will you introduce a bill before you leave? >> we've been talking to the chair of the committee. we have engaged with him since august in the effort to try to merge the products. we're making progress in that. we are not at the stage yet where we are ready to introduce a new bill. that may happen before the end of this year. if it does not, it will happen quickly in the course of the next congress. it does not matter that much in my opinion whether it is democrats or republicans in the majority with respect to this issue. it is bipartisan. cliff stearns, the ranking member of my subcommittee, hatfield, the ranking member of congressman russia's subcommittee, have been involved in the process from the start. we have circulated our draft. next year, a think we can pick up where we have left off

without regard to is in the majority. >> since you introduced the bill, there has been a lot of talk about the idea of creating a do not track list. can you talk about that and whether you think that should be considered? >> i think it is a good idea. it depends on how it is positioned. let me explain one of the provisions in our legislation addresses the subject. today there is the phenomenon of advertising networks in which a variety of websites participate with each other in collecting information from visitors to those websites. they share the information about the profile of preferences on the individual's with the other websites that are a part of the advertising network. a person might be visiting one website and then be marketed by another website based upon the preferences shown by the

individual upon the visit to the first website. that is a rather common practice now. there are dozens of advertising networks in operation today. i have some concerns about the way they operate at the present time. i do not think they disclose enough information about the practice. i do not think they give internet users an appropriate opportunity to decide they do not want to be tracked across an advertising network. we have a provision in our bill that i think nicely meets the need for more information and user control. all of the websites would have to disclose prominently the fact that they are part of an advertising network. they would have to disclose the fact that when information is collected by one website in the network, it can be shared across the network and is being shared. we would then apply and off in -- opt-in consent by the

internet user. by failing to give consent, they would be effectively taken out of the information sharing. the basic rule of the bill is that any time the information is shared beyond the immediate party that collects it, then the affirmative consent of the user would be required for the third- party sharing. the advertising network operates on a third-party sharing principle. the information is being shared across a range of sights beyond the one the collected it. we would apply opt-in. here is where i think we have a clever and useful provision. we said that the advertising network can qualify for opt-out treatment if they're willing to give all of the internet users that visit any of the web sites with in the network the opportunity to access a

collective preference profile that is constructed by the various web sites taking part in the network. they can be able to modify the preference profile. the internet user can go in and say i am being coded as someone who likes to go to movies but i rarely go. i do not want to be marketed for the new movies been shown. any kind of preference would then be subject to modification. if they are willing to that, that is one prong for whether or not opt-out opt to be applied. there would have to be one click where a person could make for they could opt out of all information sharing across the network. we would apply to do not track in that way.

we would say that if you are operating under an opt out regime by doing both of these things from there is one click that the user could make it would opt them out of information sharing across the network. under the governing provision of our bill, the basic principle that we applied anytime information is shared beyond the website the collective region tt collects it, opt-in would be required. >> except for advertising customer >> advertising only comes as a consequence of information collection. information cannot be collected or shared beyond the website that collects it unless under our model user gives a furnace -- affirmative consent for that to happen.

do not track is built into our legislation from the start. >> someone who appeared on the show a few weeks ago said people would like one page with a click out of things. >> that is essentially what we are doing. to adequately describe the context, i will have to get into a description of the advertising network and how it functions. it is within the context of the advertising network where the issue arises. the short answer is that is what we're doing. we have a preference for a file made available to the user. the user can modify it or decide not to have a preference profile at all and not to have any information shared among the networks. >> geoff chester was on from the center for digital democracy. here is what he had to say about

the boucher-stearns build. >> it is not enough. we need to have a system where consumers are told how the system works and give them more choice. there is a way to make this work. the on-line advertising industry is incredibly innovative. they have amazing data collection systems. they can use their ingenuity to come up with the way to help consumers understand that when they are applying for a mortgage on line or looking at a website what is really happening, what they really need to know, and what choices they have. it is called opt-in. we were to see more of this information under the control of the individuals. -- we want to see more of this information under the control of the individuals. >> i respect him. he is quite knowledgeable about the subject. we have had extensive conversations on the subject.

we have had commentaries from both ends of the spectrum to the business community thinks the privacy protections are too onerous and privacy advocates think they are in not enough. we do apply opt-in any time there is sharing of information beyond the website that collects it with anyone else. the website that collects it has companies directly affiliated with the website his functions are necessary to perform the direct marketing function. that website would operate under opt out. outside of that, everything else would be opt in. it would enhance consumer protection and take the next step by making the preference profile available and offering a one click opt out for everything. it would generally move all the

advertising networks to a higher level of privacy protection than is commonly available today if our provisions were enacted into law. there are some advertising networks that operate under this higher standard of the present time. what we are really seeking to do is move all of the advertising networks up to this higher standard of consumer protection that is already effort -- offered by a few advertising networks today. >> the issue has been on the hill for a least a decade. do you think the idea of tracking web activity will provide the impetus for action in the next congress? will they give more attention to this? >> there is a growing level of public concern. that is reflected in various surveys conducted over the last several years. public concern is born of many

incidents that are well known such as data reaches and other things to come to brought attention where in the formation has been negligently or inadvertently released. while our bill does not address data brokerage, i think it is those releases that have given rise to the concern. other stories have indicated that people's activity can be tracked across the entire internet as they move from one web site to the next. i think greater reporting on that has also given rise to a greater level of concern. for the better part of the decade we have been discussing the need to provide privacy protection. i have partnered with cliff stearns about eight years ago in introducing, i think we circulated the draft at that time. it did not get much traction in

those days. i think the level of public interest was lower than at the present time. it has peaked lately. i think as a consequence of the desire for greater protection, we have more attraction to date than in the past. -- we have more attraction for the issue today than in the past. >> much of the information on one is held by private companies. what is the firewall between those companies holding the information in the information getting to the government? >> there are many firewalls with respect to the the kinds of information. there different kinds of protections required. the limits of sharing depend on the information. something like financial information has special rules already in place that applies to that. if it is information about children, there are special rules that apply to that. we have an entire dedicated set of rules that apply to health- related information, medical

information about individuals. we do have fire walls in place at the present time for what people would generally think of as the most sensitive information. in the legislation that we have put forward, we have a category of sensitive information that includes some of the things i just mentioned and others. we would always require the affirmative act of the internet user to say yes before any of the information to be shared. protections already exist for the most sensitive kinds of information. we would enhance that with regard to information collected by individual web sites. >> would you oppose rules for use of the information collected on the web beyond advertising? would you impose restrictions to make sure that you cannot use it beyond marketing or advertising? >> the short answer is yes. the concept that gives rise to

the concern is advertising. that is where these provisions would find their primary application. once the information is collected, our legislation says it cannot be used for any purpose that is not described in the disclosure statements, that have to be made available to the internet user, and upon which the internet user would either provide or withhold consent. >> this is "the communicators." our guest is congressman rick boucher. we're discussing online privacy. this is been a series on the past several weeks on "the communicators." juliana gruenwald has been our guest reporter throughout the series. we have about five minutes left with our guest. next question. >> privacy advocates have complained that the fcc has not done enough on privacy and to

protect consumers. i think your bill does give them a little power. do you think the ftc should have greater power? >> our legislation does that. the ftc today does not have the authority to impose mandatory requirements with regard to disclosure the way we do in our legislation and websites that collect information. it is the essence of that authority that is the primary problem we're seeking to address. as we address the problem and fully empower them to protect consumer privacy online, we are being very clear about the kinds of standards we want to apply with regard to information collection and use. it is more than one sentence bill that says they are empowered to do this. we have a clear sense of what the policy ought to be. we are delineating that and

giving it enforcement authority and civil penalty authority so that it can carry out the policy where there would be given rulemaking authority to further implement our policy through appropriate legislation. >> congressman stearns mentioned that if he were to become chairman of the subcommittee, he would push for a rewrite of the 1996 telecom act. do you agree? >> there are major elements that need to be reformed. the act was all about the analog era. he was mostly about plane telephone service. it did broadly open the doors for competition in the long- distance market. it opened the door for telephone companies to offer multi-channel video services, commonly known as cable tv. we're now seeing that

competition beginning to arrive in the market. it took some needed steps in that regard. it was really limited to an older era of technology into a precise market which was the telephone market. today the internet has arrived as the basic communications medium for information of all kinds. the time really has come for an overhaul of the 1996 act to reflect those dramatic changes. we also need to move the federal communications commission from the kind of industry-specific regulation required today under various titles to more functional kinds of regulation where it is the function of the company that is regulated in terms of the services it offers and not just the character of the company.

it is transforming its industry- specific into functional legislation. that more clearly captures the current need. yet telephone and cable companies essentially operating the same services. they're offering voice, video, and david, competing head-to- head. they are indistinguishable except for their origins. under the current law, they are regulated differently. that should change. cliff is right. i have been saying the same thing. the time has come for an overhaul of the 1996 act. no matter who is in the jury, i think that will be on the agenda. >> a lot of personal data travels over the network owned by the companies. what rules should apply to them? would your bill deal with that? >> our legislation says where there is a set of privacy protections in place, those will

not be interfered with your our bill. we are seeking to provide broad privacy protections where the existing protections to not currently exist. the on-line advertising space is a clear example of where the projections do not exist. if a telephone company were to collect information from customers who visit its web site and then target the individual based on that, that would not be covered by any existing privacy requirements imposed on the telephone companies. there would be in the same posture as the basic commercial website that sells products to the general public. for a consumer proprietary information that is currently protected through a set of fcc regulations, we would not intrude. we would leave that in effect as it is. we would not change those rules. >> german rick boucher, chairman

of the subcommittee on communications. -- chairman rick boucher, chairman of the subcommittee on communications. thank you for being with us. juliana gruenwald has been with us for several weeks. we appreciate your help as well. the entire series is available on-line. you can find all the different shows we have been doing on online privacy. you can see the draft discussion bill of tehe boucher-stearns proposal. >> good morning and welcome to the least suspenseful announcement of all time. [laughter] as almost all of you have reported, my chief of staff has informed me he will be leaving his post today to explore other opportunities. >> rahm emanuel heads back to

chicago. he has this. ponzi's been more than 400 times. -- he has appeared on c-span more than 400 times. he is just one of many individuals you can search for on-line. it is washington your way. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it is all available for you on television, radio, online, and social media networking websites. he confined our content any time through the video library. -- you can find our content any time through the video library. we bring our resources to your community. it is washington your way. it is now available in more than 100 million homes. provided by cable as a public service. >> a look at a recent report on the trend of westerners traveling to overseas terrorist training camps. this is 35 minutes.

>> "washington journal, coke " continues. host: toss, for the purpose of this discussion led as a foreign fighter? guest: a foreign fighter are westerners going over to what is a foreign fighter? guest: we have -- these are americans joining western conflict zones. host: in the beginning of the paper, you write is intended to serve as a primer on an emerging threat. tell us about the threat. how is emerging? what do we need to be concerned about?

guest: it is not as quantitative as we would like. some data is difficult to come by. there are over 200 germans fighting in the region. that is where you are hearing the recent threat data of the germans potentially returning to europe to engage in terrorist plots. we also know of at least three dozen americans fighting side- by-side in somalia. we know of at least two does swedes fighting in somalia. you are starting to see the number of americans travel to engage in jihad. many intend to return. you can look at what is perhaps the biggest terrorism plot since 9/11. this was an afghan living in the american -- united states intended to travel to afghanistan to engage in terrorism with the taliban. he was intercepted by al qaeda

and came back to the united states to put together a significant plot on the new york subways. you also have another example like the times square bomber. he was also a naturalized citizen. he spent time in the united states. not sure if he intended to fight overseas. he did go for training with the intent to engage in terrorism activity in the united states. you basically have a threat that has metastasized. al qaeda is pleased rate increases on those who can -- has placed importance on those who can travel freely in the united states. they are exploiting vulnerabilities. in this case, it is americans who would be willing to attack their own country. host: seems to be the motivation? what attracts these americans and naturalized citizens? why would they want to go get training and attack their own country?

guest: we place great emphasis on bridge figures. these are individuals the play prominent roles on the internet to radicalize and recruit. many of these bridge figures are former americans. omar hamami is a young man from alabama. he converted to islam as a teenager. he went overseas. he is now the primary jihadi rock star converting others to travel to somalia to engage in terrorism. the most prominent name is anwar alaki. these are guys that can speak as bridge figures. they have feet in both worlds. they're culturally nuanced and american ways as well as the

ways of jihad. they are playing a prominent role in recruiting others to engage in such activity. host: you also write in your report that the phenomenon is not new. it is estimated that between 1002 thousand american muslims engaged in a violent jihad . guest: you did have a call, a a number of people engaged in such activity, including americans. during the afghan invasion of the soviet union, you also had huge numbers of westerners and engage in this activity. it is not do. what is new is the role technology has played in not all the rruiting and

radicalizing, but this is al qaeda's greatest opportunity to strike at the united states. it is significant. most of the service has been focused on their activities over there. you can no longer support. separate that from the potential threat of all over here. host: we're talking to the director of the homeless security policy institute at george washington university. our topic is the threat of home from terrorism. host: earlier this week, the director of the fbias talking about the situation, and discussed the radicalization of s. assumes that occurs in countries -- u.s. citizens

occurs in countries abroad. see, most of the individuals have been radicalized by influences outside of the dead states. to the extent we can address these influences, whether it be in yemen, somalia, of pakistan, or elsewhere, to that extent, i also but it is important to reducing the level of the threat. host: your thoughts of what the fbi director had to said. host:. -- guest: i think he is correct that we need to be concerned about the pottial it is not just the potential. we have seen 40 cases since 9/11, such as the shooter in arkansas. of those, 19 have occurred in the past year. u.s. starting to see a uptick in

activity. that is a concern. host: why the up to it now? guest: i am the sure there is a specific reason. you are seeing greater roles by those on the internet. here, you have active proponents of terrorism, it to a large extent, unfettered. terrorists need time and space to plant and not -- + it tax. -- attacks. that is why yemen is a concern. you have a weak government. terrorists can exploit the situation. so, here, the internet is a new on cover no-space, and the killer application is people -- on government space, and the

killer application is people. it gives a sense of belonging. it reaffirms. host: our discussion begins with san antonio, florida. rec, an airline for inpendents. you mean chris? i am a conservative. i have a nephewver in the armyn afghanistan. i do not understand how all or involvement in these foreign countries can't protect us -- can protect us when we are allowing the border to be so porous. i travel a lot.

i guess our corrupt system, they our install it -- they are installing some of these smithfield machines. why do we not have bomb-sniffing dogs at the airports. guest: those are good questions. clearly, why we have a military presence, the idea is to able to get there before the bomb goes off at any plot is attached. clearly, that will require se pressure overseas. a a big proponent of the drone of texas. there are succeeding. the second we take pressure off of the gas pedal, that will provide time and space. as for the borders, we clearly

need to do more to its our security. as for dog i am a big proponent of that i cannot of the because i have old dogs, -- and not because i own dogs, but they are very effective. the problem is the airport system is huge. what you need to be able to do is surge based the good intelligence and information when you have the correct data. that is when you want to have a big presence of dogs and behavioral scientists to keep e at this area are the edge. host: now we go to san antonio, florida. see, i like to thank all of the men and women in our armed forces for keeping us safe.

hats off to them. in the last war, specifically the war with iraq, it was based on faulty intelligence. there was a lot of folks advocating building up to that war. a lot of the same folks are building up to the next war. i think that the israel lobby is responsible for this. what are your comments are not -- on that? guest: iraq is a different situation that afghanistan, and clearly evident in somalia. you bring out points that i think history will tease out. i am concerned that our rock mates heard as well, given the fact that the project that iraq will shift as well, given the fact that we have changed our

role. that does not mean tt aqi is completely merchant in iraq, but there are concerns. as for ahanistan, it is not when one country as many people would like to think. when you get outside of kabul, it is a different situation. intelligence is, at best, not clever boy it, by a large. you are dealing with estimators. we will never be 100%, but we want to base our actions are good information and intelligence. i am concerned about afghanistan. we are see potential threats. whether it should be done through a covert mission, or a heavy military presence, that is

a legitimate question. host: "the wall street journal" this morning -- guest: it depends precisely where. you cannot fully separate afghanistan and and talk a step. -- and pakistan. the taliban it is a different kettle of fish. it does provide a window of vulnerability. i am quite confident it does not a zero-sum game. you're not entirely bleak from one to the other.

clearly, pakista is additional and so many levels. -- is an issue on so many levels. as much as we can have the pakistani authorities engage is a good gig. it is taken many years. they have been part of the solution, and arguably, part of the problem. host: we're talking with friends from the homeless security policy institute at george washington -- homeland security policy institute at george washington university. see, i wanted to talk a little bit -- caller: i want to talk more out our homegrown problems in the country. you have right-wing extremists are one side, and now they are

conducting themselves with a major political republican party. do you guys anticipate any probms from the backs you have a bunch of progressives that are a little angry, too. i would like to hear your thoughts. the: she's referring to cover story and "climbed back dizzied -- high in the magazine." guest: i have not looked at death threat. i'm not the best position to answer those questions. terrorism is terrorism. it is in development of what motivates the etchant itself -- what motivates. the action itself is what authorities pay attention to. host: that lets a, a georgia are

the republican blood -- atlanta, ga., on the republican line. see, i wanted to -- caller: people need to understand that not everyone well as some light and not everyone is capable of assimilating. we are a western country fell the of western values. western civilization comes of out of the eight world do with the judeo-christian ethics and values. it is very differe the and the east. -- a than the east. when we allow everyone to come here, and we assume they will assimilate because of our openness and generosity, we are very busy. there are certain cultures that

will never assimilate into western civilization because of the world viethat they hold. i think that is part of the problem. host: we wl leave it there. frank? guest: a small number of people have exploited and taken advante of the open this that the americans provide. we do need to be concerned about the all numbers. here you have a naturalized american citizen, the times square plotter. turboad of al qaeda's x operations, this was another your live and who became a naturalized citizen. he grew up in brooklyn and in

florida. that is a concern, but i didn't want to suggest it is an overwhelming concern. host: the fbi director spoke about home-grown extremists becoming increasingly more savvy, harder to detect a and using social networking. >> based on cases from the past year, home-grown extremists are harder to detect. in certain cases, that are more capable the what we have previously seen. moreover, the internet has expanded for a platform -- as a platform for propaganda. this has contributed to the threat from home-grown radicalization in the united states.

guest: i completely agree with everything but iraq%. we have written reports on all of those -- asked the director said. we have written reports on all of those issues. we have to give serious the and addressing the hate speech on the internet. the best approach is highly debated. whether or not you should shut down farm, if you go after one, it will go after -- it will go somewhere else. we have e youtube video set are going person-to-person. the real action is in the chat rooms, and the mainstream platforms set are lling out to individuals through youtube.

that is a problem this to the margins. it would be a part during degree can remove this and go to prefer that you bought this as we do try of predators and her of pornography, there is a lot more we cld do and go on to reverse this to the margins to not make this easily accessib for those who may stumble on a video in become seduced by its message directly to better focus our collective efforts because y cannot monitor, nor should you, and monitor the entire internet and. host: you are on less -- with frank cilluffo.

caller: on one to talk through how to reconnect with them darks -- house do wheat connect with them? how can we connect with them before they come that way? guest: those are good questions and there is no easy answer. if you lifted the cases we have seen thus far, you have those that have converted. you have those that are muslim. there are two cases that come to

mind in terms of the conversion that i think are significant. this is a young man who grew up in long island, new york. e converted to islam. he traveled to afghanistan. he not only training b engaged in such activity and was coming back to the united states to plot an attack on the long islandailroad. that is the same train i used to ride very often. the thing that makes him unique is not only his ability to come back to the united states, an it is called the golden passport. those that are on known that do not have noncriminal affiliations because there are a lot of legitimate travel and it is difficult to discern those who are traveling because they are interested, business, and everything else and those who are traveling for more nefarious

purposes. in this case, he had familiarity with the target. he had the same situation with daniel boyd, someone who traveled overseas and trained in afghanistan. if implanted an attack right here at quantico. to profile,easy unfortunately. profiling is probably not the best way. it comes in different shapes, sizes, forms, flavors. the cases that i am working on are those that are propagated by jihaddists. host: you read this fails to --

back to the stones. ocala, florida. you are on "the washington journal." caller: think you very much. western european countries now have muslims in their parliaments who could be complaisance are complying with terrorism. could this happen here? how can we be assured that if we do get representatives in the house are the senate that are muslim that they are not possibly at least leaning toward terrorism? may i say one more thing concerning the road to the dterms? i took the initiative to rent a billboard for the month of october that will read it, " midterms group for the great -- midterms, vote for the great right hope." host: we already have a muslim

in the house of representatives. caller: i did not know that. how can we make sure they are not terrorists? how to make sure they are not compliant with terrorism without our knowledge darks -- without our knowledge? host: absolutely. we could have someone that is extremely minded toward militarism on the right. i agree with that. two wrongs do not make a right in the muslim factor. gut: i am not aware of anyone running for office. st of the most extreme militants deny even believe in the political system. they believe in those that look toward a sharia state that would not agitated democratic environment. i am not aware of anyone.

clearly today you can arm and a campaign and have that which would hopefully come out beforehand as they run for office. we need to realize that it could also be very helpful where you have those who are obviously a share back of the extremists. some of the solutions will have to come from within. they could be part of the solution as well. host: their right, just as american officials have been sounding name -- an alarm, eu officials say a new generation of western citizens including entire families of travel to pakistan in the summer determined to return home to carry out terrorist attacks. is there a pallel between what they're writing about in the

european union countries and what we're seeing here in the united states? are the two government entities working together to try and solve this problem? guest: they are. inhat same artle it quoted an article by the head of the european union's chartered terrorism initiatives. i would argue they have not been as focused on these issues especially as it pertains to travel. they are starting to ay very active role in part because they realize they have a real brought on their hands and not one that just impact the united states but their own countries. women and children have moved to the hot tub -- fata region. if you asked me seven years ago what the likelihood of that

would be, i would have said close to zero. there is the common bridge figure. one of the first two went over and became a pop star on the internet propagating this message. it was resating with a small, but significant, number of germans. more needs to be done with passenger name recognion and terrorism troubled -- terrorism travel. they're starting to move in the right direction. this was especially with the united kingdom which has been in the front of tackling these issues. host: on our next line -- on our next caller from the independent line. caller: i'm not so concerned about homegrown terrorism.

i wanted to ask about it at least because both of your points of view. i would talk about things you can control and you cannot control. you can only try to influence other people. as my point is, you mentioned there were 24 known a homegrown terrorists. our country has like 330 million peop. that is an insignificant amount of people. there are a lot more crazy people in the world than there are homegrown terrorists. you know what i am trying to say? it is such a small number of people. how can you possibly think you can control something like that. the people that i know can take care of themselves. i think the american beat on the they c take care of themselves. we do not need a military industrial complex or anything like that. what some point, we need to keep

our foot on the gas pedal and in other countries, but are we going in the wrong direction? host: when you say you can take care of yourself, are you referring to armed defense stocks -- armed defense? caller: that is one portion of it. we have 9/11 which was tragic and there were things we probably could have done to prevent it, but on a very small scale, day to day and i am not worried about that. i can take care of myself. it is not an issue. host: we will leave it there. guest: you bring out a common question that is asked. let's not forget terrorism by definition is a terrorist to instill fear and undermine confidence in government,

policies, etc. there are some legitimate question. i'm not a big fan of the numbers game. even here looking at the foreign fighters, the numbers are not high. most are looking at overseas. the numbers do not need to be all that high to pose a threat to the united states. need i remind you there were only 19 hijackers involved in 9/11? that was a pretty catastrophic incidents. this on the attacks in the underground in the united kingdom, even fewer people were involved. federal solutions will not be the answer to this alone either. is going to require community efforts, community policing, and law enforcement that is not only engaging under suspicion but on an everyday basis. that has to be part of the solution.

is this an issue everyone should be thinking about all the time? i do not know. i certainly want those who are tasked with protecting our national security to consider this a priority. they have. i think we need to continue mobilizing our efforts in that space. host: part of what the secretary of homeland security testimony involved discussion of a program they instituted called see something, s something. it is a campaign from the dhs that is being expanded throughout the country and if someone sees something suspicious to reported. every so often you can hear a recorded message from secretary napolitano on our metro system. is this something that can be truly effective, or is this something homeland security is putting out to try and let

people feel as if they are safer? guest: thats a good question at this to whether science meets at the end of the day. there have been cases if you go back to the times square bombing, and was the dollar by a street vendor who noticed the smoke, concted the authorities. who knows if they had not moved in as quickly as they had. to me, this is about common sense, but people still do not know where to call it they see something. there needs to be that he's taken out. i think the citizenry can play a role. if you look back to the abdul muttalah on there were bomber, it was someone at three aisles back to tackled him because they recognized something was wrong.

i did not want to suggest this is the ultimate answer, and i do not know how this should or should not work, but these decisions can play a role if they know who to call and what to look for. host: if viewers or listeners want to read your report, where would they find it? guest: good question. it is on our website, www.homelandsecurity.gwu.edu. host: next up on our line for democrats, you are on "washington journal." caller: i have two questions. i would hope thapart of the strategy if there is a german attack is aimed at those two would the return of their [inaudible]

also, i did not get what using these back right wing militias in some countries [unintelligible] it seems like they have taken a turn and they want to bring in democracy. god bless america. thank you. guest: the drone attacks, clearly, will be targeting those that are directly responsible in terrorist activity. there have been, obviously, casualties that are not directly related. you're starting to see a much quicker and better response by at least the military in theater to acknowledge. that is an issue. i can tell you that the actual

targeted information which is based on specific information is directly responsible in either planning workers -- were supporting. host: last call from minneapolis, minn., on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: most of the people i associate with, we have always come to the conclusion that israel is occupying the land that they should not be close to have nuclear weapons. i did this creates a double standard of danger and this is what is pulling us into the situations. we are so far stretch because of that. what if we just took care of that? that wld be the root problem that we could address. host: frank cilluffo? guest: there have been active

campaigns to address the west bank and peace in the middle east which is a priority for the department of state right now, the administration, and has been in the past a very difficult set of issues. clearly israel has been the target of terrorist activity for many years. i think that we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them as it pertains to terrorist activity, but we also need to work as aggressively as we can to ensure peace in the middle east. host: frank cilluffo is the co- author of this report from the george w washington on sunday, he discusses his organization's agenda and

efforts being made to mobilize progressive voters in the midterm elections. the former rnc chairman talks about his role in helping to raise money for the new american crossroads organization. it is reportedly giving $32 million to congressional contests across the u.s. the johns hopkins professor examines areas of liability in china's economy and how they could impact the world. your emails and phone calls live on "washington journal." >> welcome to the least suspenseful announcement of all time. [laughter] as almost all of you have reported, my chief of staff rahm emanuel has informed me that he will be leaving his post today to explore other