invitation in person to the netanyahu in jer reduce lem wednesday while on a family stroys israel. after a public dispute over settlement policy. portland, oregon, lucy on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. that is really great subject. i just have two quick points or comments. one is, legislation putting black boxes in our private vehicles is nothing more than a affirmative louse traction translated -- number two, if they want us to believe that this is for public safety reasons, i'd be more convinced of their sincerety about public

safety if they were to prosecute george bush and dick cheney for the mass murder of over 1 million iraqis for oil and profit and when they start prosecuting wall street criminals and people from b.p. and stuff like that. these people are decidedly more dangerous to this nation in terms of our long-term safety, internationally, our public health and safety. and they totally impact the lives of every human being in this country by just one act of right now polluteing the coast. host: going to move on to will you have begin, texas. james on our line for independents. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: good morning. certainly enjoy c-span shows in the early morning. but you seem to be somewhat confused between a data recorder and an emergency locater transmitter. i think you ever