afghanistan. later, we will debate the monday ruling by the supreme court on gun rights. this is "washington journal." . . this is "the washington post" on

the economy. we want to get your thoughts today this morning. are we headed to a double-dip recession?3 screen. here is the lead in "the washington post" -- this story is on the front page of "the washington post." the story above the fold is about david petreaus and the oil spill. another story on the economy, front page of "the new york times" this morning. above the fold. this is an economic analysis piece written this morning by david leonhardt.

we want to know from you, do you think we are headed toward a double-dip recession? the definition, according to -- investopedia says this --

when gross domestic product growth slides back to negative after a quarter of two of positive growth. it recession followed by short- lived recovery, followed by another recession. west virginia, danny, democratic line. what do you think this morning? caller: good morning. it is not only that we are going into a double-dip recession, but a permanent lower level of economic activity. we shipped 25 million jobs off to asia and other countries. basically republicans and their corporate bosses have been undermining the whole demand side of the economy. they keep saying they changed the laws and got rid of regulation and lower corporate taxes and the supply side would invest more money and create more jobs. the fact is, there is no reason to create jobs if there is no demand.

there is simply no demands. i am travelling and everywhere i look people are not spending money. they are only spending what they absolutely have to. we cut our whole economy by 25%. host: bob, are you there? what are your thoughts. caller: what are my thoughts? host: on the double-dip recession. caller: you have gone to a screening -- it used to be not so heavily screened before when i collin. host: we tried to make sure you are on topic. caller: what i think about a double-dip recession is of that -- it is backed -- is that. host: bob, think we are having trouble with your phone call this morning. maybe you can call back in. louisiana, tyrone on the independent line.

caller: how are you doing today? caller: i think it is possible. we will never get it right until we get the federal reserve out of the picture. converse take control of the printing of our own currency and letting the people will vote them in and out of office of an accountable. as long as we have people who are far and, who are not having the interest of citizens of our own country, first and foremost, we will have -- putting the economy up and down on the amount of money they prance and charge on it. host: this is a little bit more from the stick this morning -- the piece of this morning.

bellevue, washington. scott on the republican line. caller: good morning. we have been in a depressed and -- we have been in a depression for two years. when you look at the statistics,

a depression is what we are in. host: you don't think we were ever in a recession? caller: we skipped right over super recession and went to depression. if you look at the gdp numbers and the collapse of the bond market. what most people don't understand is during the great depression, the stock market's collapse, but only 20% of the bond markets. and the bond markets are three times larger than the stock market, the largest part of the capital markets, imploding. we have been in a depression. it is proven in the collapse of our trade figures and manufacturing. host: how do you explain the so- called recovery on wall street -- u.s. in the dow go back up? caller: stimulus. we save wall street by printing trillions of dollars. and when it comes to main street, we are devastated. i don't know where politicians think there is recovery. maybe a couple of spots here and there.

when one person every 90 seconds is being foreclosed on, and when we look at the last unemployment claims, new initial, they were worse than any of the month dropped during the bush administration except in the very end. most people forget about bush, bush inherited the collapse and they dot com market. the real issue is housing. we have the lowest real new housing being built in the history of the country since it has been recorded. it this economy is devastated. and for people to call and say it is just a mild recession -- it is devastating and it is too bad the politicians really haven't been really -- been really honest. host: here is a headline in "the washington post." the recession has hit nearly half of u.s. working adults --

alike, susan, democratic line. good morning. think we evert got out of the first recession. the gdp number is an anomaly. it is based on some kind of short-term recovery figures that just are not applicable long term. and i know for a fact that there are a lot of people that cannot find jobs. it is really bad. i don't think you can compare any two economies.

i know and learning economics, note two economies are alike. you can't really compare this to the great depression. we just live in a whole different era and i don't think anybody has got the answers. it is really a mess, especially for a lot of main street individuals. i have a college degree. i have three of them. it has been tough for me to find full-time work. anyway, that is my story and my feelings about it. thanks for taking my call. host: before you go, can you tell us a little bit about your -- job search? are you working several part- time jobs? caller: i am working one part- time job freelancing. i have a degree in accounting, another degree in pre lot and i have a certificate as a paralegal. host: why can't you find a job in those fields? caller: i have no clue. i have tried. it is really tough, especially for people in my age group. host: how old are you?

caller: i am over 40. host: what would you say your income range is? caller: poverty level now. host: but if you were to get a job in your field, how much do you suspect -- in normal times, and would you get paid? caller: in normal times, probably no more than 45,000 or 50,000. host: do you suspect it is also that in, range, that makes it difficult to hire you? caller: well, i definitely lowered my expectations when it comes to trying to find work in terms of expectations in salary and the salary range. no, it is not that i'm being offered positions or turning down positions because it is too low of pay. the jobs are not out there, period. it is just really bad for a lot of people in a lot of areas. i know several people who have

degrees in political science and and and of working in fields -- and ended up working in fields not associate with their degrees. it is really bad out there. i could go on and on but i know my time is limited. host: we will move on to sam in san diego, independent line. caller: the last two callers are 100% accurate. here in sanndiego, we have a lot of commercial property that has nothing but chain-link fence around it, and they have a habit of turning what ever is on the property to rubble and leaving the rubble there. it is disgusting the way this country is being treated. the job market is dead. the unemployment figures of the nation are a joke because when you run out of unemployment, you are no longer counted anymore. what really gets me is, we are in such dire straits, why are we

spending one dime for foreign aid? if that won't go over well with the majority of people, how about we cut of nations with u.n. resolutions against them. they did not deserve a penny if they can't follow international law. thank you. host: silver spring, texas. jimmy, republican line. caller: yes. you know, my opinion is this. we can get the government to start lowering taxes and get completely out of the job market -- like we have in the past. when they done this that in the 1920's and 30's, the government stepped in and it lasted 10 years. if the government would get out of it now and let the nation run its course, it would be out and over with. i can't understand why we, american people, allow the

democrats, republicans, all of them up there, set their own pay rates. why don't we vote for them to get a pay raise or not. would the jobs they are doing, they don't need a pay raise. host: talking about whether now we are headed to a double-dip recession. the definition of that, according to investopedia -- gross domestic products sliding back to negative after a quarter or two of positive growth. we will continue to get your thoughts on this. but first we want to talk to andrew cohen from politics daily covering the hearings on capitol hill for elena kagan. of the hearings continue with live coverage on c-span 3, c- span radio and c-span.org. their 4 daybacke up

two of questioning, day three of hearings. guest: the take away from yesterday is the nominee backed away from many of the controversial statements she had made it -- she had made it in her career printed in 1995 characterized these same hearings as vapid and hollow and a charade. when she was asked to offer more substantive views on the merit of the issue of abortion and other matters like gun control and the war on terror and so forth, she said, like predecessors, she would refuse to talk about cases that might come before her as a judge. democrats seemed pleased. republicans seemed upset. nothing out of the or never. one of the things that strike me as interesting about the cake in the confirmation -- the fourth one -- clearly the media coverage has been less. part of it is she has the votes to succeed. she is well known in washington. she has a good reputation.

lindsey graham, republican senator from south carolina, is likely to vote for her. so there is not a whole lot of drama. it host: let us hear a little bit about yesterday. >> you wrote that one of the most important inquiries of any nominate is to "and acquire as to the direction he or she would move the institution." in what direction would you move the court? >> senator, i do think that is the kind of thing -- all i can say, senator, is that i will try to decide each case that comes before me as fairly and objectively as i can. i can't tell you i will move the court a particular way on a particular issue because i just fell know -- >> usec in 1995, it is a fair

question to ask a nominee in what direction, your quote, you move the court. >> it might be a fair question -- >> all right, let's move on. host: what do you expect today? guest: i expect more of the same. in the other thing that is striking is that elena kagan is not saying much different than justice sotomayor said last summer or chief justice roberts said or samuel alito said in to douses 6. when republican nominees is sitting in the hot seat, democrats are frustrated with the lack of information or insights and when it is the democrats, it is the republicans credit tom coburn, a republican senator from oklahoma, lobbed softball after softball to alito and chief justice john roberts back in the day. he was receiving, if you will, yesterday, at the lack of

response. part of the frustration people have with these hearings, and just depending upon who is sitting on the seedbeds of the direct -- reaction from the panel. i expect some evasion. you can criticize it, but on the other hand, there were good exchanges. senator orrin hatch, republican from utah, he had a very interesting and informative dialogue with the nominee about the first amendment and campaign finance reform and the citizens united case. dianne feinstein had a good conversation. lindsey graham as well on the legal war -- were on terror. there is some substance, but it is surrounded by platitudes that we have come to expect. host: it seems that yes today and there was more talk yesterday and the day before about thurgood marshall and "the roberts scored." depending on whether you are

democrat or republican. democrat -- democrat spring of the roberts scored and -- why all this talk about justices? guest: democrats clearly want to make a point of comparing and contrasting this nominee with what the roberts court has done the past couple of years. there is a feeling that chief justice john roberts came before them in 2005 trying to get that seats and he said he would be a neutral umpire, and yet he voted conservatively in virtually every single case, especially in cases involving big business. that is something that bothers the democrats. republicans are trying to link elena kagan, some of them, to the very liberal views of thurgood marshall. which, she said that, you are not voting for justice thurgood marshall, he has been dead 20

years. it you would be voting for justice elena kagan. i expect more of that today. it would be interesting to see as the day goes on and the second round of questions began, whether or not it winds down a little bit. it is clear she has the votes. one of the things i found interesting yesterday is she was much more relaxed. elena kagan on monday look like she was going to be physically sick at one point. she had a terrible look of unease. yesterday she was calm, collected, and very funny and relaxed. there is a danger because you don't want to be too informal because you will not appear to be judicious. it was always her nomination to lose and so far she has not done anything to dissuade anybody. host: "the new york times" and "the washington post" in particular have taken the cue from the democrats talk about the robert c. court.

-- roberts court, looking at the different cases and how the different justices ruled. thank you, sir, or your time. guest: my pleasure. take care. host: we want to show you another moment from yesterday's hearings when she was asked about cameras in the supreme court. this is something c-span has asked for repeatedly. >> i think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the court room. and the reason, i think, when you see what happens there, it is an inspiring sight. i guess i talk about this a little bit in my opening statement yesterday. i basically attend every supreme court argument. once a month i argue before the court and when i am not arguing, i'm sitting in front row

watching the member from my office or somebody else argue. it is an incredible sight because all nine justices, they are so prepared, so smart, so thorough, so engaged, the questioning as rapid fire. you are really seeing an institution of government that works, i think, in a really admirable way. of course, the issues are important. some of them would put you to sleep, you know? but allied of them, the american people should be really concerned about and be interested in -- but a lot of them, the american people to be really concerned about and be interested in. i think it would be a great thing for the american people. host: our coverage continues today. c-span 3, 9:00 a.m. eastern time, c-span radio and c- span.org. remember, you can go to our website, c-span.org, and we have

a special hub for the kagan hearings and you have looked at all the different times she has been before congress and read about elena kagan c-span.org. we want to continue the conversation with all of you. we want to continue the conversation whether or not we are headed toward a double-dip recession. the next call comes from fred, democratic line. good morning, fred, from pennsylvania. caller: how are you doing? calling about a double recession and what caused it. the cause is probably overspending. i would say right now to get out of this, they need to actually stop spending or freeze, or just like the other caller said about, those politicians -- we

should vote on their pay. on top of that, can make a comment about the bp thing? host: real quick. caller: i read in the papal -- paper that people are doing the boycotting thing with the gas stations. it has nothing to do -- every disaster happens for some kind of a reason. i think whether lesson to be careful. of but to boycott -- but to boycott, i don't think it will work because bp is do whatever they can do. host: we will be talking about the oil spill and energy legislation coming up at 7:45 a.m. eastern time with senator mark the baggage of alaska, a democrat. -- senator mark begich of

alaska. he along with 22 other senators talked about energy and climate legislation and what is next. the associated press is reporting that west virginia governor does not expect to start searching for a successor for u.s. senator robert byrd until after the longest serving senator in history is laid to rest next week. senator byrd will be lying in the senate beginning on thursday from around 10:15 a.m. eastern time until 3:45 p.m. eastern time. thursday, the capitol ceremony that has not occurred for more than 50 years, will be happening. his relatives will receive members of congress until noon and the public galleries will be open to those who have passes. it prayer will be at 10:30 a.m. he died at age 92. he will be flown to charleston, west virginia, and taken to the

robert byrd courthouse. the procession will end at the west virginia capital with a public viewing on thursday and next tuesday a public funeral at memorial baptist church in arlington, west virginia, followed by a private burial. frank, independent line herrity caller: first and foremost, thank you so much for c-span and the importance you folks represent in journalism in the most professional sense. i have very strong feelings about the issue you led off with. i would just ask people to remember the importance of the debates over the approval of nafta, going back to the late 1980's. totally apolitical. then subsequently we are feeling the pain of economically, the opening to china of these wto,

world trade organization, and the consumer debt-based 70% of our economy, consumer economy. we are paying the price now. what has been forgotten, and my opinion -- and i feel very strongly about it -- the role and importance of money, and named in particular foreign secretary warren christopher who, i understand, was the senior lawyer of the most prominent law firm in california who is a major client -- and this is the hearts of my criticism -- who is a major client was the government of wasa -- who's major client the government of china during the first clinton administration. host: thank you. are we headed toward a double- dip recession?

caller: unless they removed barriers to employment. the government feels they can impose prevailing wages -- you can't get any city of pittsburgh government contract unless you pay prevailing wage. what makes a politician think he can set wage rates when it should be a free market? if i am in millionaire and i look at the environment and the rules to hiring people, if there are too many barriers, i will take my money where there are less barriers. they should drop the quotas, prevailing wage. unions, what did they have as a bargaining chip? 500 people decide they don't want to work for me? i will find somebody else. what do they have other than an intimidation? they need to remove the barriers and quotas. and i wish one state would at least experiment with this.

put a moratorium on all barriers to wages and you will see an explosion of hiring. ok, bye. host: this is "the washington post" with the headline, push to extend jobless aid.

pittsburg -- sorry, just talked to tom. let us move on to paul on the democratic line from kentucky. caller: i have a solution for, you know, we are going down big time in this country. we need to nationalize our oil. with this disaster -- it pays for itself. it is not something i buried in the ground and i get it. it belongs to everybody in this country. we are going down big time. i have been here 35 years and i have never seen this country going down this bad.

it is a shame to see this -- thank you. host: this is "the financial times" front page of this morning. lawmakers scrapped plans for bank fees. ccming up next, we are going to be talking to senator mark begich of alaska and also he

serves on the armed service committee so we would get his thoughts on afghanistan policy as well. that is about in 15 minutes. first, we will continue to talk to you this morning about whether you think we are headed toward a double-dip recession. this is inside "the wall street journal." risch jenson -- recession strikes deep into the workforce. a story we read also and "the washington post" this morning, the percentage of workers that experienced the following. a 20%, reduced work hours, 23%, pay cut, 12%, unpaid leave, 11%, forced to switch to part time. , on the republican line from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. host: are we headed toward a double-dip recession? caller: not a recession, try

depression. host: why do you think? caller: we are playing politics with money and spending money we don't have. getting our money away to everybody and there is nothing that backs are money except the confidence of the american people. host: cincinnati, jason, democratic line. good morning. jason, are you there? democratic line? sorry about that. i will leave the buttons alone and we will get them straightened out. we will get to jason in just a few minutes. let me read a bit more from "the financial times" about the financial regulations conference negotiations.

it also says another paper is that democrats are looking for another republican senator to support the bill. either senator susan collins or columbia snow, both from maine. adjacent on the democratic line from cincinnati -- jason on the democratic line. caller: i honestly believe that we are going into a double-dip recession. it is god awful we are getting to this point, but truth of the matter is, the economy is drastically going down each and every day and millions and

millions of americans are suffering at the hands of the government. congress needs to go ahead and pass the emergency unemployment bill. no one is going to get rich on $335 a week unemployment aid. that is my two cents. host: back to financial regulations. just read that senator brown was able to get the bank be out of the legislation. what happens next? guest: the big question is, who is going to, especially among moderate republicans, who will join the bill to give the democrats the 60 votes they need to move forward. host: and as i said, the papers are saying all eyes are on

olympia snowe and susan collins of maine. guest: really we are looking at snowe and collins to see how they will react and so far we have not seen much. as of senator chuck grassley came out and said, no, he will not agreed as it stands. has he changed his mind? guest: we have not seen anything new sense that, no. host: do the senators from maine and chuck grassley, are they looking for further concessions? become guest: we hear they were just unhappy with the process of the $19 billion fee. they were not necessarily

opposed to requiring the financial industry to pay for the cost of the bill. they were just upset that this was a fee that really wasn't discussed on the house floor or the senate floor. it was something that was basically attached to the conference committee early in the morning last friday before the committee finished its voting on the conference report. they were failing -- feeling this was and that did not see the light of day. they want some been a more transparent. host: what has scott brown said about his argument for taking the fee out? guest: that it is inappropriate. that it will essentially be passed along to consumers. that it will hurt the bank customers and not something he could support. he was fundamentally opposed to the feed itself. host: real quick -- when might

this bill get some action, some boats in the house and senate? guest: the committee will consider it this morning. we could see action on the house floor today or tomorrow. but the senate is a much bigger question. chairman chris dodd said he is doubtful it will happen in the senate this week, basically because you would have conflict with the funeral services and memorial service plans for robert byrd. iwe obviously have a recess next week and we will get to it when we return the week after that. host: thank you so much for your time this morning. back to your phone calls about whether we are headed for a double-dip recession. washington, d.c., alan, independent line. are you there? go ahead, what do you think? caller: yes, i think we are.

host: why is that? caller: the republican party, we have to extend the unemployment. 1.4 million people out of work. you have to get these people so they can spend money and pay bills. host: is that enough? >> , i think that is one of the bigger problems. host: what do you do about the housing situation? caller: i haven't even thought about that. host: we will move on to hot springs village, arkansas. henry, independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: let me turn my tv off. host: that would be great. caller: the first thing i wanted to say, thank you so much for your quirky smile and the morning, this early in the morning when people are so crabby and everything. thank you so much for that. honey, i am 86 years old. i am from the great depression.

i saw the last recession that they call the recession but it was a depression. my input on this -- first thing they should do is put all of congress on an hourly wages so we can fire them when they don't perform. the second thing that has begun is to put this lobbying bologna -- baloney on referendum vote and get them out of washington. here is the tip on how to create jobs. i saw the writing on the wall when they first started sending jobs overseas. the way jobs are created are not by inventions, they are created by the improvement of machinery and everything else developed already -- china stole a lot of

our patents and they have patents on everything in the united states and they still that. -- stole them. yesterday i called bp and i asked them to at least review something that i had been working on. i am even creating a model on how to stop the oil spill. and they are going to send me some information so they can review my invention. but i invented several small things. host: ok, henry. we will move on to katherine on the democratic line. caller: i would like to make a comment about the lady who has three degrees -- because i just got a master's degree. i have been working two jobs for many years and i still have to rent rooms and my house.

host: we can hear you. go ahead. you still have to rent rooms at your house. caller: i think people are doing what they need to do to get by. if you look at craig's list, 300 entries where people are renting rooms and our homes. if you go to wal-mart or target or home depot in california, you can get a job. i don't know about the double dip. i just wanted to say that there are ways of getting by. i have been doing it for years and years. host: thanks, catherine. we will go to baltimore. steve is joining us on the republican line. good morning. caller: -- host: you are on the air. caller: i was calling in regards to your question about a double- dip recession. i do think there is a significant possibility.

i'm thinking it is pre much going to be as a result of all of these pretty much socialist programs -- using this as a perfect opportunity for them to not go out and look for jobs. we have had this problem for a long time, people living off the system. i don't think the current administration is helping spoon feeding people millions of dollars we cannot afford. i think there is a definite possibility we could be heading back into recession if we don't tighten down on the obama administration. host: the senate today is expected to confirm general david petreaus to lead u.s. and nato forces in afghanistan. here is a story this morning on general mcchrystal. he will retire with four stars. white house spokesman marlin did tuesday -- robert gibbs said

tuesday. phoenix, arizona. mack, independent line betty caller: i think we are going into a depression or something like that. it definitely seems like it is getting bad and nothing is improving. so, i think we are. i wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the white population has been decreasing over time. i would like to know if anybody has any information on that. host: long beach, california. alex, democratic line. caller: i don't know if i can comfortably address the previous

caller statistically speaking, if you look at the spreads on t- bills, they are no longer inverted. it does not seem at this point we will be heading a double-dip recession. host: talking about treasury bonds? caller: you look at treasury notes generally, they are indicators whether you will hit a double dip recession. the difference between the three-month bill and a two-year bill, the spread, going in reverse, negatively as the curve goes down like it is supposed to go up -- that is a precursor you will go into a double-dip recession. but if you look right now, you don't see that. host: what about yesterday when, i believe, a lot of big investors were headed toward treasury notes instead of stocks? yama, that will drive -- caller: that will drive down prices. they will put the money and the

three-month bills as opposed to two-years, which is an indicator they are stocking their money away somewhere where they can get to it quickly. in a lot of instances, especially after the recent g.- 20 meeting, people are wary about where to put their money based on the rules that are supposed to be coming out of bed and a new approach in terms of having -- supposed to be coming out of bed and a new approach in terms of cutting in half. no one is able to book their finger on the pulse. if you look at technology stocks and comparison to financial stocks, across the board everybody got hit. there is really no way to say for sure based on what happened yesterday that that is an indicator there is a double-dip recession. host: what did you make of the news coming out of china that their economy is not doing as well as expected?

caller: that has been on the forefront for a while. a lot has to do with the fact that they are now letting their currencies appreciate. they had managed to artificially lowered the value of their currency. so, they have been able to have more exports than imports. now that they are allowing their currencies appreciate, you will see other countries are to have better economies so they will be able to -- because they will be able to import into china, a huge market. host: one last one on whether we are headed toward a double-dip recession. citrus heights, california. grandy, republican line. caller: i think a lot of smart people are indicating that will be the case. if you look at anybody with money to invest or create jobs, all the uncertainty is kind of

causing them to sit on it. to the extent that they are going to have to buy equipment, hire people or what ever, do anything that is going to add to their costs, they are going to push it toward this tax year before the bush tax cut expire. if they do it next year, they are going to have to pay a lot higher taxes. it is a natural reaction. so there is a real chance that that could happen. host: we will leave it there. thank you for the phone call. coming up next, we will turn do energy legislation. our next guest is mark begich, who met with president obama to talk about the legislation. he is a democrat from alaska. he is coming up next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> c-span is now available and over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, nonfiction books. created by america's cable companies. >> west virginia senator robert byrd served more than 50 years in the u.s. senate, longer than anyone in history. he. on c-span more than 1200 times. appeared on c-span more

than 1200 times per all online at the c-span video library. washington, your way. >> sunday, your question for syndicated radio talk-show host bill bennett live on book tv's "in depth." he is the author of more than 20 books for adults and children. join the discussion on american history, education, and politics. three hours with bill bennett, sunday on c-span2. get the whole schedule at booktv.org. >> for a snapshot of washington and the 111th congress, the c- span congressional directory, a reference guide to the house and senate, the cabinet, supreme court justices and state senators all at your fingertips. >> "washington journal" continues. host: senator mark begich,

democrat of alaska. here is the headline in "the new york times." white house energy session changes no mines. what happens? guest: you had a bipartisan group. a lot of discussion about the current legislation people have on airlines as well as pending legislation. it was a good discussion veered it did not move one place or another, but there is a clear indication people want a comprehensive energy plan and one form. the recognize our dependence on foreign oil cannot continue at the rates it is going. that was a positive general discussion. but you are right, he did not come out there and say here is the legislation. it is really to lay out on the table. there were mixed views, but

generally on the whole idea of an energy plan, i think that is clear, people want to move forward on some sort of comprehensive energy plan. host: senator kerry yesterday, when he came out of the session -- and he is the co-author of this latest energy legislation -- he said, if we pass an energy-only bill, which we have done over the last two years, which we have done many, many times, it never has done anything. it has not addressed the issue. he was still making, it sounds like, a push for some sort of carbon tax. that seems to be the issue on the table between republicans and democrats. there is not agreement. host: his first point, it seems like for the last decade, two decades, three decades, four decades, congress has tinkered around edges, never really going forward on aggressive movement. look at one indicator -- how

much do we import from foreign oil resources? it has gone up, closer to 60%. it has not moved us to a new energy economy. i think his issue is, there has to be, in a lot of people's minds, a mechanism to deal with polluters. the phrase you used, carbon tax, did not come up in the discussion. what came up is how do we balance this to know that 20 years, 30 years from now we are less dependent on foreign oil, more diversified energy base in terms of what we are doing and how we capture those jobs instead of, for example, when we look at the solar industry, right now china produces 60% of the solar panels and yet the technology came from us. how do we capture that? in alaska, we set a goal for 2025, a large percentage to be

from renewable resources. in order to be sustainable, prices of oil up to $9 a gallon for heating fuel, we have to change the way we do business. i come to congress with that attitude -- if we keep doing the same thing we have been doing, some small piece of legislation with a couple items here and there -- we are never going to do what this country desperately needs, and that is a comprehensive energy plan that deals with polluters, deals with foreign oil and ensures we have the right kind of energy base. host: it does not sound like a comprehensive climate and in jim legislation is on the table. senator kerrey said he would deal with more concessions, and this sounds like legislation is headed toward utility only. are you for that? can you explain question on guest: i would say this. it is always interesting when we finish events of the white house and come out of caucus and the press is very quick to want to

define the decision. there has been no decision. we have to keep that in perspective. what we have is a lot of ideas. some have talked about just utility only. i can tell you from my perspective, alaska, both ends of the equation. we see the impact of climate change but we also understand the value of domestic oil and gas production. i am a strong believer in ocs, development in the arctic. one-third of the gas resources are in alaska. killeen, burning fuel that can last for generations. but we have to be realistic, at the end of the day we have to develop an energy policy that not only deals with a comprehensive approach with a diversified base, but recognizing renewal and alternative energy is the future for us in our country. we will have reductions in emissions if we focus on increasing the percentage of real bulls and conservation.

if we get into the debate of utility only today, it is premature. the press would love to have that story today finalized so they can write the next door a, but energy policy is going to be very broad and a lot of discussion after the fourth of july break. host: do you believe what the president that the bill should raise the cost of burning oil and coal to make of the alternatives more competitive? guest: i think the way we are trying to approach it -- we need a mechanism to make sure pullovers pay. but we have to ensure that we are not strangling our own industry. i use alaska as an example. we are an oil and gas state. we have huge quantities of gas. what we do has to make sure that we do not put that in jeopardy. otherwise, we are saying let us just keep in pouring -- importing foreign oil. we will not change from 20 or 30 years from will and gas dramatically.

it will shift but it will take decades to do that. it is a piece of the equation. i know some believe tomorrow we can turn the dial in begun. this is not realistic. if we are not honest, we are basically saying we will close our eyes to any damage or anything else. my view is, however we package it, we need to make sure we have good, strong domestic production from oil and gas. will that mean there will be a price for some mechanism? if you look at the bill, there are three of the top five oil industry people who already agreed to the mechanisms. the way they designed it, to trade among the industry itself. no speculator is, which is a dangerous thing. you see what can happen when you have speculators. they created a mechanism that sounds within reason by the

three of the five top producers, which is, to let them figure out the credits among themselves. that is a step in the right direction, let industry figure out how to balance the industry so it can grow but recognize we need a diverse base. to draw the conclusion today that here is the answer, it is mistaken. as we move after the july recess, we will lay it out and figure out the right approach. will we be as robust as i would like? probably not. what i have learned out of the senate that bold ideas and old on issues and taking no risks are not in the jeans here, and that is the problem. host: as it stands, would you vote? guest: i have not signed on to the legislation. there are things in there that are pro alaska, that we argued for. i go to the meetings to make sure laskin is represented did

-- to make sure alaska is represented. but walter continental shelf, that the revenue streams go back to communities -- the outer continental shelf. that once we set the rules and legislation, that two years later e.p.a. cannot say here of the new rules. you have to create certainty so industry can make the investments they need may be on clean coal, may be issues of offshore or onshore gas development. but those are several things we see in the legislation. but there are still gaps. i think it is not clear, especially now, how ocs will be treated in the future. i will argue we have great resources onshore like anwar and npra that are huge resources that have been blocked by bureaucratic delay.

to me, i have not signed on to any legislation but i participate because my view is if you are not at the table, you i left out. i get my two pieces in there and i will continue to fight for what i think is right for alaska and for the oil and gas industry in our state to make sure it is not white off the face of the earth. -- wiped off the face of the earth. host: steve on the democratic line. what are your thoughts? guest: a couple of quick questions. guest: go ahead, steve. -- caller: a couple of quick questions. host: go ahead, steve. caller: ethanol, as far as the energy legislation down the road. guest: first, there is no question that the oil spill, which is really a blow out but we categorize it as a spill, it

is a serious problem and an incredible disaster down and the gulf. russian market already has had an impact. . agreed to hear the appeal from

the obama administration on the moratorium. the judge overturned the moratorium. since this new appeals court will hear it on july 8. where do you stand on this moratorium? guest: it was a blanket moratorium, and this is the difference. in alaska, you are drilling 70 feet to 200 feet down, a big difference in pressure. we got swept up in bigger issues, which we recognize is part of the process of making decisions like this. a six-month moratorium in alaska is really a year because we have work restrictions. in a lot of ways and i did not

support the moratorium for have its aborted alaska. we are working with the obama administration on how we can make that happen. host: the state department said the u.s. it is accepting help from 12 countries and international organizations to help clean up the spill. charles is next. caller: do you support cap and a tax? guest: no, i do not. host: can you explain what that is? guest: it seems like all we talk about is cap and trade, cap and a rebate, something. what i look at is what is the right mechanism to ensure there is fairness in the system. there are some that are supported, but none are

receiving wide support. people recognize, in order to do with carmen, we need to have a mechanism of some sort that reduces carbon. that is what we are dealing with right now, particularly with utility only. last year, there was a discussion in the house. if you go just to utility-only, the reduction would be around 4%, 5%. people want to see a higher production. the reality here is, we need to get on with this new energy economy. we are now second to china in a lot of energy categories. my hope is we would focus on the broader picture, how to move

this broad economy in the energy, and that will reduce emissions if we can just get along with it. in the house, there is a lot of talk and little action on bold moves. this is the time to move our economy. we see the value of this in alaska. host: the pew center breaks down the gas sector. according to their report, the electricity is the highest, followed by transportation, industrial, commercial, residential. guest: we are going to spend a lot of time talking about how we are going to weatherize homes, which is all good, but if you had a plan that said that you are going to do whether rising

in certain communities, okay. if you also allow tax incentives for people to change their energy source -- in alaska, we had a program where we allow people to move to low- cost, clean fuel. we cut one-third of the use of gas. even though it was already cheap and clean burning, we just improved the technology and saved money. the problem was, we needed ratepayers to pay for it 100%. we could not tap into a federal program. so i think there is a lot, when you think of different sectors, on things that you can do to build a diversified energy base for this country. if we do that, we are going to hit some of these targets.

host: virginia. you are on the republican line. caller: i just wanted to ask a question. we have will in all of our products. plastic, makeup, a lot of other things. are we going to go back to the horse and buggy days? i admit, i get some oil role -- royalty money. what about all of these people employed by the oil industry? guest: i agree with you. i think that is one reason why -- it is interesting. when you come from a state like alaska, which is oil and gas based, there is no question, we will be on all oil and gas for a

long time to come. how we produced other energy sources as part of the equation. when you think about when we've developed solar panels and where we are after 10 years, we developed the technology. the military has the largest solar panel component for their energy sources in the country. the point is, oil and gas are part of our equation. she mentioned products that have oil in it, but it is how we move to other types of generation 4, for example, electricity. it is interesting, in alaska, and rebutted gets -- everybody gets royalties from the state.

in her circumstance, it sounds like she is getting some special royalties. if we do this right, we can ship over $1 trillion a year in the oil and gas dollars. if we could do that here, we could save money. again, this sounds like a broken record. if we do a comprehensive plan and we have a wideranging domestic oil production and gas, we can get to a lot of these issues. but what happened here is the home in on one issue and the drill down so deep on in that they cannot see anything else. if we had the oil embargo, we would the light years ahead. here we are now importing 60% from foreign countries who are not our friends come in some cases.

host: you have a meeting on the senate for an engine legislation. -- energy legislation. host: south carolina. don on the republican line. i do not think that we have the right phone hotline for you. bob in wisconsin. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have one question that i need answered right away, and then i have three points to make. the question is, are you serious

about dealing with this problem? guest: yes. caller: being serious is good. here is the solution. the oil that is already out there, collect it, get a hold of kevin costner, separate it, and then get it into refineries. the second point i would like to make is, in order to do all of these other things, solar, people need to be working. open up the factories again. negotiate some things with the workers and compete with china. we cannot sit around much longer and dillydally.

guest: one of the things i mentioned when we met with the president -- and i will go to your second point on emerging jobs. all of the climate bill, what you want to focus on is, we have great technology, great ideas on how to improve this industry, but the piece that is missing is who are we going to put into these positions? how are we going to do education, training? if we are not smart about this, -- for example, if we do not have new regulations regarding light bulbs and those kinds of things, we are going to fall behind. china produces a lot of those things.

our biggest economic threat is how we are going to compete with china in this new world of energy development. whatever we do on this legislation -- obvious they, i have a focus on alaska -- but what are we going to do to make sure the work force is there and ready? in alaska, we have one of the largest when the power to diesel energy programs in the country, but that program is not nationwide because we do not have the workers. if we do this right, we can build a new generation of employment, a new economy that will be part of this growing energy sector, and the united states should be at the top of that industry. we need to put people back to work in these factories and give

them a new approach for how we deal with the new energy economy. host: greg on the democratic line. arizona. caller: this is elisabeth from california. i am disappointed in hearing that mr. begich does not support the president and the moratorium. that is very sad. you are saying the same thing that we have been hearing for 40 years. we are being unrealistic about renewable. solar and wind will never take off. it sounds like the same dog and pony show. also, you keep saying alaska it is an oil and gas economy. so basically, you do not care about the spill, you do not care what it is costing the country

because you make money from oil and gas. guest: are wrong. i do not know if you have been listening the whole time, but there is no other state that understands the issue of climate change and oil and gas more. we see it every day. we see the impact every day in our villages. we see the impact of melting permafrost in our region. buildings are falling off of their foundation. you are mistaken. on the exxon valdez spill, we have seen the impacts. we sympathize with what was happening in the gulf. but those people who think that we are going to suddenly get all the of oil and gas, that is unrealistic. 60% of our resources come from

foreign countries. host: on the moratorium, what about waiting until these oil and gas companies have come up with different safety procedures that do not mimic what bp had in place? some in that bill say that they would have done similar things. their response plan would have been similar. guest: again, deep water and shallow water are different things, dramatically. we got caught up in the moratorium when we believe we should not have been. if you look at alaska, if you look at the depth that we work in, look at where we have the blowout, it is above water. there are separate issues with

deep water. i am not saying that. what i am saying is we got caught up in this moratorium. we do not do deep water. host: will you be able to get an exemption from the government? guest: we have not yet. i have introduced legislation that codifies exactly what the president is talking about, making law for the land. we have legislation next week dealing with artificial technology. we have another piece of working on the liability issue. so i appreciate your call, but i hope she would go to my website. when i was the mayor of

anchorage, we developed the first energy plan which is focused on renewable energy. that is why alaska will be running on 50% renewable energy. we are doing it. we are not bashful about it, but we have to be honest with ourselves. it is a balanced approach. host: david is next. caller: i have an idea. it may sound off topic, but to get us moving toward the track of a more diverse the commission with energy, i believe we need to go back to the days of socrates and look at how are and music have created the residents

of all things -- residents of all things. using those things, we can start to become one with the track from that tune, but we have to figure that out. ethics are very valuable to us while we do it. guest: i am not sure how to respond, but there is a common thread that binds us. there is a moment, we have to figure out where that peace is. we are just not there yet. my worry is we are going to get back into the mode of what congress had been doing for decades. just pass something so we can say that we did it and then move onto the other options. we need to be bold, broad

based, and aggressive. 50 years from now, we want to be able to look back and say that we did the right thing to diversify our energy economy. host: what did president obama's day yesterday about a timeline for energy legislation? guest: there was not a set time line. we left with a lot of good discussion. the point he made was, fear of the right process but we need to get moving. one comment he made -- and i would agree with this -- there is a great debate about what the public wants. if the senate and house would say, this is what we are going to do, and we laid it out in a bipartisan effort, the public would see the value of this from an economic and national security perspective.

sitting here with you, it may influence people about what they think are what they do not think. i think we have the opportunity to drive this discussion but instead, we end up defaulting to some campaign line because it is election season. i ran on this issue. this is serious. i ran on the issue of figuring out how we are going to develop this comprehensive energy policy. there were only two freshmen at the meeting. we are not sitting around for some other person to do it. i am not on the energy committee, public works committee, but i think it is an important issue and i am going

to inject myself where ever i can to work on this important issue. host: new york. dennis on the independent line. caller: my thoughts are that too many politicians and citizens do not really care about the price of gasoline. there has been no emphasis from washington or even state capitals on conservation. host: do you keep track of the price of gasoline, how much you spend on a yearly basis? guestcaller: not on a yearly ba, but you see it fluctuate.

that is not really my point. the i lived between albany and new york city. i have a 1994 pontiac. it gets 32 miles per gallon on the interstate at 69 miles per hour with my cruise control. i am going over the speed limit only because when i go the speed limit, people line up behind me and it creates an unsafe situation. these people who typically fly pie in the passing lane -- and they have to be doing a minimum 70 miles per hour, many of them at 80 -- host: we need you to get to your point quickly. guest: speed limits -- caller:

speed limits are not enforced, law is not enforced. i hear everyone pushing conservation. guest: in alaska, we are concerned about the price of fuel. diesel fuel for heating in the western part of alaska can range to as high as $12 a gallon. if there is one thing we hear a lot about in alaska is the price of fuel. the issue on conservation, when i was the mayor of anchorage, we lead the largest effort on replacing white with led lights. when you think of projects like that, just in our city, just in our city, we had this conference on letting the streets because it was in the energy-saving

idea. in a lot of cases, for example, if the government could make a policy and say every building new and renovated would have priority to renewable, if we may not the policy across the board, the amount of money we would save is of enormous. the coast guard in kodiak will be 100% alternative fuel. it makes sense. it allows them to be more secure on their energy source. i think conservation is the easiest thing we can be doing. it is bill low hanging fruit -- the low hanging fruit, but we

should not limited to that. host: in terms of the private sector, some have said, in order to get the dollars invested in alternative resources, you need to put a floor on the price of oil and gas. yes, you keep drilling and tap the resources in the country for oil and gas, but you put a floor on it so that investors know -- so that they have some certainty. guest: that unleashes an unbelievable investment, but i would also say this. if you go to any major across the country and ask them what they have done on conservation, they will give you examples on how the private sector has come in and partnered with them to develop these policies. i believe senator kerry and others make the point that if

you do put some sort of mechanism in you will unleash enormous uncertainty. i do not disagree with that. there are some in the republican irina who disagree with that. we have to figure out how to get there. that is why a mechanism of some sort, in fairness to the system, to bring as many people to the table as possible. ge has done this. they did it because they recognize the benefits to their shareholders. host: i wanted to ask you about the general david petraeus' appeared before the armed services committee. he was quickly confirmed. i wanted to ask about strategy in afghanistan. do you believe the u.s.-led coalition there is doing the

right strategy? guest: at this point, we are, but there are challenges. i talked about afghanistan not getting enough resources a couple of years ago. we have now put more rhesus -- resources in there. i think the president's target of july -- we are going to determine how many people are coming out to see if it is a good approach. july is the target date to begin the process. host: you do not believe it should be a firm deadline where they begin withdrawing? guest: i hope to be there in october and get some information from general petraeus. then as we move into july, the

president will say, we have to do something. the volume should not be determined today. that is something that we should look at next year. i get frustrated with the same old political speeches. we do not know how many people will be withdrawn. let's wait and see the process. but i think there is a lot of political hay that people like to make over this. the general petraeus is very committed. i spoke to him personally before his confirmation hearing. i think he is the right man for the job right now. we should be honest with ourselves. if the karzai government has not trained in of troops, we need to understand what that means.

host: should they change strategy at that point? guest: i think we should examine it. i would turn to military leadership to see if it is working. are we on track? i think a lot of people want to jump to conclusions because of the november election just to make a statement. we have resources there, we are moving forward. alaska has some of the highest numbers of troops that go there. i have been too many funerals and it is an incredible impact to families. we have to figure out the right approach as we continue through this and make sure that we finish the job. host: new haven, connecticut. larry on the democratic line. caller: every time i keep hearing this renewable energy, which is great, but we are never

going to stop oil. we are producing over 5 million barrels of oil in this country and i keep asking where is this going? it is a global economy. the president want to drill for oil that the 50-mile range in the ocean. that is considered the high seas. host: we are going to leave it there. guest: i do not know what the question was, i think it was more of a statement. the president opened and closed off some areas.

he made a good decision in bristol bay. it is a rich fishery and we need to reserve it. as we move forward on his energy plan, there are good plans and locations to develop, and if you do not do offshore, you have to do on shore. if we do nothing, we will go back to buying oil from foreign resources from people who are often not our friends. i do not think that is the approach that the american people want to. we have to recognize a transition period and recognize what renewable makes sense economically, and move forward. we can have these debates until we are blue in the face but the reality is two years from now we

are going to be in thh same conversation if we do not get aggressive and do something right that will protect us from a national security standpoint and create jobs for this new energy economy. host: thank you for being here. we are going to turn our attention to afghanistan to talk about strategy with our next guest buck mckeon. first, we want to give you a campaign update on the senate illinois race. with me is a political reporter with the "to chicago sun times." mark kirk, the republican nominee, apologized for his statement about the military. >> i have made mistakes concerning certain aspects of my accomplishments and experiences, and i apologize for those

mistakes and i pledge to correct those errors. i am not perfect and was care less. i will do better and i will make sure that this never happens again. host: why did it take the congressman about one month to comment on this? >> that is a good question. even his own supporters said that he had done a good job compared to a month ago. 10 years in the congress, he has this reputation of being a well spoken, experienced congressman who has been in iraq, afghanistan as a naval intelligence officer. probably why he was such an attractive candidate for the

races. his democratic opponent stumbled upon of the gate early. he had some family problems. part of his estate was taken over by the fdic. it seemed, for a while, that's kirk had -- that kirk had a good shot at winning. now, because of his misstatements, all of the focus has been on his embellishments. now he has had this news conference and has apologized, but there are questions about why you would do this. are there things beyond your

military record? on the floor of the congress, he said as a teacher, seeing some of the kids in our country coming to school looking like they might bring guns to school. it turns out he never thought anybody above grade school. so we are still ironing out the bumps. host: what impact will this apology have? >> he had plenty of military people and other supporters cheering him on. he needed to confront this. the score may be even now between him and his opponent. i expect the lead to shift back

and forth until november. host: does that mean, if democrats see an opportunity, that you might see president obama or other big democrat names come to this state? >> absolutely. i think you will see both sides put a heck of lot of money into this race. host: what about the debate? aren't the two of expected to square off soon? >> yes, there is one coming up soon. kirk is releasing some ads today hitting his opponent hard. i think you are going to start to hear a lot about this race between now and november.

host: we will be watching. thank you for your time this morning. for more information about campaign 2010, and to watch the whole press conference held by mark kirk, go to c-span.org. with me now is but the key on, a ranking member from california -- buck mckeon, a ranking member from california on the armed services committee. let me pose the same question to you that i asked mark begich. do you believe the american coalition is on the right track? guest: i had some disagreement with the president, and i thought that he took, at the time, too much time to review the strategy. but he is the commander in chief and has all the responsibility, obligation to get it right. he took 90 days -- and general

mcchrystal and one year ago was asked to assess and give his evaluation. he did that. the president received his evaluation in august. he took a long time, talked to a lot of people, did some re- evaluation, and then in december at west point came up with what the strategy should be. i do not want to second-guess that. the strategy is basically the same as they used in iraq, and that was successful. we could go in, like russia tried to do, and the blow of the country. that is not what we are trying to do. we do not want to take over. we want to make sure the taliban and al qaeda cannot have a safe haven where they can spend time

planning and have freedom of movement to attack us freely, as they did on 9/11. to do that, you have to win the support of the people, and that is what the counterinsurgency strategy does. the president accepted that strategy, asked the general mcchrystal to carry out that strategy, gave him 30,000 additional troops. then he asked the general to give an update in december of this year, and at that time, had a chance to see how the strategy is working, how progress is being made. that is where we are now. of course, we have the tragedy of the firing of mcchrystal, a

tragedy for mcchrystal, and for the effort, but fortunately, the general petraeus has been put in place. he had his hearing yesterday. i think the senate will confirm him right after the fourth of july break and he will hit the ground running. host: the papers expect that to happen today. guest: really? that is even better than i had heard. the senate is an interesting place. sometimes they can move quickly, sometimes very slowly. host: do you have concerns about the strategy? guest: you can have concerns and you can second-guess everything, but realistically, we ought to give it a chance. fine do not have concerns. i have some concerns about the

rules of engagement. -- i do not have concerns. i have heard that, but that is pretty broad. in the article, in the "rolling stone" article, it went into that in good detail and it told how general mcchrystal understood the strategy, rules of engagement. by the time it got to the troops in the field, it had so many iterations, it was probably not the way that the general wanted it, probably not the way that it was enacted by the troops. the troops feel like they are put into battle with one arm tied behind their back. i know general petraeus will be reviewing that when he gets there. i think that should be refined.

our troops should not have their hands tied behind their back when they are engaged in combat. i think that is a good change. host: you are reserving judgment. how long before you give -- how much time do they have to prove that the strategy is working, not just for you, but for the american public? guest: is difficult to explain why we are there in the first place. -- it is difficult to explain why we are there in the first place. we are doing some nation- building. women are doing more things, having more freedoms. those are all good things. i was in a meeting last night with the the defense minister

from great britain, and i agreed with him, there is one reason why we are there. if we were there just to give more freedom to women, allow girls to go to school, we would be in half of the countries around the world. we cannot do that. we are there for our national security. we have to make sure that they can have freedom to do whatever they want -- that they cannot have freedom to do whatever they want, planned attacks on us. we are there to disrupt, dismantle, the ft al-qaeda and the taliban. that is the purpose we need to do a better job explaining to the american people.

one of the things that he said last night which is important, when we talk about the price of success, we often have -- also have to consider the price of failure. that is another 9/11, or worse, and we cannot do that. it is important to understand why we are there. how we move forward, how much time we have is important to get the full surge in place. a few years ago, there was criticism about general petraeus. it was not long after that that we had won the war in iraq. by august, we will have had all of our war fighters out of iraq. we will be down to 50,000 forces there that are man the backup to

the iraqi forces. they are there in a training and capacity -- backup capacity. there are still attacks, bombings, but they are so far reduced that the iraqis are able to handle it themselves. if we can have the same kind of success in afghanistan, which we do not know -- i remember when mcchrystal wrote his analysis of how things were one year ago. he said we have one year's time to get something in place. well, we lost several months in the review. now the troops are on the way and we will pretty much all be there by the end of the month. then we can start to see how we can be successful. but they need that window. i would say until december.

the president also said by next july, one year from now, when he would start with crawl. that is based on conditions. i think we pretty much understand that. the president said that we are not turning off the lights and closing the door and leaving. we will see how things are progressing and make decisions, at that point. host: a tweet on afghanistan -- guest: i do not think it is likely we will be leaving soon. host: this person seem to be suggesting we could be intending to stay longer because we want access to those resources. guest: that is probably not the reason we will be staying. we will be staying to ensure the

afghans can provide their own security, so that we can be sure al qaeda and the taliban cannot come back and have total freedom of movement again. host: tennessee. independent line. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? i would like to ask the congressman how much money we give the afghan government without any liabilities? host: two issues. how did you vote on extending unemployment benefits? guest: i voted no. we have so much debt in the

country right now, we cannot continue to pile on. there are problems in afghanistan with the government. i know there are corrections -- corruptions there, but again, the main reason we are there is for our security. they will not be free of corruption in one year. i think we have to be careful about sending them any money that is being used incorrectly. we need to keep our eye on the ball on why we are there, and that is for national security. host: albany, new york. rocky on the republican line.

caller: you just made an argument about benefits and you are also talking about the continued occupation of afghanistan. how can you sleep at night? there are families on the unemployment but we continue to spend money on unnecessary wars but nothing for unemployed families. how can you do that? guest: the vote yesterday was to continue on employment for another 99 weeks. -- unemployment for another 99 weeks. we have to help the people in the private sector. this was interesting. last night, the recession that they had in england which is

similar to ours, has only affected their private sector. that is something that the president did in his stimulus package. he provided money to the states to provide for school teachers, firemen, policemen, people working in government jobs not protected by unions. i do not want to see anybody losing their job, but we are losing lots of jobs in the private sector. we have lost over 7.5 million jobs since 2006. vice-president biden said a few days ago those 8 million jobs that we have lost are not coming back. i think that is the wrong mindset. we have to do what we can to help the private sector create jobs. that means less tax burden, less obligation. i spoke to some people in my

area at home of a few weeks ago and they have no idea what is coming down the road. they are concerned about taxes, what health care is going to do to them. they do not want to hire more people that they will just have to turn around and play golf. the uncertainty is gripping the country. host: angela in maryland. caller: i am not necessarily for the war, but if you are going to have a war, joe biden recommended a strategy -- i cannot say this to accurately -- but a smaller counter terrorism type of group. let them come back into afghanistan, find out where they are setting up, and attack them

that way. right now, they are all over the place. we need to get them back there and we need to be hiding in ca ves, like rambo, use drones, drawn down in that way and keep our presence there, if we are intending to stay. guest: as i said, the president spent 90 days deciding on that. and vice-president biden had a chance to present his full ideas and strategy. the president listened to everybody but finally made the decision to go with the counterinsurgency. vice-president biden, i know it was reported yesterday that he

is supportive of this strategy. we cannot second-guess this yet. the president made the decision and we need to give ii a chance to work. we need to give general petraeus a chance to meet with tribal leaders, do the same things that he did in iraq, and i think he will be successful. host: for lauderdale, florida. jack on the republican line. -- fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i would like to ask the congressman, you made a statement that we are going to win. what are we going to win? guest: our job is to dismantle, disrupt, and to feed al-qaeda and the taliban. we actually won there before

early in the bush presidency. when we went into afghanistan, we won the war. we took our on off the ball, went into iraq, and now we have to start over again. in the meantime, the taliban moved in to provide the local government. it is a large country, not compared to ours, but there is lots of land, territory. they come into these small territories and provide a government. if there is a land dispute, they settled it. if there are other problems, they settle it. but they settle it under old sharia law. it is a pretty brutal government that they provide. most of the people want to be free of that kind of control,

where they will cut off somebody's hand, head -- it is pretty harsh government. and they are also sympathetic to al qaeda. they gave them unfettered access to whatever they needed to hold their training and preparing to attack us. winning will mean taking that away from the taliban, al qaeda, so that they cannot have a land where they can freely prepare to attack us. we are not going to create a united states of america in afghanistan but we have to give them the ability to govern their country, to not have the safe havens for terrorists to attack us from. host: tony in california.

democratic line. caller: republicans keep talking about government regulations. bp is the result of last government regulations. we see the same thing happening in the auto industry. the more we hear republicans talk about a less government, the more i feel unsafe and the more money we see spend on war, so that we can get the oil. the republican party just needs to say it. we are the gop, gas, oil, and petroleum. guest: i am probably not going to change his mind. i come from a small business background. i grew up in a family business.

when my father originally started business, all he had to do was buy a truck. he spent one weekend cleaning it out, bought some meat and tried to sell it to stores. now if you want to go into business, there are places that will license you, fees that chargare charged to you, there e many regulations and it is difficult. it makes it hard for people to go into business. small business people are the ones that create jobs. we are in this environment where we are losing jobs but we expect the government to provide jobs. the government only get their money two ways. taxing the people or borrowing. we are now more when 43 cents on

every dollar that we spend. there needs to be regulation, no question, but we have gone so far into regulating so many different aspects of our lives, all the things that we have to comply with the in the day, taxes that we have to play with, that there is such a disincentive to start a business, to go on their own, hire people and move our economy. we need to have some change there. host: "politico" reported that you and jerry lewis from the appropriations committee sent a letter to the house speaker saying that you and others would vote against the war supplemental bill if it included spending projects, and related spending projects. what is the status of the war supplemental bill? guest: when general mcchrystal was here one month ago, i asked

him, because we have not passed the supplemental yet, is this causing you problems? he said, we were told it would probably be passed before the memorial day break. but if not, if it goes far into the summer, it may start to cause problems. he is gone, it has still not passed. i spoke to a member in the house and asked, why not just pass the senate bill? the president asked for $33 billion to continue to sustain the war effort over there. he said, we're not just going to take what the senate does. .

guest: people were upset because president bush spent so much

money. this is four times that in one year. in going forward, we will have a deficit, annual deficit of almost $1 trillion a year every year. democrats are not going to pass a budget this year. host: the action the administration and the congress took because of the financial downturn we're in, a lot of that had to do with the situation that we grin. tarp was started under president bush. guest: no question. they came in during the last few months and secretary paulson said, if we do not do this right now, we will go off a cliff. they did not use the money for what they told us they would use the money for. i am not happy about that.

the stimulus package was $780 billion. that was money spent out into communities that was supposed to provide 3 million jobs. we have lost jobs since then. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. host: let's not spend money on the war in afghanistan and iraq. guest: the important thing is to understand why we are there. it has gotten mixed up -- some people think we're fighting for afghan freedom. we are fighting for a national security. it would be better to fight there than in the streets of new york.

people have to look get that and say, is that real or not? then you move forward with it. but you have to understand the price of success and you have to measure against the price of failure. host: walter in atlanta. caller: thank you. there are a few examples of how you have failed to service me. the survey 4000 soldiers in afghanistan. 84% disagreed with the strategy. 84%. you are giving them the import gun and it will only -- it will issue 1,000 yards. they have had the wrong guns in their hands. now they're trying to put the sniper gun that shoots 2,500 yards. you have already failed our men

already. host: are you hearing the same thing? guest: i have been to afghanistan and other bases around the country. i have never seen anything other than good morale and strong support for the mission from the troops. we can talk about weapons. there are deficiencies, i am sure, with all weapons. i have not seen those kind of numbers that the gentleman talks about. they are also in flat land. afghanistan kind of reminds me about my district at home as i was flying over it and fly into the kandahar region. lots of flat desert. you have mounds that dwarfed the mounds that we have.

it is lots of -- you have mountains dead tour of the mountains that we have. we have found that we did not have the vehicles and we were losing lots of people. we got body armor over there. have wewe're doing -- done everything right? no. we're all human. to try to get through the problem is like getting this supplemental past. it is important. we're arguing over a different things and we cannot get the bill passed and the money to the troops we need. if we do not get that passed by the july 4 break, we'll have to start doing stupid things. they will pull money from other places and disrupt and cost problems elsewhere for the

military. it's just not a good way to do business. host: democratic line from new jersey. caller: good morning. i would like to criticize the representative there. he said a moment ago he has been there for 18 years. any democrat or republican has lost touch if they have been there for 18 years. i returned from visiting six countries in europe. they love our country. they dislike our government. i wish this representative would watch it rebroadcast of this television to see how he reacted to the improper weaponry used there. we cannot win this war what innocent men and women come home here and they do not have the

adequate protection. you are in there for the oil. guest: there is no oil that we know of in kandahar. we are not in afghanistan for the oil. the public is much more informed, much more in tune. when i came to congress 18 years ago, it sometimes seems like a short time and other times it seems like a long time. but people were not as informed them as they are now. programs like this -- i did not know even -- i did not know about c-span until i won my election. i think that is a good thing. most people that have come on here today have criticized me and i'd understand that. but i do keep in touch. i'm from california.

i go home often. i represent about 730,000 people. no way can i talk to all of them on a weekly basis. i hold a town hall meetings. i hold telephone town hall meetings and listened to people and i get lots of input from a lot of people. there are people that disagree with me and people that agree with me. i have heard that any two people that agree on anything, one of them is an idiot. what -- would i like to make everyone happy? sure. i think most people like to do that. but you have to deal with things the way they are and you have to move forward. i think it is important our mission there. am i happy when we lose young

people? no. i have been to five funerals, a couple of them in the last few months. everyone of them have felt that their daughter -- their sons were doing what they wanted to do. they felt good about the mission they were serving in. did they want to die? no. but they willingly paid the ultimate price because they felt like they were doing it for our countries security. and i wish them all the best. i wish their families all the best and i wish they hadn't had to go through that. we wish this was a utopia but that is not the world we live and right now. there are people who want to kill us and take away our freedoms. we have to protect ourselves against that. host: there is a hearing today

on the situation at arlington cemetery and what happened there grave stones.ed would you expect to come out of this hearing? guest: it is more than just some misplaced gravestones. there are some serious problems that go back many, many years. i think that the secretary has been there a short time and the secretary before him had asked for some investigations. there are some changes that have already been made. i think there will be some wholesale changes out there, some real tragedies. we have 300,000 people buried at arlington. this is a cemetery that started during the civil war of 1865.

this is our national -- our national cemetery. i think that i expect to learn more. that is why we are holding the hearings. as a result of the hearing, i am sure we will be making some recommendations and hopefully some changes that will be greatly needed improvements. host: we will be covering that hearing. go to c-span.org for our television schedule. new york. caller: good morning. i served in the military -- hello? host: we are listing. caller: i served in the military for five years. i do not understand the hypocrisy that we can spent trillions of dollars overseas and not spend a dime in homeland.

billions of dollars for safe havens for warlords. they use money against us. where is the common sense? the national debt will double in the next five years. i wonder if it will be $22 trillion. i think george bush -- the deficit was about $11 trillion. be honest about it, ok? guest: 0 was that last -- what was that last -- host: he was saying to be honest. guest: i am looking at the numbers i receive from the accounting office. that is what the numbers are.

disagreeing. not most of us here understand the numbers. we're disagreeing on how the dollars are spent. but it is a fact that the budget that the president submitted was $3.8 trillion. we're not having a budget passed. there have been no spending bills passed this year. the last time the republicans were in charge, 2006, all of the spending bills were passed at this time of year. we have not had one pass this year. we have not had a full committee markup. they are putting it all off until after the election. that is a fact. so we can discuss and debate and argue about the priorities, but

the facts are the facts. they are not doing the spending bills. et frome have a twe one of our viewers. guest: afghanistan does not threaten us. it would be an afghanistan that is government itself that has their own security force that is able to keep charge of their territory so that the taliban and other terrorist groups cannot go in and set up troops where they can launch attacks against us. host: last phone call from tucson, arizona on the independent line. caller: i want to add that this war is useless and it is not helping the american people. it is not so fine hit our unity in any way -- is not so

solidifying our unity. host: you said the administration has not done a good job at explaining why we are here. what can happen? do the american people need to be called on to sacrifice more? guest: i do not want to get into blame game. we do that too much around here. but i do feel that president obama when we went to -- that president bush did not do a proper job of explaining to the american people why, and i don't think president obama has done an adequate job of explaining. he has given countless speeches on health care and one or two on afghanistan. the gentleman that just spoke said that this is basically a

useless war and it is dividing the american people. i think if we could lay out what we are there and the importance of not having a safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks on us, have we forgotten 9/11? have we forgotten how we felt? i remember those feelings. i remember seeing the smoke over the pentagon. i remember watching the twin towers on tv. that was all planned and lodge launched from afghanistan and we're trying to avoid that from happening again. since that time, we have iran planning working hard to get nuclear weapons permit what happens if the next attack is not the twin towers?

what if it is the whole city? what happens if they get a nuclear weapon that they are able to plan and moved into our country? then we go back and say, we should have been doing something to stop them from doing this. and i think sometimes we lose sight of that and as a nation and its leadership looking over at the capitol, instead of fighting each other, we should remember what that week was like when we all came together and i think we have not done the job as democrats and as republicans and as leadership out of the white house to explain to the american people the importance of what we're doing. host: commerce buck mckeon meant -- congressman buck mckeon, thank you free time.

we'll turn our discussion to the supreme court ruling on gun rights and the debate over the rights to bear arms. the confirmation hearings for elena kagan are underway right now on c-span3. live coverage also on c-span radio and c-span.org. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, preview a direct link, all as a public service, created by america's cable companies. was virginia senator robert byrd served more than 50 years in the senate. he appeared on c-span more than 1200 times. watch our 1988 profile with the senator, all online at the c-

span video library. it is washington your way. sunday, your questions for bill bennett, live on "in depth." he is the author for more than 20 books. three hours with bill bennett, sunday, part of the three day holiday weekend on c-span2. if the complete schedule at booktv.org. the congressional directory, a reference guide, supreme court justices, all at your fingertips. order online ad c-span.org /store. >> read c-span latest book, "the

supreme court." it provides unique insight about the court. now available in hardcover and also as an e-book. >> "washington journal" continues. host: dennis henigan is the author of "lethal logic," and lott is the author of "more guns, less crime." in the clear politics website, the gun control laws -- the second amendment to the constitution means individual americans have a right to bear arms. what can we expect? guest: i think this is an

important decision. we still have a long way to go. at least you cannot ban entire categories of guns. in d.c., you could not mandate that people have locked up guns. there will be other decisions to come down. there was a decision two years ago and a whole slew of newwlaws were passed. you have to take two tests. soon only wealthy people will be able to own guns. they will be challenged. the same thing will be happening in chicago. daley has already promised those regulations. host: what to jamaica of the ruling? -- what did you make of the ruling?

guest: the same five justices held that the constitution maintains they have a right to own guns. what is important about both of those decisions is that the court went out of its way to make it clear that despite the existence of this right, it is not an absolute right at all. it is subject to reasonable restrictions. the court laid out some restrictions that could still be instituted like banning the concealed carrying of guns, regulating where they can take guns. we found that language reassuring. very few cities ever had handgun bans. the district and chicago were two of the very few. there are some common sense gun laws that need to be enacted to keep guns out of the hands of

dangerous people. host: the suspect that all of these different lost out there the put limitations on handguns -- all these different laws out there? guest: their work in the wake of the heller decision two years ago. there will be challenges at the state and local levels. most will be brought by criminal defendants who are trying to avoid prosecution under the gun laws. we think we will see that gun laws will be upheld. i hope this will redirect the redirect the debate from what kind of regulations we cannot impose to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. host: elena kagan was asked

yesterday about the court's decision in mcdonald versus the city of chicago and also about the heller decision and here's what she had to say. >> i think heller is settled law and heller has decided that the second amendment confers such an individual's rights to keep and bear arms. do you agree with that decision that the second amendment is -- is for any reason you know of that it would not be controlling? >> there is no reason i know a spirit is settled law. she said ishn lott, settled law. what does that mean?

guest: she was asked about this by other senators. she talked about this millard decision in 1939 -- this miller decision were the did not deal with that decision of individual rights. she thought it denied individual rights and that a fundamental change had occurred. the problem is she said she wants to except past presidents. -- past precedents. so she is leaving herself a big out. just like sonia sotomayor was asked whether or not she would give deference to the heller case and she said yes, it is settled law. but on monday's decision, she signed one of the the sense that denied it was an individual's right even though she had made

the opposite statement. kagan is leaving herself more of an elfin sotomayor last year. host: debut here optimism in her response? -- did you hear optimism? guest: it would have been surprising to hear her say, the decisions were wrongly decided and i want to overturn them. that is not the kind of thing nominees say. she said would be expected. it is appropriate for her not to express a view about whether they were good or bad law given that she is not on the court yet. she will have to look at those issues when she gets on the court. but what is also the law is the language in both of those decisions saying that reasonable regulation is still permissible.

i would add that regulations the district of columbia enacted after their handgun ban was thrown out, which we think are common-sense regulations, were actually up held by a federal judge in the district of columbia as being consistent with the heller decision. it will go up on appeal. it could go to the supreme court. we think the court has sent strong signals to the lower court twice that although handgun bans may be off the table, a whole range of gun regulation -- extending the brady bill background checks which only apply now to purchases from licensed dealers. extending them to private sales at gun shows and other venues so that wherever there is a gun sold there is a background check. we think this is consistent with

the constitution. guest: all they say is these other test lost will have to be dealt with. you mention the district court $500 fee.with the 5 $1.3 you may claim a lot of these things areereasonable regulations. the problem you have is that you put these types of regulations at gun shows and you will see a 20% drop in the number of gun shows. that makes it difficult for people to buy inexpensive guns. you put a $500 fee and you make it so that the poor people in urban areas are the ones who are going to be excluded from having the opportunity to defend themselves.

if they put a poll tax in chicago, you would say that would discriminate against poor blacks. i would argue these fees are going to discriminate against blacks and they are the ones most vulnerable to crime. limiting gun ownership to wealthy people would be a reasonable type of decision. host: you touched on this bill but. chicagos what does not prohibit handgun ownership. but it effectively does so. the law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a hermit -- to apply for a permit. it makes it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. guest: it is whether or not you have registered a handgun prior to 1982. then you can get grandfathered

in in chicago. a couple of big donors to mayor daley had been exempted from the regulations after 1982. for the vast majority of people in chicago, it was impossible to get a handgun after 1982. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments about this topic. the main thing is guns art second amendments. there is a reason why we were given those, to protect the first amendment. you look at australia many years ago and the outright sale and ownership of all guns. you can get permits and do all the rigmarole to own hunting rifles. home invasions went up 900%.

they don't tell you about those facts. november 9 -- november 5 in montana, a couple of illegal immigrants broke into a girl's house as her father left. these illegal immigrants -- we can assume with a came from -- they did note that this girl was a shooting champion. she went upstairs, grabbed her father's shotgun, and protected herself with the second amendment right. they had a .45 on them that they had stolen from the previous crime quest and murdered the+ person. she protected herself. guest: the caller talks about comparison of our country to australia. there is a lot misinformation

about these comparisons. their strike and government has had to release information about the effect of its gun laws. if you look at the comparison of the united states with other western industrialized countries, what you find is that our violent crime rates are not that different than those in western industrialized countries. are sometimesketes higher than here. what you find three time is that u.s. homicide rates are higher than any of these other countries. you find a much greater involvement guns in our crimes that in their crimes. we have more guns. we have looser gun laws, and we have much more lethal crime. our -- is so easy in our country

to get guns. that is why our homicide rates are so high. host: you wrote about more guns, less crime. guest: right. i cannot find a country in the world that has had a gun ban that is not had in increase in murders afterward. it's sometimes increases three, four, fivefold increases. they have low crime rates and low murder rates prior to them having the types of regulations that you would support. what happens is their crime rates went up and murder rates went up after they had those types of bans. murders in the united states are heavily concentrated in just a few counties in the united states. 3% of the counties account for over 70% of the murders.

50% of the counties have zero % of any murders. within those counties, it is basically drug gang related. the united states has the worst drug problem. the places where we have these murders are the urban, low gun ownership counties. all these countries, you will see increases relative to what they were before and after they adopted these gun control laws. host: republican line. caller: in england, they took away their guns and the stab each other to death. that is more violence to get stabbed 40 or 50 times. when the supreme court ruled the other day, we can all see that

the democrats want to get rid of the second amendment. to get rid will try get to you of the next amendment. the democrats are dangerous. guest: i want to respond to the assertion that where we have homicides in this country is where we have low gun ownership. the homicide -- new orleans has the highest rate. louisiana has waxed gun laws. it is -- louisiana has lax gun laws. to say murders only occur where there are high gun ownership rates. if you look at the states with the lowest gun ownership rates,

they have a far lower homicide rate than the states with the highest gun ownership rates. if you compare the top five with the bottom five, that is what to do fine. host: hold on. asking about the studies that you're citing and why is there a correlation between more guns and less crime. guest: the fact that would be victims would be able to defend themselves make it riskier for criminals to commit crimes. in my book, i go through studies by criminologists, economists, even public health people and explain what the results are there. i have tables that list studies and what academics have found there. i am happy to talk about the

claims. host: we will get to that. norfolk, virginia. larry. caller: i think they have concealed carry permits. every state that has issued a concealed carry, violent crime has dropped. host: what about that? guest: i think he is basing that on a lot of the johns research. it has been thoroughly discredited by scholar at the scholar after scholar from major research universities who have looked at johns data and methodology and have concluded the methodology was flawed. there's no evidence that more concealed weapons mean more crime. in states with -- they have been met with higher aggravated assault rates. these examples are of legal

logic that my book deals with. we have this whole mythology that has grown up around this more guns less crimes notion that is reinforced by the national rifle association that has a lout bullhorn -- that has a loud bullhorn. guest: there was an experiment we just had. the d.c. handgun ban was struck down, murder rates in d.c. went up by 4%. when the ban went into effect, it soared afterward. d.c. was between 24 and 15th prior to the ban. after the ban, it was in the top four 2/3 of the time. as soon as the tunnel gets

eliminated, we see a 40% drop. murder rates have dropped by about 7% nationally during that same time. you have to slash three of the academic research that has looked at right to carry the has found significant drops in violent crime rates. a third of the studies claim to find no changes. there is not a single academic study that finds the data it that dennis is claiming. caller: misery. barack -- missouri. i do not know what the crime rate is over there. i don't imagine it is too high because everyone over there has an on regulated gun and kill themselves anytime they want.

-- the national rifle association seems to make a big play and they have lobbyists and some of the politicians -- one lady said we have to use the second amendment to strengthen -- to straighten out the government. there are enough nuts out there running around with guns and people do stupid stuff like that. host: roy from richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. it is typical of the liberals. it is the thugs and the gangster culture and people living in miserable conditions and spreading misery with bullets and anything else they can spread it on america. liberals look for someone to sue like a gun manufacturer or

someone to blame. the love to play the blame gamm. personal responsibility, people. individual freedom. that is what makes america great. if someone needs a shot gun to protect themselves, let them have their shotgun. fix your own problems. bring america back to where it's supposed to be with freedom and integrity. host: we move on to gina. caller: i am watching your show on gun rights. i'm totally for individuals owning guns. i am a single woman living alone. i recently purchased a gun. i sleep a lot better knowing that if a criminal breaks into my house, i can blow their butts right out the door. host: what are the gun laws in your area?

caller: i do not have any idea. i have a handgun. it makes a world of difference in the way you feel secure. i am not someone will go well and kilt or rob somebody. i bought it for me. it helps. host: we're talking about handguns. that is what the court decided on in mcdonald curses the city of chicago. d.c. anything in the language that opens up restrictions on assault -- do you see anything in the language there? guest: courts look at the precise issue before them. in chicago, there was a handgun ban. they will have to wait for someone to bring a future case. we have had a lot of experience with this.

a lot of groups were predicting that we would see a huge increases in the murder rate. the murder rate was five points seven per hundred thousand before the sun set. we have seen a drop. guest: we have heard several times from john. that crime has gone down. he has been making these assertions. the police chief wrote an op-ed piece because they got fed up with this misleading information. she pointed out a couple of things. crime rates in the district of columbia have been plummeting for years. that decline started in 1994 with the enactment of the brady law. the one kind of crime that is increasing in the district of columbia is home invasion

crimes. that is where a long people to have guns should make a difference. there has been a decline in street crimes. d.c. has that changed its laws with respect to people on the street. i would judge the judgment of the police chief of the district of columbia on that. the only peer review study showed that after the ban was enacted,, site plummeted over 20%. suicide's plummeted over 20%. the suicide issue is one that a lot of people ignore. the fewer guns that are in homes, the lower the risk of suicide. if people at 10 suicide with a gun, the completed much more often than they do with a knife or another weapon. caller: good morning.

this is montana. some of these will not -- wingnuts thing the government will take their guns away. i am sorry, but that is an advertising ploy. host: what about that? guest: surely it is something that concerns a lot of people. the registration systems in canada or the u.k. that have been used to confiscate guns. i'm not into the second amendment debate. the basic issue is the impact it has on the crime rates. it would be great if the police were there to protect people. in my research, the police of the most important single factor in reducing crime. they cannot be there all the time.

they arrived after the crime occurs. we had a woman who called sen. there are two groups of people who benefit from owning guns. people that are weaker physically, the women and the elderly. and people most likely to be victims of crime and they tend to be poor and black and live and high crime urban areas. the reason why they benefit the most is because they are most likely to be the victims of crime. look at the claims that dennis was making about home innovations. go to the d.c. website. the police have a website. burglaries have fallen. there are two different types of burglaries. you have robberies where the victims are in the home. they have fallen a lot. cromwell's try to case homes -- criminals try to case homes

before the break-in. you can have a drop in home robberies even if you have an increase in burglary spree of home robberies have fallen even more than burglars have fallen. host: lancaster, pennsylvania. caller: it is amazing how opposed these guys' position can become both quoting facts and position. it is so far off the point. the point is freedom and the distraction of crime rates seems incredible to me. criminals don't need guns. i have the guns and i can tell you i don't have any criminal intent. i have for protection. and anything else that may come unexpected. i have a right for that. it doesn't matter what they say about the law. if there is a confrontation and i have a right.

i'm not looking for permission. i am not -- i don't care what the law says. host: we move on to mike from memphis. caller: what kind of country do live-in where we have to have these guns. all the stuff you were saying was a live. the preamble to the cost to some,"we the people of the united states established justice, provide for the domestic--" what is going on here? i have never owned a gun. you're talking about communities. this is insane. abraham lincoln said prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason. host: what about the first

caller saying it is an issue of freedom? guest: you do hear that a lot. under our system, no freedom is absolute. the right to express yourself is not absolute. it is subject to subject -- it is subject to regulation or the public safety is threatened. the closer the speech gets to inciting violence, the less protection it gets under our constitution. we are dealing with a freedom to own a lethal weapon. that is like no other freedom we have. guns can be used in self- defense. i would ask people to understand that the likelihood a gun in a home would be used to shoot an intruder is far less likely than it will be used in a domestic dispute, a suicide. so yes, we have the freedom to

have a gun in the home. consider not only the potential for self-defense but the risks that go with it. we find that their research shows guns in the hall are far more likely to be used for those less salutary uses them to be used in self-defense. host: edward on the republican line from arizona. caller: good morning. how are you? the second amendment was put in there so that we did not rise up against the government who was oppressive, which this government certainly is. host: renee from fort myers, florida. caller: earlier you were talking about the depression. we were doing will fine for a few months. but now the news is saying things are toning down.

we could have a depression. if we have a depression, it is either going to be accidental -- it is by the international bankers because then we have a depression and they have the gold and silver and the money to buy up everything. it is the poor guys who have money tied up. host: we are talking about the supreme court ruling on monday on gun rights. many people point to crime rates going up because of the economy going down. guest: my research has found there is little relationship to changes in the economy and crime rate. a lot of people were surprised when we saw this drop in violent crime and murder this last year despite the bad economy. i think there are -- lots of

things have changed. there has been a huge surge in don't ownership. right after the 2008 election, we saw the number of hand permits go from about -- it increased during that time. host: brian, independent line. you're the next phone call. caller: ok, to live. i have two points. one is in connecticut, we have our law. when you purchase a gun, you need to wait two weeks for the background check. is atwo isday -- is not like two days like in other parts of the country. there are a few states, maybe new orleans might be one of them. host: what about waiting for?

guest: it could be challenged. that is the kind of gun law that could be upheld. there is a good research to show that a lot of folks who commit suicide actually purchased the gun from a gun dealer and surely before committing suicide. we think the a waiting period can focus as a time for people to reassess their motives and to have an effect on suicide. i think that wilwaiting periods allow for a more extensive background check. if you have categories of people to you have decided areto too dangerous, you need to have an

enforcement mechanism pretty bill has stopped many people from buying guns over the counter from licensed dealers. let's extend that to all gun purchases, particularly those at gun shows where a lot of these sales occur without the proper background check. host: bill, republican line. caller: you are talking on this subject. if i am a criminal and i'm going to commit an armed robbery or i dislike you for some reason and i come after you with a gun, your loss and everything you have written on paper are not going to mean a thing. guest: when we see these gun bans around the world, the problem you face and the question you have to answer is,

who made these lost when you pass these bans, you find the law abiding citizens who turn in their guns and not the criminals. you have these perverse effects. you make it safer for the criminals to go commit the crimes. it is true across the board. we have talked about the waiting times. it can produce a cruelly dashed off a fact. -- it can produce a cooling-off effect. it can make the difference between whether a woman can protect herself or not. what you find in the research is that even short waiting times, the one crime we see increases is rape. it would be great if we had some magic pill that would do it.

dennis mentioned 1.8 million people. those are not final denials. there is a huge number of false positives, people whose names were pulled off the list. you can look at a few thousand prosecutions that have been done war criminals tried to buy guns. the background checks -- the public health research has not found anything, any reduction in violent crime in any of the research when you look at background checks and crimes. i do not mind it if people feel safer with it host:. host: niki in new jersey. caller: my father walked into the consecration --

concentration camp in germany. they said to never give up their guns. hitler stated that a civilized society, the people do not need guns. that was before he opened up this concentration camps. host: we go to howard in new jersey. caller: i am a retired york city police officer. we should have a line -- host: that is a good idea. caller: throughout the country, every police officer will tell you and can express and inform mr. lott that the amount of calls that we respond to where