is going on at the golf? met -- gulf. maybe you might have information. thanks for taking my call. host: that is the first time i have heard fema mentioned during this oil spill. very interesting question. that's it for "the washington journal" today. book tv on the weekend, remember that, on c-span2, 48 hours of nonfiction books. lots of good stuff coming up. you can go to book tv.org to find out the schedule. and "washington journal" will be here 7:00 a.m. saturday and sunday. right now we will take you to a panel. this is on afghanistan. it is being held at george washington university. there homeland security policy institute. a member of afghan parliament and chairman of the afghan parliament economic committee will be speaking shortly. here is the start of this panel on afghanistan. .

>> we have had ambassadors representing their countries in the united states to talk about the challenges their countries are facing domestically and regionally. we are delighted today and we have competition. the united states is playing slovenia and the world cup this morning right now. admittedly, if i were not here, i would be glued to the tv like my friends.

there were fewer consequences if i were living in somalia were watching soccer is not an option. the stakes in the outcome for today's discussion as great as the world cup is, are much greater. the future of afghanistan not only has great impact to the united states but most important to the afghan people. we are delighted today to have someone share his perspectives and thoughts as to where afghanistan is today, where it is going in the future. on fortunately, most of the news we hear in the united states is really positive. there was a short article in the "new york times" that there are $1 trillion of resources on tapped in lithium. afghanistan has its hands fall

ull. they have a difficult set of issues but in afghanistan is a contact sport where politicians who stand up against the taliban and other forces find themselves in very tough positions. s quoting assassinations. last week, there was a 7-year- old who was hanged because his grandfather was trying to push back on the taliban in the region. obviously, this has some significant consequences for all of their folks. i just met daoud today but i read some of his statements over the years. this is someone who is fighting not only for a better afghanistan and for the afghanistan future but someone who is standing up and making bold statements vis a vis

corruption and the need for faster, quicker, and better political reform and afghanistan. politics everywhere is tough, but i think it is that much more so in afghanistan. we are delighted today to be able to host daoud who is an mp, a chairman of the economic committee in afghanistan to share thoughts with us. maybe 20 minutes and we will open up to questions and answers. let me welcome our c-span viewers this morning. daoud sultanzoy, thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you for coming and thank you for the opportunity. i would like to thank frank ensure institute for giving me this opportunity. above all, the most important thing i would like to say today which is the most important part of my statement is to thank the

people of united states, their generosity, their sacrifices, and their willingness to persevere against all odds were politics dictates other things. the united states at this point in afghanistan recognize that the stakes are so high. does not just about the stability or security and afghanistan, but the extension of that stability or lack there of can affect the region and also beyond the region because if we look at the demographics, about 85% of the population is below age 25. i thank the people of the united states. we appreciate the sacrifices that you're young men and women

have made and the fallen soldiers in that country will not be forgotten. this is for freedom and dignity of human beings, not just one country. it is easy for politicians to use slogans like civilian casualties to remind us of their presence, it is important to recognize the sacrifices and say these people are there for a cause. even civilian casualties are misinterpreted and misrepresented. they happen when the taliban and the enemies of freedom are hiding in civilian areas and because the civilian casualties, but it is not talked about in that fashion because it is not popular. i will tell you a story -- about two months ago, in a village

near kabul, about 60 kilometers west, there is a house -- there was a house and people got together and said somebody had burned the koran, the holy book of muslims. a few people in parliament got on their soapbox and tried to take advantage of that opportunity and said the united states troops have done this. we should have the courage to stand up and bring people back to reality. i took that liberty and said to wait and investigate and see if the americans are so naive and reckless to come to a moslem country and step on the holy book of the people who are all muslims, does that make sense?

two or three days later after the investigation was finished, it was discovered that the taliban had done this. politicians have to be courageous and sometimes stand up and tell the truth, especially in those parts of the world because everything has become personalized, systems are built around personalities, and system's collapse after those personalities are gone. therefore, that is what we do not have continuity. that is why we are fighting for a system where people count, systems count, not personalities, who use systems as their toys. after looking at the audience, i think it would be best for me to touch upon a few things very briefly and then open the floor for questions. i'm sure it will be more productive that way. i would like to revisit the situation in afghanistan after 9/11.

after 9/11, this became a popular subject. there was unprecedented media coverage of the car -- of the crisis which created an unexpected level of expectation. that expectation was not managed. some of the expectations were realistic and some not. some of the attention was genuine and some was just a byproduct of the intrinsic attention but caused everything. on one hand, the unprecedented amount of media coverage, the aid money and the attention of the international community and on the other and the inability of the afghan government, the weakness of the afghan government created a complicated situation which was mismanaged

by the afghan government and we still have not had the courage and strength to adopt -- acknowledge that. we have become, in the 30 years or afghanistan, we have turned into a nation that we feel the sense of self entitlement that everybody should help us but we should not take any responsibility. the political leadership in our country has not taken the leadership to emphasize and reinvigorate the necessity of national responsibility. the national responsibility should start from the top, from the political leadership itself that has been lacking in afghanistan. that is why when the mission started in afghanistan, the people were wholeheartedly very enthusiastic and totally with the mission. slowly, corruption, lack of rule

of law, that governments, some bad choices by the afghan government, and at least the lack of the ability of the international community to recognize certain sensitivities and cultural differences and other things created a recipe that was actually creating a failure in front of our eyes. slowly, people started drifting away from the process. the government of afghanistan, the leadership, did not have the ability to recognize that and stop that. the gap became a vacuum, a void, in which the people who were on happy about the government, maybe regional players in iran and pakistan, perhaps other

countries in the region and beyond, they found this opportunity to instigate further instability because america was there and because the west was there and this was an opportunity for them to get even with america. we cannot ignore those factors, but the most important factor that i always come back to and always point to is our own self responsibility as a nation, as a government. that has been very anemic, to say the least. the result of a weak government, the result of a lack of rule of law, the result of the population's alienation created a vicious circle. the government now lacks the perceived legitimacy that should exist in a government after an election. that is lacking there. that in itself has become a

negative energy. the government itself, in order to regain that legitimacy, instead of going to the people to find out legitimacy, they are trying to go to the donor countries and other countries who are helping us and they are seeking approval and legitimacy elsewhere where legitimacy should be with the people of the country. this is another mistake that we are making. we are busy looking at washington, at tokyo, at berlin, at paris for approval and legitimacy. the easiest place to go and seek that legitimacy is in the villages of afghanistan and the suburbs and the homes of the people are suffering from corruption and lack of rule of law and of the resulting effects. for example, you all have cell phones. you all have a electricity bills. how many of you go to pay your

electricity bill and have to bribe people to accept your money that you should be paying? in afghanistan, i have experienced myself, a parliament member, i asked someone to take care of the electricity bill and go pay for it and he estimate what we have to bribe someone to pay the bill. this is unacceptable. in order to pay your telephone bill you have to bribe people? if you want to deposit or withdraw your money from a bank and you have to bribe the bank to accept your money or give you your money. nobody will accept this. that is where the to the legitimacy should be reborn. i think we need to pay attention to those little things. the little things make the biggest difference in countries like afghanistan.

i don't want to predict doom and gloom. in the past eight years, the situation that has created the attention that the world has paid to afghanistan has given us some by products, freedom of speech, the media, the chievements in the the telecommunications area, the legitimate commerce. these are all things that people start with their own initiatives and investments and efforts of free enterprise. , people who are trying to and make a difference have created opportunities. these are at stake at this point. if we allow things to reverse

and the course is teetering on that edge of reversing itself, if we allow things to reverse, those freedoms that are becoming part of a daily life of the afghans are at jeopardy. we have to be very careful. i am very astonished when i hear in the past few months in different capitals of the world that we are not in afghanistan to promote democracy. we don't want american-style democracy or french or german or a european-style democracy. when you live and a society in the 21st century where people are looking for basic services, for basic individual civic freedoms that humanity needs to conduct its daily affairs, for good governance, for better justice system, these are the essence of democracy.

afghans are no different than americans or europeans when they see those things. all they are looking for is a government that can provide basic services, a government that guarantees the freedoms that every individual should enjoy, a government that should ensure a better justice system. that in itself becomes the driving force for democracy, for people's participation to take care of their daily affairs, to trade in a system where they can participate in governance. for lack of a better government in afghanistan, in order to allow people to conduct their daily affairs and govern themselves, this takes us to a situation where democracy becomes the only choice for the people who want to improve their lives. whether we like it or not, democracy is the choice that people cannot walk back on. it is one of the only

alternatives. the international community and those societies who enjoy it and are sitting on a moral high ground and join democracy, for them to say that they are not interested in democracy in a country like afghanistan, it will sound hypocritical to our society. it sounds the way in the entire islamic world. if we do not do anything, what will happen? those societies will fall into the hands of tyrannies and extremism and can we afford that? look at france. just a few months ago, afghan refugees, turkish and pakistan it refugees and refugees from she like that were in camps outside paris. they were all young. they were not there to have a good time. they were there because they were looking for some freedoms. , economic and political.

if we do not pay attention to countries like afghanistan, if we don't pay attention to provide an opportunity and help those societies to have ever -- better governance and systems, where would the tens of millions of young people go to? either they will be absorbed by extremism in their own societies. some who can travel will go to the closest place is like european countries. can the united states of for that long run? it is only logical and practical to create the opportunities in their own countries for them to thrive and prosper and for them to at least lead a dignified life and the 21st century. -- in the 21st century. i earlier talked about our achievements in afghanistan mostly in the private sector.

in the past few years, the economic mafia which has consisted of drug cartels, warlords, and those who gain government positions, they have created a political mafia in the country that is threatening the after the president all -- presidential election that of the afghan people are waiting for. if we do not pay attention to his parliamentary election coming up, provide the security to hold the elections, then the only opportunity that the people of afghanistan have to bring in self-confidence and regain the trust in the system that they are embarking on an the experiment they are undertaking, we would have lost a very important opportunity, in my opinion it behooves our

allies, especially the united states of america, especially those of you who are aware of the value of democracy, the value of people possibility to exercise their opportunity to raise their voices for a free and fair election if it happens. the most important caveat is the security. right now, the latest report -- at least half of the voting centers in the country were declared yesterday unsafe or unmanageable because of security. i am not saying that elections should be held to check a box or calendar. elections should be held so people can participate. if not, the question should be answered in the next few weeks.

we will have better answers that if the security situation improves and we can hold fair elections and general elections in most of the country, then i think this is a good opportunity. otherwise, we have to weigh this very seriously. we should not just hold elections to fill political calendar is. s. i don't think we should shortchange the taxpayers of the world who are helping us or the afghan people. there are other issues that i would like to talk about. i would also urge good questions that will be raised. i am sure i will address those things. there are three other issues that are probably very briefly i will touch upon very briefly. we had the peace jurga.

people made comments about it. people said it was unnecessary and some said it was a waste of time. i look at in a realistic -- and look at it in a realistic fashion. civic exercises of that sort are more beneficial than not having it. i participated in it for that purpose. the majority of the participants were not elected. there was close to 1700 participants. the majority were not elected. out of the 1700, about 300 of them were elected members. i was one of them. there were 38 committees and i visited most of them. there were many who wanted to derail the freedoms we have

achieved in the media and in the field of free expression and they wanted to curtail those things. i recognize the bat so we visited every committee. there were vigorous discussions. or vigorous debate and disagreement. -- there were vigorous debates and disagreements. none of the recommendations are binding. they came up with communiques. i make sure before it was helped to change the name. it was initially named the peace jurga and then we said that in the presence of a parliament or constitutional system that has the separation of powers, this jurga has no legal jurisdiction

or authority to come up with any sort of resolution is. that is what the name was changed from peace jurga to peace consultants of jurga. the government of the afghanistan can take those recommendations and turn those into the main points of our policy and bring it to the parliament for approval. that was a good achievement in my opinion. another thing that i would like to talk about is that managing the afghanistan affairs -- lately there have been rumors or discussions that afghanistan will be subcontracted to pakistan again. i hope that the united states as the main driver of the effort in afghanistan does not look at afghanistan as an extension of anybody's power in that region.

afghanistan is a nation. it consists of proud people. we are as proud as americans who should be proud of what they are. we may have poverty, we may have had wars, we may have had bad governance, but one thing that is important that i disagree with some so-called afghan experts when they read about afghanistan and they say that afghans do not want governance and do not like rule of law. they say they are unruly people. they forget to pay attention to our to past centuries' we have never been governed. we have always been role. a group of people who have never been governed, how can you conclude that they do not like government. how can you conclude that they do not like rule of law if everything has been at the whim of a few individuals, kings, princes, warlords.

we write books about the nation that has been rolled and we say they do not like governance or rule of law. that is a reckless conclusion, in my conclusion -- in my opinion. afghans want to be part of this world. the world, with all its problems, requires harmony. with all of its challenges ahead of it, the world requires harmony and cooperation. even if a society does not like it, we cannot just leave it and walk away. we have to provide the tools that that society can embark on the same journey that the rest of the world is on, in my opinion. for that reason and for other reasons, afghanistan should be looked at from the pakistani lens or any other lens. afghanistan has its own lens and

we have to fight it out and clean it up and look through it. -- we have to find it out and clean it up and look through it. $írwe have to prove it to that region that prosperity and progress in the region, economic opportunities, can create an opportunity for afghanistan to bridge between the indian subcontinent and central asia. that is an obvious thing. that brings these to my last point. this is about 8 $1 trillion of natural resources that afghanistan is sitting on. we have been privy to this information for a while. it is trillions of dollars of natural resources. the raw materials from china and

beyond, it would behoove us to pay attention to how to take advantage of those resources without giving it into the hands of corrupt practices are giving it into the hands of looters who will not only lose but pollute. e -- loot but police. it is a blessing but it can be a curse, also. i would like to thank the people of the united states and thank your institute and you ladies and gentlemen for being here and i hope i can answer all your questions. thank you very much [applause] >> thank you very much for a very comprehensive picture and one that people need to hear and understand.

obviously, we have many unanswered questions and i am not sure we are always asking the right questions, but i will take the advantage of setting where i am asked the first and open it up to the audience here. by the way,loot and pollute is a good bumper sticker for america. this question goes without saying that economic growth and prosperity cannot occur without security underpinned by the rule of law. á=0"really is the rule of law? once you get outside of kabul, it is a different sort of territory. i was struck by the comments made by the recent resignation of the intelligence minister who had claimed that karzai felt that the united states and the

west was not committed and is casting his lot with the taliban. that does not bode very well for long-term picture. i would be curious what your thoughts are on that particular statement. also, how can we actually get to the point where we can have enforcement of laws and the spirit behind those principles. i would be curious how you see that potentially emerging. finally, the peace jurga or the peace consulting jurga -- message that came out loud and clear from the recent events which is a positive development , thank goodness, the homicide bomb attempt which was not successful physically but it was successful in terms of getting the western media to focus on

that event. i think a taliban is recognizing that even failures tactically can become strategic successes. how do we change that to focus on the things that matter? thank you. >> as i mentioned earlier, one of the ways that we can take care of some of the problems that you alluded to with corruption at the village level or province level or national level or even international corruption which we cannot ignore which exists in many practices, in a country like afghanistan, the rule of law and from top down with respect to law and order, nepotism, all these circles of influence and

interested parties who are aligned with the president or with other groups, they have created an aura and a group around them were people look at it and say they are invincible and beyond reproach and are untouchable. they have political influence and they have arms and they have gained a lot of wealth. all these things have combined. -pthey have created a group that sooner or later, if we are not careful, will control the destiny of that nation for many decades to come. rule of law and accountability, in my opinion, not only nationally, but international, should not be just a rhetorical slogan.

what has -- as the united states or the rest of the international community help afghanistan accountable? i have not seen it. this sends a mixed signal. this is like raising a child that is misbehaving. if you give them what they want without holding them responsible, what happens eventually? holding everybody accountable and responsible -- >> you are not saying that things have to get worse before the batter? >> no, things are worse. we have to turn things from rhetoric to practice. i was president -- i was present at a gathering where the president open day seminar about

fighting corruption for five months ago. they created a new entity, the high commission to fight corruption. my comment immediately after the gathering to the media was that we do not need commissions and committees and seminars and conferences to fight corruption anywhere in the world. if you have laws and prosecution and courts and you have crux, what else do you need to do? you don't need to give seminars your. need to put those four things together and get results. there is no lack of corrupt officials in the country. we have laws, courts, police, prosecution. we need the political will to put the whole thing together. i was sitting about 3 meters away from where the rocket fell outside where the jurga was held.

security even in the united states, you cannot provide 100% secured when it comes to terrorism. terrorism is a phenomenon where civilians participate in secure their environment. giving them the incentive to participate can give us the most percentage of security. there is no such thing as 100 cents on security and your and the world, in my opinion. for that sackingm the best thing i can say is that this sacking was in the works of months before this jurga and i saw the signs. naturally, this is the consolidation of power when people want to turn into a strong man, they consolidate power and they go into areas

which are the most obvious areas would security apparatus and clean that up and bring their closest people. that is what i can say about this. this was in the mix for weeks and weeks and months before. >> finally, the taliban and other entities, i would be curious, a western corn fighters you are aware of in the region. >> about 4000 non-afghan fighters are among the taliban forces. i would say about 20,000 full- fledged or mediocre taliban -- i don't want to turn it into [laughter] different types of disease.

some of the taliban are very hard core. there are very few in my opinion. others are profiteers of war. there are unhappy groups who are turning to weapons to use for their daily living. all in all, the alternate estimated to be around 20,000. -- the whole thing is estimated to be around 20,000. you will see the numbers swell because there will try to corrupt more people to disrupt the election. that is where you'll see an upsurge in violence and more insecurity. i think we are already seeing those signs. in the winter days, it is a shrinking bank. they go and hibernate and when the snow melts, they come back.

>> we will 0 but up to a group of rna questions. please identify yourself -- we will open it up to the group if you have any questions. please identify yourself. >> you talk about personalities being the driver verses the system. how do we ensure that the people are the drivers? >> that is an important question. it has been eight years that i've talked to the colleagues in the. international the on the one hand, billions of dollars are being spent on many things. the most obvious thing is that there is a huge imbalance in the country in political activities in the country.

we have islamic parties. we have the regional players who are pumping money into political organizations and media organizations. the international community has not been able to listen to the voice of those who want to create pluralistic national political organizations. the only way you can create a nation that believes in systems is to create the core of the system which is political organizations that are beyond regions and beyond linguistic divide and religious devise. afghanistan has consisted of summit regions and sections and tribes. only uniting the ingredients for the future of the country to make a nation that sustains itself politically is to create -- is to allow the parties to

grow and balance the imbalance that exists. the talk is going on by the former number allies and others that we need to change the system department three system. let's assume today that we change that system to a parliamentary system go will be winning most of the seats in the parliament? the islamic groups? the extremist groups, the political mafia, the drug cartels in power in the country. the majority of the people will not have a voice and that parliament. then you will have political turmoil in years to come. political organizations, pluralistic national political parties is the answer and we have not paid attention to that yet. >> it has been said that the politicaljq=xqj9 forecasting he astrology look respectable. i would be curious what you see

as the political forecast for afghanistan. >> if we leave things the way they are today i think we will have a worse parliament and we have had. we will have more extremist elements in the parliament. we would have the influence of some of the banks that are the fronts for black money in that country and in that region. we will have more people aligned with drug lords and fringes, not the mainstream society. it would be a parliament that would be controlled by one or two people in that country. that does not bode well for the future of a stable afghanistan or in afghanistan that can be a good ally to the west. some of the countries in that region are waiting to fill these voids. for them to fill up those seats

and they are doing it. they are spending money and and they havthey have had a long hiy of war. they are alive and well and reactive. >> president karzai has made the point that he is at least open to the idea of reintegrating the more moderate elements of taliban into afghan society and the new system. can that strategy be viable? we are experiencing the system building you have been describing and also pursuing the more extreme elements on the battlefield. >> it will be very naiveto say we could eliminate those who

identify with the taliban. in many ways it is a tribal country and most pushtun areas where security is lacking are not all taliban. because of the geography where they go to their sanctuaries, to pakistan and iran and training camps, that area has become the most unstable area. we have taliban who belong to the northern parts of the country but nobody talks about that. it is the international community which has to realize one thing, that is the afghan government's job to create room for all persuasions -- all political persuasions and afghanistan. one mistake was made which is probably by the fall that the

number alliance availed itself to u.s. forces and when the united states can do afghanistan, they saw everything through the eyes of the northern allies for that created a recipe for future disasters that we are experiencing now. we saw everything through their lens and their interpretation and their support system that existed. that created a political imbalance in the country. that was one factor for many afghans defecting or at least going to the sidelines and becoming indifferent about the process. otherwise, had we recognize that in time and given them a sense of ownership in the process and the new government and the new change, i don't think we would see what we are seeing today. i think we have to create room very carefully and cleverle and maneuver a process for those who

are identified with a telling can come back and create a legitimacy in the government and system where the ranks of the taliban will shrink back to where they were in 2001. >> what would the litmus test before reconciliation. how would that be overseen overtimed? what could you see the principles being? >> this would be processed for there has to be a process of confidence building. between those who want to talk with the afghan government and those of us who are credible afghan politicians who can become involved in the process. we have to take the lead and create a confidence-building process. that process will probably require certain bold measures and moves by both sides, by the taliban and the afghan government and by our international allies.

it is hard to list all of those things, but there is in an array of things that one can do from our side. the taliban have to realize that they cannot continue fighting for ever. nor will they talk to a week after a government. we have to talk to them from a position of strength and moral high ground. we have to regain the moral high ground first. >> let's turn to another big question that people are grappling with and that is looking at regional solutions. you have some big countries in the neighborhood. i would be curious whether it can be done without regional approaches. i am thinking is the subtly of india and i read i'm curious what your thoughts are on that. >> is probably one of the most essential elements of bringing

stability to afghanistan and stability to the region. the calculation of the region has to change. i was in india about one month ago. i was talking to the center for strategic studies and defense analysis of india. we were talking about several issues that are contentious issues between pakistan and india. kashmir was one. they want a weaker afghanistan. this has to change. we're not in the 1950's or 1960's or 1970's. this is a new era and economic cooperation in the region and economic opportunities, the fast and speedy advance of indian economic growth.

as pakistan is falling behind rapidly, this is dangerous for pakistan and an enticement for pakistan to recognize and wake up and take advantage of the regional economic growth. we have to create an opportunity where there is a level playing field. afghanistan has to prove that it is a country, a legitimate nation. we have the right to be there as a nation. we do not have to apologize to pakistan or india or i ran to choose our allies the afghan government should not be apologetic to the rest of the world for being allies of the united states. the united states and pakistan are good allies and that is good for both countries. why should we apologize? z)hañhas pakistan ast who they d the allies with? -- asked us who they should the

allies with text why should we apologize to the rest of the world for being allies with the west? we have experienced alliances with the soviet union. we have been neighbors with pakistan and iran. we have that experience. the united states is not going to bag afghanistan and taken away. those countries in the region have territorial designs or territorial dispute with afghanistan. it is only natural for a logical afghan government to strategically make a decision and exploited to the people of pakistan and the world that we do not need to apologize for being somebody's allies. does a very natural decision that a nation should make. -- it is a very natural decision that a nation should make. we should speak very courageously in front of the world that this is our right

after recognition of that right, which should have a level playing field with pakistan, iran. we can build up a level of cooperation and respect. >> [garbled] [unintelligible]

how can the united states and afghanistan prioritize for going forward? there is an economic global crisis around the world. can you address that as to what should be done? >> when the afghan national society came to me in the parliament and i looked at them, there were so many priorities. when you have too many priorities, there is no priority in my opinion the ands had a nice wish list. some of those things were achievable. some of them were not. when you draft a plan of that sort, you have to base it on reality and capabilities you

have. also, the strategies' you have built. we all want to build 15 highways in five years and we want factories and production and electricity. ands was not practical list. we have to revisit afghanistan's needs, requirements, and expense, and realistic capabilities and then recalculate all of those things and create a new calculation. 85% of people's livelihoods depend on agriculture in that country. in the past seven years, from the billions of dollars that into afghanistan, only to order

$47 million was dedicated to agriculture. -- only 200 set -- only $247 million was dedicated to agriculture. we should have paid more attention to agriculture from the very beginning. that would have given us the impetus and the necessary decision making to pay attention to roads and other things that are right priority and then we can go to exports of those products. that would propel the economic growth, but we did not pay attention to that. we raised the subject during ands and we are revisiting this thing and pay more attention to agriculture. the $18 billion shortfall is inaccurate in my opinion. that is just a number that they are projecting.

this is based on projections so nothing is realistic in that number, in my opinion. if you look at the ands, this might be a shortfall but if you design a realistic plan, we will come up with more realistic numbers. there are huge potentials. we have not paid attention to those potentials in a practical fashion. we have not paid attention to agriculture, energy, mining, tourism is a long shot because of security. >> i have two questions. >> may sure they are easy. >> this is a government that has

to be rebuilt. how will you rebuild it? two, you have a national security structure in afghanistan. we have a policeman in kabul and banks have been going terribly wrong. where's the money come from for this after we leave? >> this takes us back to the original point was making. the best security that a nation can have through the participation of its citizens. you cannot secure a nation by

military and police alone. the united states is a major example. community involvement and participation empowers people and gives them the ingredients with which bacon feel good about that -- in which which they can feel good about the process. in that process, they feel a sense of ownership of they become a part of it. we have not done that in afghanistan for the afghan government feels that the afghan people should report alleged that they are rolling them. --ruling them. the waiter and afghan restaurant, you should be happy that he comes and talks to you. in the united states that the opposite. we need to create this culture in that country in terms of seven responsibility. 30 years of war has ruined that

nation in many ways. no one has the courage to talk about that. no one has the courage to take the leadership and reinvigorate the self responsibility that a nation -- that the people of the nation should have. not only in daily life but in terms of security. in order to create a good army, where do you recruit them from? the people. if they do not have that culture, how do you turn regional individuals to think about regions and linguistic devices into a national army. you have to instill in them national culture and that can only happen if you have a leadership that inspires people towards end. we have not had that yet, unfortunately. everything in afghanistan has been created based on allocations. we have to give groups different amounts of money.

you cannot trade a nation or a government that way. everything should be based on professionalism, performance, and dedication and credibility. we have been lacking in that, in my opinion. the same answer goes with the national army and national police. 500,000 is the total number of national army and national police projected. afghanistan with all the natural resources in our hand, it will be difficult to sustain that military and security force. the basic civil responsibility and sense of duty and the government should institute those things. people cannot do that. we are running the risk of turning back country, the culture that has its grip on

that country is a culture of entitlement, a culture of handouts, a culture of drugs and war. we have to change that. . .

>> if nato does not participate in carrying its own burden the members in eastern europe have some sort of participation in the afghan operation. but it is a disproportionate participation. the united states is carrying 99% of the burden, almost.

i'm not saying they should have 30,000 troops, either, but the distribution of responsibility in nato is not there, and it does not send a good signal, even to those who want to exploit the situation in the region. they see it as some sort of disarray, at least to be politically correct. parliamentary elections are not the participation of nato -- the participation of nato in afghanistan has to be balanced by all nations. the european countries that talk about democracy, the countries to talk about non-military solutions for the problem of afghanistan, this is the time for them to secure good elections, so that we can go to the non-military solution in the

country for the future. >> i am glad you brought that up, because that is a significant set of issues, and if you read -- the check is not always very good vis-a-vis local opinions in europe. it is ironically the new nato countries that are more in these est to than others. but how are you getting that message -- that are more enthusiastic than others. but how are you and other afghan leaders getting that message across, not only nato, but the europeans to get larger and others? i would like to build on one of the other questions. the question that i had is can afghanistan transform to where we would like it to be with comet karzai at the helm? >> i think -- i will be very,

very straightforward with this answer. i think we have to create the opportunity for the people of afghanistan that peopl -- the personality does not matter. democratic systems should not depend on or two or three individuals. they should come and have the chance and played the role within the confines of the rules of law. they come and do their thing and move on. the same thing should apply to afghanistan we cannot allow afghanistan to become a new dynasty of brothers and sisters and cousins and war lords and drug lords. the united states and european countries have this opportunity in the islamic world and a pop first countries that afghanistan -- and impoverished countries that afghanistan is a project to produce something for

new generations that consists of, by the way, a large majority of the population of that region can look and say that this new world is working to rule of law, people's participation, governance, civic responsibility, systems work, not individuals. karzai or no karzai, we should -- the last question i was asked in india was do you think there is an alternative to mr. karzai? it is a very insulting question to ask a nation that has 30 million people, who was mr. karzai nine years ago? no one asked that question. nationally, there are people -- if anything, these eight or nine years have produced opportunities that have grown into credible positions that can create systems that can sustain

and last beyond personalities. >> specifically, with other countries have made a commitment -- >> yes, unfortunately, there are two or three things going on three years ago, the people should not listen to that, because the media is talking about u.s. withdrawal in -- the people should not misinterpret that, because the media is talking about u.s. withdrawal in 2011. it is the beginning of probably a long process, and yet, australia, canada, and holland had scheduled withdrawal from afghanistan long before that. in 2005 or 2006, they announced the schedule one of the -- they announced the schedule. one of them was leaving this year, two next year.

that was announced a long time ago. there is no relation between that and what mr. obama has announced a few months ago. >> any other questions here? please. >> i am specifically curious about the copper mines, the scandal of sorts. what is being put in place to be ensured that the mineral bidding is transparent? >> this is a very important test for afghanistan and the international community and those countries who want to come and exploit the opportunity and loot and blue, as i said -- loop and pollute. if you go to africa, this has happened.

the process requires good laws and good operators at the helm. for five years ago, they started a process of procurement for this copper mine. that process has been questioned. there are many, many questions about that process. other than copper, there are the minerals in that mine. -- other minerals in that mine. in order to produce energy, there are contracts for coal, and that is any question, in my opinion, because the amount of coal that is expected to produce energy for the mine is twice as much as is needed for the production of energy. the rest of the energy is sold in the market. that in itself has to be

questioned and revisited. donor nations participating and bankrolling the afghan security -- in bankrolling afghan security and development also have the burden to join us in the trading process in which we have a transparent procurement system in place where not only company's bid, but we had an experienced three months ago where a company from the region had bid on oil exploration projects in the north. they came and locked the project, won the bid, and for six months -- later on it was discovered that they had no ability to perform. countries can lock mines in afghanistan without exploring it. we have to prevent that.

>> i am not a geologist nor a businessman, but how many years are we looking at to be able to benefit? >> it depends on the type of mines. i look into this a little more in depth -- >> very valuable for airlines -- >> airlines, cell phones, computers. by lithium stock. -- buy lithium stock. [laughter] depending on the types of mines, some are easily extracted and processed, some take time, because the infrastructure that is required. some of the requirements would be the roads to some of these regions. the other one would be energy. we have been sitting on our hands and terms of production of energy for 80 years. i was taught -- we have been

sitting on our hands in terms of production of energy for 8 years. we of wind, sun, coal, oil, gas, uranium, and yet we are still importing energy. in eight or nine years, that should not be acceptable . we should at the producing electricity by now. because of iran and pakistan, we don't want to touch it. it should be something we should talk about very openly. electricity that is needed i need to -- electricity that is needed in the country but people are importing data quality oil from is pakistan that is poisonous -- bad quality oil from news pakistan that is poisonous. -- from uzbekistan that is poisonous. anywhere from three to five

years is the window. >> you touched on this a minute ago, but general betray us was asked a number of top -- general petraeus was asked a number of tough questions at the hearings this week. specifically about what and when the united states leaves. if the united states were to leave, what does that mean for the future of afghanistan? >> if we hear an announcement, let's say, tomorrow, that the united states is leaving full force starting 2011, that type of announcement and its often create a rapid erosion of confidence -- that type of announcement itself can create the rapid erosion of confidence. we have seen these things in other parts of the world. premature announcements,

politicking with war, in my have to-- warws either be fought or we should not choose to go to war, in my opinion. afghanistan's war is not over. if it is, why are we there? if we have not finished the war, should we finished it or not? it is an obvious thing. i think if the war in afghanistan is not finished and the united states leaves tomorrow, in three hours, the afghan government will collapse. a very obvious. secondly, can the world of ford -- can the world afford another void in afghanistan, especially now that things have changed? the world is not the same as the world of 2001 or 2000. this world is much different. the extremists are more bold.

look at the suicide attempt -- suicide bombers compared with 2001. compare the economic competition of the world. everything has changed. can the world and the united states afford to leave afghanistan? i think the american people have economic problems in this country, hardship. i totally understand it. the taxpayers generosity is not just to help a country like afghanistan. your lifestyle is at stake if the world becomes a more unsafe worldcom in my opinion. -- unsafe world, in my opinion. look at how much you trouble today compared to -- travel today compared to years ago.

you can use your own imagination and extend this and project it. if the world becomes for the destabilize, do you think this -- becomes further destabilized, to think this lifestyle this sustainable? >> could you comment on two items, education and health, and what international groups are involved in helping? >> as a father of four daughters, i like that question. >> i am sure you have some sort of talk with india, so you know that when india made the decision in 1947 to spend time

and efforts and invest in education, 30 years later, they started reaping the benefits with education that is propelling indian economic expansion today. there is no doubt that education will play a very important role in the lives of people in afghanistan and in the region. not enough attention has been paid to education, both men or women. in my opinion, education should not be gender-blind. if you don't have an educated mother, she will not be able to raise an educated son or daughter. education for women is more important than with men, but naturally we have to start somewhere. in a country like afghanistan, we need to pay attention to man's education so that they can accept education for women as well. afghanistan -- i think the

mortality rate for women, pregnant women, women giving birth, is the highest in the world. every three hours there is a mother dying from childbirth. that should not be acceptable in the 21st century, in my opinion. it is almost criminal to allow that to happen for a mother. >> we have a question over here again. >> what can the international community and the united states do to support your efforts at oversight? >> one of the things that can help any oversight and afghanistan is that the donor countries should hold themselves and afghan government responsible the oversight should begin with self-policing of the donor countries, at also holding the afghan government responsible.

we have courts in the country that are waiting to bring people justice, and then one telephone call from a fellow can derail the whole process. the parliament in afghanistan should play every important role in the process. -- should play out very important role in the process. i was working on a draft of rules and procedures to create an oversight committee in parliament. i visited the indian parliament a few months ago. i cannot remember the exact name of the committee, but basically it is accounts and oversight committee. basically, their job is to oversee all accounts and performances by government or non-government organizations.

parliament should play a role in that, the international community, international organizations. there also international ngo's that need to be an example, to bre -- that need to be an example, too. >> here in the united states, are we making a mistake in looking at afghanistan to much through a national lands -- too much through a national lens% should we be looking at success stories at the local and provincial level, and look at where leadership is being provided at those levels? how can we do that? >> we sometimes talk about negative thinks so much that we forget that there are achievements. the country has achievements, naturally. not everybody is correct in that

country. not everybody is at -- not everybody is corrupt in that country. not everybody is a quirk in that country. -- a crook in that country. these problems, in the largest perspective, are an anomaly for our nation. we have judges, we have a district governors, we have a few governors, maybe a few ministers, a few parliamentarians, a few private sector entrepreneurs, businessmen, who are honest people. but in a country where the rule of law does not have the right drift, those who did not obey the law pollute everything quicker than those who obey the law. while we bring people to

justice, we also should reward those who are obeying the law and promoting harmony and the rule of law in the country. >> one last question, and this is one that perhaps may be difficult answer. i would be curious whether or not you see the commitment in your neighbor, in pakistan, to address, not only vis-a-vis the fata region but the challenges vis-a-vis al qaeda and terrorism, what sort of relationship afghanistan and pakistan look to build in a bilateral way? >> i think the united states is a good ally of pakistan. the united states government should be able to talk to the pakistani government and talk them out of this perception of

paranoia. they live in they think everybody is out to get them. -- they live in paranoia. they think everybody is out to get them. so, definitely, the indian- pakistani relation is something that has to be discussed, in my opinion. pakistan's performance in afghanistan should not be based on its relationship with india. india's relationship with pakistan -- they should create a separate track for their religion. afghanistan and pakistan could start cooperating in the fata region. that cooperation can become a foundation for future regional cooperation. but before we do that, pakistan asked to pass through some litmus tests. the united states is spending

billions of dollars in pakistan. pakistan receive equal, if not more money, in the past 10 years from the international community, especially the united states, that afghanistan. pakistan should become more sincere about its performance. pakistan should become one pakistan, not that pakistan of the military and non-military, isi and civilian government. one pakistan under civilian rule of law and a democratic values. dissenting in afghanistan. we could achieve much more that way -- the same thing i afghanistan. we could achieve much more that way. >> this was a tour de force. you covered so much territory. your passion is contagious. i hope people listened, and more importantly, act along those lines. let me leave you with a token, literally and figuratively, of

our appreciation. this is a coin, and it as a quotation from george washington -- speakers and pursue it steadily. i hope you continue -- speak truth and pursue its steadily. i hope you continue to speak truth and pursue it steadily. [applause] change thisant to and talk more. i just want to thank everybody, and again, thank the people of the united states for the generosity and sacrifices. the job is not done. it does not mean that we have not achieved a lot, but i think we will achieve more if we persevere and continue and not give up. thank you very much. [applause]

>> more live events coming up today on c-span. in 45 minutes, president obama will speak about the economy. he is in ohio today. we will have live coverage of his remarks. that is at 12:15 easter on c- span. later, at the head of u.s. aid will speak at the national press club. on on this topic, recovery efforts in -- among his topics, recovery efforts in haiti. in the meantime, on our companion network, c-span3,

wartime contracts commission on the role of security firms. it is expected to go until 12:30 eastern. live coverage on c-span3. >> it is campaign 2010 your way, with the c-span2 video library. we make it easy to follow the primary season, from the campaign trail and the debates to the victory and concession speeches. all free, on-line, at any time. >> a live picture from the bottom of the ocean in the gulf of mexico. spill continuing this hour. admiral thad allen says there is a major push to acquire more

skimming and protective booms. >> we will give you a couple of updates about what is going on at the wellhead side and some of the initiatives and and we will take any questions you might have for me. i am pleased to report that in a 24-hour period that ended midnight last night, we were able to acquire 20,000 doubles of oil. -- 20,000 barrels of oil. this is a significant improvement moving forward. we know because of the new flow great numbers -- flow rate numbers. we anticipate that by the end of june because as people

increase to 53,000 -- the capacity will increase to 53,000 barrels a month. there is a solid, but the-on top and can be linked to a flexible production system. once that is in place, we have the ability to increase capacity of production this is -- increase production to 60,000- 80,000 barrels. regarding the relief wells, they are drilling the first relief well, now 10,677 feet below. no. 2 is 6662 feet below sea floor. we have had an extraordinary

response to the vessel opportunity program, accepted about 2000 vessels operating around the gulf. our goal is to create a command and control system that will most successfully utilize these muscles of opportunity. we want to make sure we are creating unity efforts. we are organizing these vessels of opportunity in groups and established a leader with the capability to communicate. we are also putting automated identification systems and tracking devices on larger vessels so that we can bring us into the cumberland operating picture and displayed on a computer. we have aircraft to increase surveillance as well. the goal is for this week into next week to create a command and control structure and communications backbone to allow us to effectively deploy all those vessels opportunity --

2000 vessels of opportunity out there. most recently come out earlier this week, we announced the new numbers, somewhere around 35,000 as the most probable, but the range goes to 60,000 barrels a day at the high-end of the scientific evaluation. we need to redouble our efforts at skimming ability. we have the opportunity to do that with the vessels of opportunity that have volunteered services to us. now it is a matter of putting that together in a command-and- control structure. this is something that far exceeds anything we've done in domestic response before, also an indication of the willingness and passion of local people to help us with the cleanup. regarding my personal activities, what i have been doing -- i went out with our vessels of opportunity and worked with fish bites -- fish

guides, looked at the jako -- jackup rigs. i will do with the deputy secretary of homeland security and go down to grand isle and get a briefing on the vessels opportunity and hopefully get out to the water and see what they are able to do it there. we met with local water meant regarding the best use of the vessels of opportunity. this is a focus on the vessels of opportunity for us and getting the command-and-control down rights that we can most effectively apply these resources. the best place we can apply them out is in the area from onshore to 50 miles off our we have these patches of oil where we try to defeat report goes on land. -- defeat it before it goes on land grid with that, i will take questions. >> [unintelligible]

>> sure. we are coordinating with dod to look at the availability of at stemmers within the navy inventory -- skimmers within the navy inventory. we are starting to manufacture skimmers. what i told folks here is don't anticipate that a man can be met on -- that demand can be met on skimmers. we are waiting for a larger strategic assessment on the actual gap we have died. we have never had to deal with oil dispersed this wide across the area. some cases you need all we have the skills of opportunity systems were you take the equipment -- have a vessel's

opportunity systems where you take the equipment -- you talk about skimmers that are actually vessels, and we are working through that right now. [unintelligible] >> why not bring that stuff down there -- >> it takes six to eight weeks to actually build the skimmer. it is like the boom situation. we are getting it out as quickly as we can get it. >> abc news. we were getting the cumulative figure of coastline affected, and that you are get -- and now you are going with miles affected. how are you dealing with the impact on the coastline? >> there are a lot of ways to deal with impact on coastline. if you look at the coastline at

, that is a morea significant impact and then add the linney link would tell you. ultimately, -- more significant impact than the linear link would tell you. we continue to work on that as it continues to evolve. know how farwe those beaches have been impacted? isn't it important to know what the back has been? > -- what the impact has been? >> it is, and i would be happy to follow up with after this. >> areas are being impacted and one of the criticisms local leaders have is that the federal response has been too busy looking at the big picture and not feeling the immediate sense of emergency. do you happen, -- do you have

comments? >> sure. there were directly established 3 to the depositions, one for each state, to deal with each state and what the requirements are. in addition, after the discussions with gov. crist and the president in florida, we are putting out management team together in tallahassee, emergency operations center. there will be added to the at the command post and we will be able to -- there will be a deputy at the command post. >> well that allow them to respond quicker? >> yes, it will. within a certain level, they can just order the boom to be deployed. >> your reaction to the tony

hayward testimony yesterday. also, what will the secretary's will be on restoration? -- role be on restoration? >> regarding the testimony of tony hayward, that is a matter of british petroleum -- between british petroleum and the committee. as the comment then of the coast guard and secretary of the navy, -- commandant of the coast guard and secretary of the navy, we have worked together over the past year. we will be in close contact there is obviously work being done and national incident command especially as it relates to long term environmental impacts. we will be actively courting.

-- actively coordinating. >> how well his will -- will his role -- [unintelligible] >> we have a great working relationship and a lot of me to respect and longstanding friendship. >> the 90% containment figure -- more specifically on that -- [unintelligible] >> i think i mentioned earlier that by the end of the month, we should be approaching 53,000 barrels a day capacity. what you have is the discovered at a price fixed through the will head of the riser pipe -- discover enterprise fixed through the well head of the riser pipe.

we are bringing another production vessel to take it up to the joke of the kill line -- choke of the kill line. that is all you can do with the diameter pipe and the flow that goes through it. the critical decision will be whether or not one to -- we want to unbolt the riser pipe that was cut with the sheer cut, and replace it with the device at the top that was actually bolted, and then increase the production rate the shuttle tankers. that would allow us to keep that type of became an and redundancy and the decision to keep the connection at the top. was that responsive? around the first of july, a couple things that to happen -- a couple of things hhve to happen. they have to install a floating riser package, up 4000 -- a pipe

4000 feet long, and there is the buoy on top and will be suspended. potentially, we create two of those, all coming out of the well head at production facilities on top coming out of the tankers. once we get to that point, we will have a redundancy and capacity going to 60,000 barrels a day to oppose wiser pipes are under construction right now -- 60,000 barrels a day. those riser pipes are under construction right now. [unintelligible] >> are you worried about the

sorts of and factors you will be considering -- >> if there is a very small amount of oil leaking, do we think that is good enough to hold what we of got in terms of containment until the relief well is drilled? another issue as to be considered, and that is the issue of the floating riser pipes allowing us to decouple and hook that up very quickly. we have hurricane season upon us. what floating riser systems also give us is better seeking capability and the ability to disconnect and reconnect after a hurricane. we get better flexibility and a new production system and a better chance to withstand

hurricane without losing control of the wells completely. >> how much gas is being captured and once it is gone, it is gone? >> in relation to the oral streak -- oil streak? we got our production rates up and both the gas and oil are being flared off. it is being atomize and burned off on site. we actually have the measurement tibbets and we can give that to you guys. -- measurement cubits and we can give that you guys. there is a burner and it is all being burned as it comes to the surface. they are flaring the gas,

burning of natural gas, and producing the oil and shifting it to the tanker we're trying to get as much out of the ball so that it is not going to the surface -- out of the well so that it is not going to the surface. >> the first question is from bryan walsh. >> "time" enmagazine. at this point, are you confident -- [unintelligible] >> i think we have the best range of estimates on flow rates, given the information we have right now. there are three sources of information on the flow rate. one is the amount of oil we are able to observe on the surface. satellite in aviation sensors action to take readings on the amount of oil. the second is the amount of a volume being released, and using a high-resolution video to understand what is the density

of the product coming forward, how much gas and water and sediment, and the velocity at which it is rising. the third input we have is from tests done by the oceanographic institute, where they got the sort signals across to get the density of the column. -- the solar signals across to the density of the colubr -- that the density of the column. i continue to challenge them to refine their products, challenge their assumptions, look at their analysis and continue to improve it. we are going to plateau as far as knowledge of the makeup of the column of the product that is coming up. when we get to almost zero leakage out of the production that is going on, and the flow rate, double zealous in berkeley, a we have -- that will tell us empirically how much we

have. right now and mid-thirties is probable, as high as 60, as we reached earlier this week. next question? >> next question is from kristin haysbert state your affiliation. >> reuters. you said earlier that relief well what was closing in on the board, and i did not catch the amount drilled down. is it still acted to said that 120 -- accurate to say that 120 miles of shoreline has been swelled by oil? >> it is 10,677 feet below sea

floor. no. 2 is at 4662 feet below sea floor i took a question earlier on the amount of shoreline impacted. we need to make clarifications and we will put out a statement later this morning to give you the actual coastline impacted and the assumptions associated. >> all right, thank you. >> next question. >> please state your affiliation. >> "times-picayune." what is the status -- [unintelligible] will it be transferred from the discover enterprise for another trip? and 0 when the oil that is

escaping will be captured -- the ability to operate during a hurricane is one, but -- >> let me apologize to everybody on the fun. i realize that i had a piece of paper on top of the speaker phone, so i am the source of the problem. it is being shuttled to mobile, alabama. i do not know the exact location, but we will release the letter on this morning. -- release that later on this morning. let me restate one more time for the folks on the telephone, we will have a decision to make after we reached 50,000-barrel production, the maximum we can get from exploiting the bork case in itself and the -- bore casing itself and the choke and

.ill inline q4000 is burning oil spill let it does not come to -- oil spill that is not come to the service. -- oil so that it does not come to the surface. there will be an element of vulnerability while we bolt the new system on board that allows us to achieve. is that responsive? >> what would be the determining factors -- i thought you would definitely take that marking cap off and put a cap on. now it sounds like it will not happen. >> a certain amount of criteria will be met if we get to 53,000-

barrel production and have minimum leakage, and we will achieve basic containment. normally, you would say that we would operate that way until the relief wells is finished. the additional issue for us, however, is that we have a hurricane season, and we need a way to hook up and disconnect from production facilities if we have a hurricane weather approaching. that is separate and distinct from the production issue. but it creates vulnerable ready if we were to stay at the 53,000 barrels. we have better options. it is the capacity to, whether that is enough, is that good enough -- capacity issue, whether that is enough, is that good enough, and the ability to survive hurricanes. >> your last question. please state your affiliation. >> national public radio.

did they actually get 700 additional feed overnight? the number each morning. it is an incremental increase. we are at 10,677 feet this morning. i have to look at what i reported yesterday. they make a variable amount each day it sometimes it depends on a the strata. they are not going straight down. they have diverted about a 30- degree angle and now they are drilling back towards the pipes to close in on it. we will get the difference between yesterday and today and explain that and that will be helpful. >> they came up with a range of

35,000-60,000 barrels a day. [unintelligible] >> i am taking the in but -- input from the head of the tactical group, and they are trying to coordinate analysis and opinions and make sure that they are all represented there. there is a difference between the pre-riser cut and post-riser caught flow rate. it relates to the different views of how the data is reviewed and analyzed by experts. we are not try to exclude anybody. -- are not trying to exclude anybody. there are some members of the group who think it is much higher the numbers represented by the chair is in the mid- thirties. thank you. thanks, folks. >> in about 20 or 25 minutes, we will take you live to ohio.

president obama is speaking about the economy. he is in columbus to date, bring a project that was started and that the recovery -- to write a project that was started under the recovery act -- touring a project that was started under the recovery act. later, recovery efforts in haiti, live from the press club at 1:00. we spoke to a reporter covering a primary for "the hill" newspaper. the incumbent was only able to get 28% of the primary vote last month. the runoff is this tuesday, june 22. joining us on the phone is sean miller. he is a staff write tore talk about this race. >> is the uncustom bent.

if so, why? >> yes. he is. conventional wisdom that any forced into a runoff is in trouble. we saw it in, aut all my sources in south carolina tell me bob ingli s's career is coming to an end. >> what has been his message to voters since then? >> he's billing himself as a true conservative. this is something that he maintained throughout the primary. he said that re-releasedn ad that said he's going to fight for conservative principals, support for the free market, constitution. things like that. he's really tried to contrast himself again. and with his voting record it was quite liberal considering he has one of the most conservative districts in south carolina. >> they've come out with final ads.

we'll watch them and come back and talk about them. >> when joe wilson said you lie he should have pointed at every member of kong. i know what it will take washington and the truth. every congressman knows we're headed toward bankruptcy but they are afraid to tell you the truth for fear of using their jobs, afraid to tell you eliminate every program except defense and the debt still grows. why? medicare, medicaid and social security. beyond commitment to seniors, everything's got to change. al sacrifices, tax snikes they strangal our economy. our debt, at any point foreign governments can come knocking to collect. i've made mistake but i am not wrong. cowardly politics will not solve this. i'm one of 12 fighting for radical change in washington. if you're ready for this change, so am i. honest change starts with your vote. i'm bob innin license and i

support this message. >> i'm running for congress to fight for the essence of this country. we need free market principals and government that respects the constitution. we need fiscal responsibility and secure borders. and what we really need is a willingness to fight for them. not change or talk but fight for this country we love. i'm trey gowdy. i approve this message, and i'm asking for your vote. >> what has been the intact of bob inglis incorporating joe wilson into his ad? >> well, he's trying to build up his conservative credentials and feeds into an endorsement he ruled out. he got the back et >> we are going to leave this. president obama has arrived in ohio.

>> it is wonderful to be back in the beautiful city of columbus. i just want to say thank you right off the top to the mayor for his outstanding leadership of this city. [applause] you have got one of the best mirrors and the country, and also one of the best governors -- one of the best mayor is in the country, and also one of the best governors in ted strickland. [applause] i also want to just acknowledge that you are going to have -- you already have one of the best senators in sherer brown, and you will have another one, louise fisher. i will mention some of the congressional delegations here, because they have a lot to do with what is going on at at this site. i came here to take part in a

graduation ceremony for 114 -- the 114th class of the columbus police recruits. some of you may remember that i note the mayor does. i don't need to tell you that these have been difficult times for ohio and the company. what i was here last, america was losing 7000 jobs per month. the economy was shrinking, and plants and businesses in ohio were closing. we knew that if we fail to act, things were only going to get much worse. that is what with the support of sherrod brown -- why the support of at sherrod brown, members of the house of representatives, mary jo kilroy -- wave, guys -- [applause] that is why these folks worked so hard to pass the recovery

act, which cut taxes for middle- class families, boosting demand, cutting taxes for small businesses so that they could make payroll and keep doors open, extending unemployment insurance and cobra to help folks make it through some tough times, rebuild our infrastructure and make investments that wuld sp -- would spur additional investments from the private sector. that is what the recovery act was all about. since then, nearly 2400 small businesses have gotten those to keep their doors -- not to loans to keep their doors open and , some 450on payroll transportation projects are under way or have been completed, and more than 100,000 ohioans are at work today as a

result of these steps. today i return to columbus to mark a milestone on the road to recovery, the 10,000th project launched on to the recovery act. that is worth a big round of applause. [applause] i want to thank secretary ray lahood, who has been instrumental in so many of the projects in place. he has done an outstanding job, as have our other agencies, in administering these programs. these programs do not just approve communities. they put thousands of construction crews like this one to work. they have spurred thousands of small businesses to hire. these are big guys and they have got to eat, which means you have to have food brought in, and local restaurants benefit from the crew being here at work. it means that instead of worrying about where the next paycheck is going to come from,

americans across the country are helping to build our future. now, as my friend joe biden, who has done a great job overseeing the recovery act, would say, this is a big deal. [laughter] i think it is fitting that we have reached this milestone here in this community, because what you are doing is a perfect example of the innovation and ordination and renewal that the recovery act is driving all across the country. .

the hospital and is expanding its operations to take even better care of more people, more children, here in columbus, and in ohio, which means they are hiring more people. together, you are creating more than 2300 new jobs and sending a message that this will soon be a place where more families can drive, more businesses can prosper, economics park today will continue into the future. because the hospital is now growing, they are putting money back into the neighborhood for housing and other facilities so that the entire community starts rebuilding. ultimately, that is the purpose of the recovery effort. not to just get us out of the

hole that we are in now, but to spur growth and prosperity for generations to come to its offer was here last year, we have begun progress across the country. businesses are hiring again. our economy, which was shrinking by 6% when i was sworn in, is now growing. we have added jobs for six out of the seven past seven months -- out of the last seven months. in part, because of the policies that members of congress were willing to implement. i am under no illusion that we are where we need to be at. i know families and communities have yet to feel the effects of recovery in their own lives. there are still too many people in ohio who cannot find work.

many others cannot make ends meet. for these folks, the only jobs we create that matter are the ones that provide for their families. so while recovery starts with projects like this, it cannot end here. if we want to keep on adding jobs, keep on raising incomes, keep on growing our economy in the middle class, then we want to ensure middle americans can compete with any nation in the world, and we have to get serious about our long term vision for the country and we have to get serious about our infrastructure. i want to say a few words about infrastructure generally along with health care, clean energy, education, and a 21st century economy, rebuilding, infrastructure is one of the keys to our future prosperity. if we are going to rebuild

america's economy, then we need to rebuild america period. the road to come and transit systems that move are workers and connect our cities and businesses. some of this work involve fixing infrastructure that is already in place. repairing bridges, repairing old sewer line. the recovery act has made imports and investments in all of these things. we have a huge backlog of work that could put hundreds of thousands of people back to work across the country, repairing roads that we have, fixings to airlines that are in better -- bad need of repair. but preparing our existing infrastructure is not enough. we cannot build an economy that sustains our kids and grandkids just by relying on the infrastructure we inherited from

our parents and grandparents. get a jump on us when it comes to broadband access. there is no reason why your report china should have the fastest speed, rather than the u.s., no reason why germany over other countries in europe should have more clean manufacturing products then we in the united states. that is why the recovery act has been making unprecedented investment in the clean energy, spurring the american business is to build some of the largest wind and solar projects, right here in the united states of america. i said this month in my state of the union. america does not settle for second place. we are going to make the investment to make sure we are first in the future, not just in the past. that has to be i will priority. that is why we are bringing high-speed internet to tens of thousands of homes, hospitals,

businesses, schools. it is a wrwhile we are investinn electronic medical records. years ago, american businesses had only 2% of the production of electric car batteries that cover the vehicles of the future. those batteries were made some place else. we made investments in the recovery act and by 2015, u.s. companies will have 40% of the global market. we have created an advanced battery making facility right here in the u.s. that will allow us to maintain that cutting edge. from the first railroad to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. the history of ohio is a testament to that. nearly two centuries ago, our

nation's first federally funded highway, the national road, was extended across ohio, bringing together a generation of sellers west to this frontier and paving the way for the automobile industry which would transform our landscape. for our economy in this century, we have to act with that same sense of purpose and innovation. that is why the recovery is just the beginning of the investments that we will have to make four years on our infrastructure. it is the beginning oo the work of increasing element of the and productivity, reducing congestion, pollution, creating good jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. we know what we can achieve when we act boldly and invest wisely. we are seeing it right here in this community. we see it in the city leaders who saw a need and an opportunity in this neighborhood and decided to act. we see in the folks who arr

ready to get to work building this road and providing for their families. i am confident that we will start to see it in new families and businesses calling this area home. it is with that vision of a brighter future for this city and country that we begin this project. i look forward to seeing all of you achieved in the years and months to come. thank you, congratulations for the great work you are doing. god bless you. gue[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> thank you, guys. [applause]

>> of the stimulus law, $397 billion have been committed to state projects. $240 billion paid up to par. those numbers as of june 8. just a reminder, you can watch hearings, briefings, speeches online. we also have links to other websites tracking the spending. c-span.org/stimulus. we will be going to canada and in about one hour, to the press club to talk about that a

recovery. this morning on "washington journal" we talked about a bill that was written about the campaign finance decision in the supreme court, and why it has stalled in the house. to clean up the spill and fight the oil spill. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is john bresnahan, a senior congressional reporter with "politico.com" newspaper. -- "politico" newspaper. i want to show you a few headlines. here is the hill newspaper. and finally, your story from about 1:00 a.m. last night, "how a campaign finance deal backfired." what is the campaign legislation

that the house is working on? guest: this is bill 5175, which is the disclose at. it casts light on spending elections. it is a response to a supreme court ruled in january that the high court struck down restrictions on corporations and unions being involved directly in campaigns. host: citizens united case. guest: exactly, and this is the congressional response to it. this bill will impose a new disclosure requirements on corporations or outside groups that want to engage and express advocacy. host: would it turn -- return to the days of mccain/fine gold campaign refinance? guest: no, it would not.

groups would be allowed to expressly run ads, but they would have to disclose their involvement in these ads. host: does this campaign finance law address the court's decision? guest: this is the response to the january ruling, to that ruling. it struck down decades of campaign finance law, which would have restricted corporations from being directly involved in campaigns. this is the congressional response saying, okay, we cannot stop that they are doing it, but we want them to disclose that they are. host: in an earlier article that you wrote --

how did that language come to be? and is language often used like that, that is that specific? guest: no, it depends on the bill. it was marked up in committee in may and they were going to bring it to the floor several weeks ago. the national rifle association, which is a very powerful organization, was opposed to it. the democrats knew they could not pass the bill if the nra was expressly against it. congressman chris van hollen, the lead author of the bill, he carved out this extent -- exemption. this was really aimed at the nra. it exempted the nra from

disclosure requirements in this bill. and the nra did not oppose the new legislation. they just said they did not support it. at that point, it looks like the bill was going to come up for a vote this week. host: we want to get you involved. we are talking about campaign finance loans. -- campaign finance funds. the numbers are on the screen. please allow 30 days between your calls. john bresnahan of politico is our guest. what about unions? do they fall into this language as well? guest: there would be covered by that. they would not be exempted. host: who is for it? who is again ist it?

guest: the chamber of commerce and a number of other organizations feel this#ua is n infringement on their activity. they are opposing this bill. also, other progressive groups such as sierra club. what happened is that during the week, there were complaints about the exemption given for the nra. the democratic leadership decided to lower the limit on a number of -- and lower the limit on a group. but the sierra club does not like the bill anyway and is opposed to it. they're going to oppose the bill anyway. it and different blocks of members -- and different blocks

of members within the democratic caucus, blue dogs, they were opposed to the legislation. and the caucus was opposed as well. host: why? guest: they were concerned about the treatment of the naacp and tax treatments and whether they could jeopardize their step -- their tax status. and they also did not like the special treatment for the nra. here we are doing a bill to require disclosure in politics and we are giving an exemption for one of the most powerful interest groups and there is. -- most powerful interest groups their resourcethere is. host: do they just have to disclose who founded an advocacy

or an ad campaign? guest: it deals with a lectionary communication, which is an ad saying, vote for joe schmo, or against joe schmo. they would have to say, i mdot acencio x and i -- i am not cce and i approved this data. under current law, they do not have to reveal owners. these nonprofits and the 501-c3 that covers them, they are saying, this is not public. why should we make it public now? host: they are afraid it will impact donations?

guest: right. anyone who even funds to the data -- to even funds these advertisements would have to be disclosed. the democrats' argument is, look, you cannot stop corporations and unions and nonprofit advocacy groups from being involved. but what is the problem with disclosing? the public has the right to know who is involved in elections. the public likes it when they know who is the political -- was behind the political clout. there is no reason not to know who is doing this. host: the supporters of the bill are saying that. guest: yes. host: who are the supporters? guest: nancy pelosi, congressman

van hollen. there's also some bipartisan agreement. this is a first step for the democrats in -- imposing any kind of limits. host: how close is the vote? 433 members of congress. guest: it is unclear. they started whipping it out earlier in the week. it looked like by yesterday they had gotten what they needed. it was going to be the two republican co-sponsors. and i'm not sure there will be any republican support. then you have these two factions within the democratic caucus, the congressional black

caucus, and the blue dogs. host: that is 40 to 50 members. guest: exactly, so, you have these is significant blocks. and any legislation that nancy pelosi and van hollen were pushing would have to be almost entirely democratic votes. so, they have to hold onto their democrats. . .

union do you find more upsetting, the nra or the afc, or american federation of -- host: when you talk about upsetting, what exactly do you mean? and i don't think he is going to give his political opinion on this anyway, so do you want to try to rephrase your question a little bit? caller: yes. i live in south texas. i'm a frequent caller on c-span. i own firearms. my wife is a school teacher. and i just see a lot of in-fighting among people who are confused with both. so i really would just like to ask your opinion.

host: so it sounds like his wife is a member of a teacher's union and he is a member of the n.r.a. guest: i think it's important that people understand that groups like the n.r.a. and advocate groups is really important to the function of democracy and important for them to have a vote heee. what the issue is, is money and politics, what we're getting down to. money and politics. and who is funding what? and how big a role money plays in elections. to many people the spring court's ruling in january was a major setback and setback decades of campaign finance law. for others it was a victory for free speech and first amendment laws. that there's no reason individuals individually or collectively why they shouldn't

have their voices heard. i think it's important to note that as a journalist, for me, disclosure is the important thing. i would like to know who is paying for ades -- ades. -- ads. why they are paying for it. to advocate for a governmental outcome for legislation for a bill, for an administration to take some action. so i think there's a lot of difficult issues here. >> when it comes to all the bills in congress, the budget and tax extenders bill and financial regs, where does this rank in the priority list? >> well, i think president obama has made his views known on this. i think a lot of members take this very personally. they want to know who is going to be, you know, funding ads

against them in an election. i think they are very concerned about way it is process can be manipulated under the citizens' united ruling. i think there's legitimate concerns about that. let me give you examples. what if a company -- there was a bill on the floor and the company was opposed to it and they sent their lobbyist in to see the chairman or chairwoman of a committee and said we're opposing this bill and by the way we reserve $2 million of ad time in your district. that's a powerful message and one that would put the fear of god in a lot of congressmembers. we have to value the rights to be heard but protect our political classes and keep the integrity there as much as

possible. host: barbra from pennsylvania, you're on the air. caller: thank you for c-span. you do a great job. i am really concerned about this passage through this. i thought it was planning. because -- and especially, the people that say, oh, the government owns this business, and the government's trying to take over this business. do they realize how they open the door for business to own government? and not even disclose it is so wrong. guest: i think the caller raises an interesting point. i think one of the biggest concerns members have for folks who cover the federal office and work in politics is the amount of time spent fundraising. in the 2008 elections, candidates and incumbents and challengers spend over $5

million and that number keeps rising. it impacts the quality of our government. i think people outside of washington, i think this is the hardest thing for them to realize. there's a first amendment right. people should be involved in politics but the california senate race is going to cost $ 10 million-plus. t most an individual can contribute is $400,000 per person. that means they need to get thousands of people on their side. if you have to see thousands of people are you doing an effective job now? and where are they going to go? special interest groups who raised it. and sometimes that's seen as giving a new impact on what happens legislatively. it's a very important issue and a difficult issue.

a lot of journalists don't understand it as well. but you talk to members, they take this issue very highly. it can't be done in a 30-second sound bite. but it's a critically important one. host: jane from baltimore. you're on. please go ahead. caller: yes. hello. i was watching rachel meadow back during the debate, and i remember, like, almost every day they twonet town halls and where people were getting crazy. and i remember when she was exposing not all of the stuff because we don't want to all call all the tea party people crazy, but she was exposing some of this stuff to be setups of the corporations. so i have two questions. my first question is would this

legislation pretty much do what rachel mado was doing, and two, what do you think the chances are for a clean energy bill this year? >> there was the issue of arrest astro turfing where corporations or advocacy groups were kind of beginning up some of the protests -- gining up some of the protests. but frankly a lot of it was concern over the health care bill. this wouldn't address that. this goes specifically to election engineering questions. as far as an energy bill, it's not an issue i cover every day, but the senate is the challenge there. it doesn't seem to be a lot of con census coming together. the schedule is very tight. it's an election year. we've got the supreme court nomination coming.

afghanistan, campaigning, there's a lot going on. i think right now the odds are against an energy. right now i would stay odds are kind of stacked against it. >> john bresnahan, a lot on capitol hill advocating or not advocating for this law? guest: there's a lot of interest in this for instance, some of the campaign finance reform groups want this bill. they are supporting it. campaign legal center. democracy 21, campaign watchdog groups. their main focus is finance reform. they are advocating as a measure, you know, they like to see more. they were unhappy, very unhappy with a united citizen ruleling but at least this gives some disclosure and who is funding what, on the other hand you

have some very powerful groups aligned with this bill. for instance, commerce, which is the largest bill association, association of manufacturers, association of real tores. very powerful organizations lined up against it. so there are -- may not get all the headlines a lot of time but there's a lot of interest going on here. host: will he grange, texas. caller: good morning, peter, john. guest: good morning. caller: you know, i really have a hard time with the supreme court's ruling. from what i understand the main reason it was moved to d.c. was to keep everything out of politics. at the time it was swamp and they fwilt capital there to keep money out. how the court can today say a corporation, which, by the way,

i understand they were formed during jackson's administrations and he wasn't a believer in them to start with. he knew where they were headed. so i don't know how the court can reach that kind of addition. of decision. another thing, i don't understand why these same corporations, if you're employed by them, and you accept a dinner for $125 to sway you, say you're selling something, and you cut the price by 25 cents because somebody spent $125 an meal, you're no longer employed with them. >> well, -- guest: well, i read this when it came out. but it was very strong. there was very sharp opinions in the court on this. and, but it came down in the end was this censorship saying

up until that decision, you could not have unions or -- this is general treasury, not a pact or -- could be funding ads within a window leading up to an election, the majority of the court felt strongly about this. they felt that this was an important principal, though it did overturn several decades of previous rulings by the court when they ruled -- and of course, the minority felt just as strongly. they felt corporations should be treated like individuals on this issue. so there is a lot of controversy over this topic. it is -- it is one we will see before the supreme court again,

during some point. there will be legislation not moving in this congress but future congresses. in my -- on capitol hill. congress has consistently tried to tweak this language. but now basically the rules are off. they can now use what we call soft money. not necessarily for their campaign but raise million-dollar contributions for other issues. for instance, a redistricting initiative back in their home state. they cannot benefit themselves with it. can't use it on their campaign, but it has an impact on the politics of their state. so right now we're kind of in a netherworld, and nobody's really sure what's going to happen next. this was one step the house democratic leadership wants to address to -- wants to take to address campaign finance rules. at some point there's going to

have to be -- one of my colleagues wrote a story about a month ago. from politico. for a long time republicans, say senator minority leader mitch mcconnell had opposed finance campaign saying the real thing is disclosure. it's not how much they give but who gives it. let them give anything they want but disclose it immediately. with the internet, we can have it out that day, we can find out who did what. but the funny thing is now some of these folks who wanted immediate disclosure are not so big on disclosure saying this is a united ruling. didn't have anything to do with that. so now they are kind of hemming and hawing. so there are very strongly-held views and principaled views on

the first amendment and it's an issue that draws a lot of emotion. and when you take time digging into the fascinating issue, it's one of the long in this country. we wrestled with money and politics. the powerful or well-resourced to influence our political process is not one that's going to go away. as long as we have elections, we're going to have this issue. hoot: have you ever seen a carveout such as the one that was created for the n.r.a.? >> sure. guest: sure. tax bills. they won't name it but there are -- there will be only certain organizations that can qualify for a language. ear marks. they may not necessarily name a company or the -- that gets an ear mark but the language will be structured in such a way.

what was interesting on this is that you have very progressive liberal leadership, speaker plosey, these are progressive liberals, not right wingers. this is the second time in months they've had to acknowledge the real power of the n.r.a. to swing votes. it was on the d.c. voting bill. and they ended up pulling that bill because there was language in there the n.r.a. opposed. i had one say to me 260. that means the n.r.a. can mobilize 260 votes in the house so if the n.r.a. wants to come in on an issue, that's an issue that is something that the leadership is going to watch. also if you remember back to the membership in 1994 and they swept away 40 years of democratic rule, one of the groups behind the rep can

takeover was the n.r.a. they were upset with the assault gun ban. they mobilized their voters, one of the democrats learned after the elections, don't mess with the n.r.a. they can bring a lot of pressure to bear on any issue that they choose to focus on. >> carol in reston. on our rep can line thank you for holding. you're on with john bresnahan. caller: yes, i think this is the most corrupt government we've had since i don't remember when. being a member of the n.r.a. we eat the deer meat we shoot and i'm also a member of the tea party. i went to the first tea party rally in little rock, arkansas. and it wasn't just white people. and there wasn't a lot of

people there. but the second time i went, it grew and drew and it's continuing to grow in my small town, because people are tired of this spending. the ear marks, the pork. and it's out of control. and -- host: two points to address with what carol had to say. corruption and government are the perception of government and also would this affect the tea party movement at all? guest: corruption is part of government. there's always going to be corrupt government officials. i think something like this, what happened in this -- on kind of jockeying around -- i think will feed some people's distrust of got to the. here you have a special interest group getting an exemption carved out. a special interest group. that is kind of what people are looking at here.

in this case it was the n.r.a. but in health care it was different groups and tax bills, other things. that is a legitimate issue. but then you go back to the folks pushing, what they are saying, saying this is what they are trying to address. if we don't do something about would youing special interest groups to run elections without any disclosure of who they are, how are they ever going to get to the issue of addressing some of the topics that or some of the crises that face america, across the board in terms of the economy, environment, and what not. so it's a have difficult issue to balance. host: does this affect the tea parties at all if the finance bill is passed? guest: well, the tea party as a group, primarily engage in

express advocacy, if they were -- they wouldn't be affected by this. this is outside groups. this is not groups primarily involved in politics. host: jane from new jersey, democrat. hi. caller: yes. hi. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i, you know, with all the believeuating from the right about activist judges, the finding by the supreme court on citizens united, all that was -- i mean, the issue at hand was can they make this prop demand is movie or can they? and the answer was simple. yes, they could. but this court. the roberts court, used this opportunity have this finding that's further pushing us towards an olgarky. the right has been doing whatever they could to weak at any working class and put the power in the hands of the

corporations. and now our entire congress will, with this finding, the congress have become the employees or the puppets of the corporations. and the tea partiers in all their screaming about the government. government is here to protect us. and it worked just fine after the new deal. but little-by-little, the corporations have taken away our right to speak, and i'm sorry. corporations are not people. they are given privileges that we don't have. they have limited liability when they are found criminally culpable when found guilty of murder by -- they get a slap on the hand that wouldn't be worth a pimple on an elephant's butt. we would be put in the prison. guest: i think the caller read

the book where he makes somewhat of a similar line. corporations are not individuals. they are treated under the law by the terms of those the right to cast a vote and in terms of their involvement in the political debate, they hadn't been seen in the same light as an individual, but again, this is, you know, this is an issue. this is an issue the supreme court has wrestled with. this is an issue that legislatures, democratic and rep can, different congresses and the president, this is not going to go away. we are going to have this debate as long as we have elections. who is paying for what and who is running for offices? and are they being helped by powerful, rich interests? i mean, until early in the to the century we didn't have any

disclosure requirements at al or whose campaign -- at all, or whose campaign was funded by who. the system is a lot better than it was. it is not perfect. people are going to continue to work on it. politicians, advocates on both sides of the debate will keep covering it. it is a debate that will continue. host: about five minutes left with our guest. milton is a guest in bowling green. caller: hello. appreciate you taking my call. first time on the air. host: welcome. caller: i just feel deeply about campaign finance laws. i feel like it's the key to all our problems in government today. you know? can't have a government for the people, by the people with the current laws we have. when you look at the current laws that they just put in

place with health care, i mean, who does it benefit? it benefits whoever paid those people and who gave them the noun be elected. i mean, -- them the money to be elected. i mean, we need to take our government back. and this is the way to do it. it's the only way to do it. guest: and milton, i think you made an excellent point. i have been covering congress. this is my 16th year covering congress. i cannot tell you how important this issue is. it is one that in my time up on capitol hill, races have become exponentially more expense i, which means members and senators and challengers have to spend more time raising money unless her she can write a big check out of the pocket. when urp spending that much

time raising money, it -- as hard as they work and they work very, very hard and have excellent staff, fur spending that much time raising money, it's going to cut into other duties as a legislature. meeting with constituents, hearing their concerns, drafting bills, writing bills. it's just a very difficult balance they have to make. if you go around washington every night there's fundraisers, lob yippists, attended by lobbyists. and corporate folks, or those well-connected people. because members have to get money in order tore run for office. the first thing you're going to do. the people don't understand once a member gets elected, he or she wants to get re-elected. that sort of what drives everything they do. in order to get elected, they

need money. to have money they have to meet money. as great as it was to see president barack obama raise $800 million. even he stepped outside the campaign finance system and raised a lot of money in small doe makes nations but wanted -- raised a money -- a lot of money from people who wanted to see things happen. 3w he went to special interest groups, because that is where the money is and what's going to give these powerful organizations time with the conditions congress. some would make an argument that's a case for public financing right there. but how do you do that and balance it with the rights people have to participate in the political process and spend their own money out of their own podget. it's a very difficult issue and a nail hit on the head. a fundamental issue. who is paying for our campaign and how?

>> and even after the spill, lobbyists for b.p. kept fundraising hopping. they hosted 53 parties for law makeers and candidates and four skins the explosion and oil spill. lobbyists -- the numbers are based on fundraisers data compiled by sun light foundation. nine of the 11 known fundraisers this year were hosted by lobbyist tony podesta or other lobbyists for his firm. >> b.p. has a right to lobby the government. they have a right to express their views to the government around participate in fundraising. there's clearly politically -- clearly politically sensitive

issues taking money around b.p. at this moment. but some may have been in the works beforehand and they carried through with it. but listen, every night in washington there are dozens of these events. challengers, they go to them, because that's where the money is. they go to pack events. they can raise a lot of money at wivepbt that may take them much longer to do it over the internet or smaller events back home. you know, the folks who want things from government. they knew this is a big business. politics is a big business. running for office. campaigning is a big business. it's a multi billion-dollar industry. host: last call comes from al from gary, indiana. 3 caller: yes. i would like to say actually to carve out an exempt disclosure from the n.r.a. would actually

inhibit or prohibit my free speech if i had a position that was against the n.r.a. in the sense that before you have free speech, you have to be able to have disclosure and free thought. it actually seems to be unconstitutional for someone to be able to hide and not come through with open disclosure, and that stops and prevents me from even having an opinion to incorporate and use my free speech. guest: well, right now, as the law stands in the wake of citizen's united ruling, there's no requirement for disclosure at all. again, i'm not sure i necessarily agree that to incorporate the n.r.a. would not infringe on someone else's first amendment rights. they felt strongly that they did on theirs. and they felt strongly with the language covering part of the language covering part of the

language on this extension. so a group had to be in business for at least 10 years. had to be around for at least 10 years. so they've brought in other advocate groups that also fell into it. so the idea was, dump $10 million into it and then use that to run ads against congressman joe shmoe. i'm not sure that in doing that they -- on the rights of other individuals, but disclosure, as a journalist, disclosure is a good thing. the more, the better. so i think there's a lot of folks in the press who would like to see at leleast some

>> we will be going to the national press club to talk about reconstruction and recovery efforts in haiti six months after the earthquake in that country. that will get under way at 1:30 eastern edge. in the meantime, more from this morning's "washington journal." the headlines about yesterday's bp congressional hearings. we will start with the " financial times." this is a picture of tony in worhayword on the cover. here is another. and here is the "houston chronicle," home of the oi industry.

care is the politico from washingt d.c. -- here is the "politico" from washington d.c. and here is "the hill" newspaper. here is what joe barton had to say yesterday. >> i am not speaking for the republican party or anyone in the house of representatives, but myself. i am ashamed of what happened in the white house yesterday. i think it is a tragedy of the first portioproportion that a pe corporation can be subject to what i would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown, with e attorney general of the united

states who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigion, and has every right to do so on behalf of the american people. it amounts to a $20 billion slush fund. it is unprecedentein our nation's history and has no legal standing and, i think, sets a terrible precedent for our nation. host: here he is with a scrum of photographers all around taking his picture. and here is "the wall street journal." the "washington post" have no picture, but a lead story as well. and inside the money section.

and before we get to calls, here is the open for wall street journal" editorial today. there was in particular no

reason for bp to compound it error and agreed to spend another $100 million to compensate theil workers sidelined by the nation's policy choice. bp had no liability for its costs and a concession further separated and its compensation from for their proper order. and finally the "new york times" editorial from this morning.

your turn to weigh in. cranberry, texas is our first call. -- grandburm,y, texas is the first call. what you think about this oil spill? you are down there in texas. caller: i am very upset in barton. i'm very disappointed in him. host: what does mrs. peterson think?

caller: she thinks the same thing. i tell you, we are down here in the oil country. host: i appreciate you calling in and we will talk to you in a month or so. fort myers, fla., please go ahea caller: i am here in florida and we are anxiously awaiting and praying that the world does not hit our beaches here in southwest florida. host: right. what did you think of yesterday's congressional hearings? caller: i tink this is a lot of showboating by a lot of ngressmen. we have people from michigan grilling a someone and they have no clue what we are going through in florida and louisiana. we need to put this aside and stop the oil. we