host: the marketplace section of "the wall street journal" has this story about hackers going after lockheed martin and pbs which have both had incidents. this underlines how any organization can now become a victim. also, this story in "the new york times." congressman anthony weiner's twitter was attacked. he says the use of twitter can cut two ways. that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern with more of your phone calls. charm [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

♪ >> good tuesday morning. we hope you enjoyed the holiday weekend and getting back to work today, we have lots of live events on the cspan networks. starting in about half an hour, we'll hear from freshman republican allen west of florida. he is speaking at the heritage foundation starting at 10:30 eastern and that will be on our companion network c-span to. becerra and cspan, will have house minority leader and maryland democrat steny hoyer discussing manufacturing issues at the center for american progress this morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. the u.s. house gavels in at noon to begin the week alleges that a

big hit -- business begins at 4:45 and will talk about raising the debt ceiling. require a 2/3 majority of the house and we expect that both at 6:00 p.m. the entire house is expected to attend meetings at the white house regarding the u.s. debt. the house gavels in four speeches at 12:00 and legislative work will begin at 4:45 p.m. >> cspan video library makes it easy to follow campaign 2012. get instant access to events pronounced and potential presidential candidates. the peabody award winning cspan video library is washington your way. >> supreme court justice samuel alito gave a top-10 list of things you don't know about the supreme court to the bar association of metropolitan st.

louis earlier this month. he said that while ord -- oral arguments are one hour, preparations often involve reading over 500 or more pages of legal briefs and as a large part of the justice of work. his remarks were part of the association's law day celebration celebrating the role of law and american society. this is about 45 minutes. >> it would not have surprised any of his classmates to learn, have they been able to foresee this fact, that today he would be one of the real stars of the federal judiciary. i want to thank dwayne for the

great introduction and all of you for the warm welcome and i want to thank the bar association for all of the courtesies that have been extended to me. it is a great pleasure for me to be here and have this opportunity to talk to you this afternoon for many reasons. among other things, i welcome this opportunity to congratulate your bar association for its century-long commitment to providing equal access to justice. i am sure many of you know that the inscription on the front of the supreme court building reads "equal access, equal justice under law." that is surely the highest ideal of our profession. i commend the bar association for its many efforts to translate that ideal into reality and i hope that during the next century, you will redouble those efforts. i mentioned the one fact about the supreme court that i think

many of you know, the inspiring inscription on the front of the building. what i want to talk about this afternoon are some other things about the supreme court that some people, even knowledgeable people, you either don't know or more likely have tended to forget in reading coverage of our day-to-day work i got the idea for this topic couple of years ago. i heard about a poll that asked people to name two justices of the supreme court and it revealed that more people could name two of snow white's 74 span could name two justices of the supreme court. [laughter] i was not disturbed by that poll results. it is not really important to know the names and personnel is of the justices and i was relieved that all these people did not think that sleepy,

grumpy, and dopey were some of the names of the current supreme court justices. [laughter] that kind of trivia is not important for ordinary knowledgeable americans to know. there are some things about the court that i think should be perhaps widely known. many of these will be things that the knowledgeable people in this room know but i think we tend to forget them if we read coverage of the court. the little title i have for my talk today is "the top 10 things you may not know about the supreme court." everybody watches late-night tv so this is my spin on what you might see during that time. to the first item -- to introduce this, i want to paint a fairly common scene. it is 10:00 a.m. on monday

morning in the nation's capital. our courtroom is filled with spectators. the first few rows of benches are occupied by lawyers who are members of the bar of our court. the rest of the courtroom is usually pretty full of many of the people occupy those seats are simply tourists who are in town and would like to see the supreme court arguments. among the spectators in the general gallery, there are often a lot of students who have heard about the court, strutted the court in high school american history or maybe in a college course. they have heard about the great supreme court cases of the past, marbury vs. madison, born vs. board of education, etc. the marshal of our courts council promptly at 10:00 a.m.

and announces that all rise and the chief justices and the associate justices of the supreme court of united states. the first case is called. the audience looks on with anticipation and then the lawyers and the justices began to talk about something that is incredibly archaic, technical, and for many i suspect, downright boring. the truth of the matter is, and this is the first item on my list, most of our cases are not about the great issues of constitutional law. in fact, the great majority of our cases are not about the constitution at all. last term, 3/4 of our cases were not about constitutional issues. they are mostly about the interpretation of statutes enacted by congress or rules promulgated by one of the federal administrative agencies. we have had cases involving all the following federal statutes.

among others, arisa of 1974. is there anybody in the room who knows what they four are act is? >> right here. >> you get a door prize. what is it? [inaudible] you deserve a door prize for that. [laughter] [applause] but only one person in this room of accomplice lawyers. the railroad revitalization and reform act of 1976 -- we have also heard cases involving the federal arbitration act, the veterans judicial review act, the national childhood vaccine injury act, the truth in lending act, the copper did -- the copyright act, and the reemployment rights act, the fair labor standards act, the freedom of information act, the

privacy act, and many others. these cases involve important questions but for the most part, they are not what people have in mind when they think about the united states supreme court cases. ok, that is 3/4 of the caseload. what about the remaining 25% tax suppose i lost it and heard an oral argument for two days in our court and heard argument in four cases. the odds are at least one of them would be about the constitutional issue. what sort of arguments is the student likely to hear in that case? most of you are probably aware that for the past few decades, in legal academia, there has been an intense debate, and intensifying debate about constitutional theory and regionalism and non-regionalism and all that.

a lot of law students are introduced to those theories in class and i come to perhaps have an exaggerated impression about their importance in actual litigation. there are cases in which theory looms very large for the couple of terms ago, we had a very good example of this. i'm talking about the case of district of columbia verses heller. this was a case involving the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. the question was whether that means a right to keep and bear arms that is individual and incorporates the right to keep an arm, to keep a fire arm for the purpose of self-defense. it was an unusual case because there was so little prior supreme court precedent. there was one unusual little

case decided in 1939 in a very short and cryptic opinion. this was a case in which theory naturally had an important role. the opinion for the court, written by justice scalia, was an example of one leading theory of constitutional interpretation. not surprisingly, it was vigorously originalist. the principal dissent by justice stevens was an originalist opinion. justice breyer wrote a separate dissent and that was true to his judicial philosophy which he has articulated in a number of books. it was just as rigorously pragmatic. this was an example of a case in which theory meant a lot. the choice of the theory that a justice elected meant a lot in the outcome. that was really the exception that proves the rule.

another case that came along a couple of years later in the wake of heller illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list -- most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent and not by theory. the case that came along in the wake of heller which illustrates this point is a case called mcdonald vs. the city of chicago. this is about the second man and right to keep and bear arms, also. this in -- heller involve the district of columbia so it did not involve the second amendment to the states. for the few non-lawyers in the room, let me back up for a second and provide some constitutional background. the provisions of the bill of

rights as originally adopted applied only to the federal government. they did not apply to the state. it was not until after the ratification of the post-civil war amendments, the 13th and 14th amendment and the 15th amendment of that the question was presented about the application of the bill of rights provisions to the state. in the macdonald case, two provisions of those post-civil war amendments which fundamentally altered the relationship between the federal government and the states were at issue. one was the immunities clause of the 14th amendment prohibiting a state from abridging the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the united states. the other provision was the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibiting any person from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law. shortly after the civil war in a very famous case called the slaughterhouse cases decided in 1873, the supreme court gave the privileges or immunities clause a very narrow interpretation. we might think of the metaphor, since there has been some much flooding in this area, we may think of the metaphor of water heading down to the sea. water is going to flow downhill no matter what you do. it will make its way to the sea and if it is blocked in one channel, it will find another channel to reach its destination. that may be viewed as what happened with respect to the interpretation of the 14th amendment. the slaughterhouse cases blocked the use of the privileges or immunities clause to provide substantial protection for rights that are not specifically

mentioned in the constitution. today many scholars believe that was exactly what the privileges or immunities clause was intended to do. actual case lot flowed in a different direction. it went through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. bit by bit, almost all of the provisions of the bill of rights were made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment' by means of what is called the theory of incorporation. as there are many scholars to think the immunities clause was badly misinterpreted in the slaughterhouse cases -- in fact, it is said to the you can hardly find a scholar who thinks that the slaughterhouse cases interpreted that provision correctly -- there are scholars who think the due process clause was meant to protect process and not substance.

in the macdonald case, we have a question whether right to keep or bear arms is applicable to the states and if so through which provision of the constitution? a friend-of-the-court brief that was filed by a group of academics contained the following please -- as professor of constitutional law, we look forward to the day when we can teach our students how the supreme court corrected the grievous error made in the slaughterhouse cases. this amicus and the lead attorney representing the petitioners in macdonald, the citizens of chicago wanted to overturn the chicago fire arms ordinance, argued that we should use the port privileges or immunities clause and not the due process clause you might plea wouldacademicall

have a sympathetic hearing in our court. the present supreme court is the most academic court in this -- in the history of the country. four of my colleagues or former law professors, very distinguished law professors before they took the bench. three of those justices were sitting on the macdonald case was argued. when one of the lawyers of raise the privileges or immunities point in oral arguments, the former prof. scully took the wind out of the self when he said the following -- what you argue is the darling of the professorial but it is contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. why do you undertake that burden? when the decision and mcdonald was announced, only one member of the court relied on the privileges or immunities clause. everybody else -- applied be established framework.

point number four, this is a question i am frequently asked during a week like this week when we are not hearing oral argument. it tends to come up in my house over thanksgiving dinner when one of my cousins says," are you off this week?" when somebody asked me this week, i bristle and i say we're not hearing oral arguments but i have a lot of work to do. which is true. i often get the impression that the people who hear that don't believe me. [laughter] they really seem to have the idea that sitting on the bench and hearing oral argument is our main job. it is not. this is my fourth point. during oral argument is a relatively small and it the truth is told, relatively unimportant part of what we do. for every case that we hear, we hear one hour of oral argument. that is all.

sometimes when justices or judges from other countries attend one of our arguments, they are particularly from another english-speaking country, they are astonished that we will devote just one hour to argument in a major case. in countries like the united kingdom and canada, the argument goes on longer. for us, it is one hour and that's it. with rare exceptions. by contrast to the one hour we spend listening to the argument or participating in the argument, we spend many, many, many hours reading and studying the case before we ever take the bench, before we take the bench we will have spent many hours, often days studying the case. the volume of the briefing that we now receive is enormous. last term, we had nine cases in which the breves, including the amicus briefs, totaled more than

500 pages. we had one case involving an important patent issue in which the briefs exited 2000 pages. a lot of time is put into the case before the argument begins. as a result, when we do take the bench, we are really primed for the argument and the justices tend to have a lot to say. last term, the court averaged 120 questions per case. 120 questions/60 minutes, you can see we are averaging two questions per minute. 40% of the words that were spoken during the oral arguments last term were uttered by the justices and not by the attorneys. in this term, many observers have commented that we seem to be asking even more questions.

if the statistics are compiled at the end of this term, i would not be surprised if we were pushing the 50% mark. if we don't reach of this term, i'm pretty sure we will in the future. i personally find that oral argument is helpful as one of the final steps in the decisionmaking process. as i said, the truth of the matter is that it is less important than the briefing or the opinion preparation process that follows the oral argument. this brings me to my fifth point -- we do our own work. here i am quoting justice brandeis -- the reason the public thinks so much of the justices of the supreme court is that they are almost always the only people in washington could do their own work. [laughter] i will not address the first part of his statement about what people think about the supreme court. the latter is definitely true.

we still do our homework. when i say that, i don't mean to cast any aspersions on the president or congress. their responsibilities are now so vast that an enormous amount of delegation is unavoidable. can you imagine how a president could possibly do his job if he wrote his own speeches or did many of the other things that are done in his name? i am not criticizing the other branches. we have had the luxury of retaining an old-fashioned personal role. we have very small steps. staffs. people are astonished we don't have a larger supports that. we have three-career non- lawyers to provide all the support and four law clerks. they serve for just one year. they are brilliant attorneys, young attorneys, and they are

assistance to us which is invaluable. they serve for only one year and by the time they become fully familiar with all their tasks, at least 1/3 or possibly 1/2 of their tenure is completed. despite this, there are those on the outside who think the clerks are actually pulling our strengths. a recent article about the justices doing their own work said "today knowledgeable observer of the court would make a similar claim. if that is true, the so-called knowledgeable observers of the court are wrong." keep that in mind because i will come back to that later. for now, on two. number 6 -- we are very independent. we are not manipulated by our clerks and while we give serious consideration to our colleagues' argument, in the

end, we reach an independent judgment. for the most part, we don't even discuss cases among ourselves prior to the time when we vote at conference. with respect to what counts most, we are all equal. we all have one vote and no one is ever required to sign onto an opinion with which he or she does not agree. we always have the right to issue our own concurrence or our own dissent if we are not pleased with the opinion of the court. there is a big difference between productive independence and their refusal to listen to or take into account the views of colleagues. as in so many things in life, the trick is striking the right balance. i recall two cartoons about the supreme court that appeared in

"the new york for some years ago. i think they braque that the approach of -- i think they bracket the approach how i just as reacts to college when the justice does not agree with his or her colleagues' views. both of these cartoons featured a picture of the supreme court bench, all of the justices sitting on the bench in their black robes. in both cases, one of the justices was speaking. in the first, on one side of the bracket, one of the justices said," it will use more cookies agree, who am i to dissent?" that is one extreme of deference to your colleagues. the other cartoon which appeared later again shows the whole bench and one of the justices begin. the justices really a dissenting opinion that justice says," my dissenting opinion will be brief.

you are all full of crap. " [laughter] i have had a couple of cases during the last two terms in which i was the only person in dissent but that was not what i was saying about my colleagues. [laughter] if you read some of our dissenting opinions, you might interpret them as essentially saying that. sometimes, they are pretty strongly worded. this brings me to my seventh point -- we are not at each other's throats. contrary to the impression that some people might get from reading our opinions, a couple of years ago, i was assigned to write an opinion for the court. i wrote the opinion and it produced a concurrence. this is not a dissent. the concurrence said that my opinion was "meaningless, inconsistent with the rule of law, and in st.." [laughter]

in st./" [laughter] >> these are strong words but i did not take them personally. this is the kind of intellectual disagreement we sometimes have. it does not mean there is personal animosity and ball. this may not have always been true on the supreme court. during the last year, a very interesting book was published called "scorpions, the battle and trial of the great fdr supreme court justices." the book claims that some of the justices to serve during the 1940's and 1950's the early dislike each other and sometimes showed it. it is an interesting book. i don't know for sure how accurate all of the inside baseball stuff is but it has some interesting anecdotes. here is an example. according to the book, during a conference one day, justice frankfurter, a former law

professor, made an acerbic something chief justice vincent had wrote or said and chief justice vincent supposedly got so upset by this that he rose from his seat and started walking toward frank water with the intention of punching him in the nose. i can assure you that nothing like that goes on today. after a morning conference when we may disagree quite sharply about legal issues and may be legal issues about which we care very deeply, we all have lunch together. we make a point of doing that on every argument and conference day. we have one rule at lunch and that is -- you may not talk about any case. so we talk about items in the news. we talk about music, sports, our families, books -- anything but the cases including the ones where we may disagree very

sharply. shifting gears, i am ready for my point number eight. some of our opinions mean less than a lot of people think. what do i mean by that? this is so for several reasons. for one thing, the opinion writing justice has a lot of prerogative. we don't make stylistic changes in a request for stylistic changes in each other's opinions. if you have eight people making all sorts of editorial suggestions in an opinion, you can imagine how long it would take to get anything out and let the end product i look like. we don't mess with the style of our colleagues' opinions but style sometimes bleed into substance. if someone takes something from the town of a particular opinion, that person may be reading something into the opinion that is just not there.

our opinions are also written under considerable time pressure. we don't have as much time to mull over and revise our opinions as, for example, the offer of a book might have. the third is that our opinions focus primarily on deciding the case at hand. the majority that endorses the opinion and the role that is set out in the opinion necessarily believes that rule is the right one for that case and it governs the case. the agreement among the members of the majority may not actually extend further than the ground that is actually covered in the opinion. if you read more into it, if you read it as having a much broader application, you may or may not be correct. point number 9 -- some of what is written about this is misleading or just plain wrong.

i will give you two examples. the first involves something that is misleading unintentionally. i was struck and somewhat displeased earlier this term by a flurry of articles regarding justice thomas's practice of not asking questions during orgel -- oral argument. if the act as many questions as the rest of us, i don't think the lawyers could get a word in edgewise. it is his practice not to ask questions except on unusual locations. much was made of this in the press. there were even articles suggesting that justices have an obligation to ask questions during oral arguments about the lawyers will know what they are thinking. none of the articles that i read pointed out something that i think is important and would put this matter in historical perspective.

that is that justice thomas as practice of not asking questions is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same as the practice of the person who is just universally regarded as the grid supreme court justice ever and that is john marshall, the fourth chief justice of the united states, the person more than anyone else build the supreme court into the institution it has become. the justices asked no questions. they sat there and they listened to the attorneys in the days of john marshall. the entire presentation was oral. there is no limits on a length of the argument and was no prohibition on tag team arguments. a party could have two or three attorneys arguing on his or her behalf. that was john marshall's practice. that was the practice of the other great justices during the founding era.

maybe it would have provided historical perspective if at least one of the articles have pointed out that fact. let me point to something that is just plain wrong but unintentionally so. for several years now, a widespread popular criticism of our court is that we are very pro-business. we always decide cases in favor of business as opposed to employees and people who are and consumers. this has been mentioned in a lot of articles. this has been mentioned in a lot of -- by a lot of public officials. a few months ago, was running on my treadmill and when i do that, i almost always watch television to overcome the boredom and the discomfort of what i am doing. i am flipping through the channels looking for something that will make 45 minutes or so past relatively painlessly. i found slim pickings. there was nothing that really interested me.

finally, reluctantly, i settled on a cspan program that featured a debate between a very well- known and distinguished commentator on the supreme court and another personality. the topic of the debate was squarely about the court. i started watching. within a few minutes, the commentator on the court began to discuss the court and he said that the current supreme court is very pro-business but what did you expect because both chief justice roberts and chief justice alito used to work for the chamber of commerce. when i heard this, i almost fell off the treadmill. i had no recollection of this episode in my career. [laughter] as you might have gathered from my introduction, i have only had two employers my entire working life, the department of justice

and the united states courts. i never actually earned an honest living in the private sector. [laughter] when i heard this, i thought something has happened to you. you have partial amnesia. you have forgotten an entire period of your life. i'd better jump off the treadmill, run to my computer, and look up my entry on wikipedia and see what i have forgotten. [laughter] i knew if i did that, who knows what i would have found -- just as alito was in the foreign legion. [laughter] that was maybe in early 2011. a short time after that, in number of articles began to appear that expressed surprise that most of our cases involving business law and employment law during the current term had actually gone against business interests and gone against employers.

linda greenhouse who covered the supreme court for many years wrote an article about this and asked what accounts for the topsy-turvy world of the supreme court's 2010-2011 term? here's a possible explanation. maybe the law has something to do that [laughter] . maybe the text of the particular statute involved and the precedents that we have to apply have some they do with the outcome in these cases. i know it is a radical thought but it is worth considering. that brings me to my last item, number 10, we are, the federal courts, the supreme court, the court of appeals, the district courts, the bankruptcy courts, all of the federal courts taken together, we are a co-equal branch of the government. we are not more equal than the other branches. we have to keep in mind.

we are also not less equal than the other branches. the constitution calls on the three branches of government to check each. other this can be done with fairness and can be done with respect. i think that is what the american people expect and it is surely what they deserve. this is the message i would leave you with on this occasion of this law day celebration. it is important for all of us for those of us were fortunate enough to be judges, for those of us who were fortunate not to be attorneys, is important -- is important for us to teach others about the legal system and the learning center described earlier is a poor example of the sort of thing we need to do to reach out to ordinary citizens both children and adults so that they appreciate our legal system.

it is important for us to defend that legal system against encroachments. it is important for us to recognize the strength and the rig mrs. -- and the weaknesses of our judicial system to correct the weaknesses. one of the advantages and critics. as i have had during the last five years in serving on the supreme court has been the opportunity to speak to justices and judges from many other countries. when you take an international perspective, when you look at our legal system, if you draw back from the details that we are concerned with on a daily basis and you look at the system somewhat from afar, you appreciate what a great legal system is. those of us who are working attorneys and judges noted the effects of the system. we know them better than most people in understanding the weaknesses and in making -- in

resolving to improve them, we should also not lose sight of the fact that we have the best legal system in the world. it is quite a rarity and it is something we have to work to preserve. it has been a pleasure for me to be able to participate in your log day celebration today. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] . >> is now my pleasure -- and is now my pleasure to set a precedent for a supreme court justice. i will refer you to blood vs coon which is involvedcurt

flood, a st. louis cardinal, and the majority opinion was written by justice blackmun. it is fairly unique amongst the opinions in that he wrote a sort of valentine to baseball that the rest of the majority opinion did not endorse. it included a lengthy list of hall of famers. i mention this for the proposition that it is not unusual for supreme court justice to have an interest in baseball. as a token of our appreciation, we have selected a baseball team gift for you. -- them smalle gift for you, a baseball bat.

we will enjoy baseball game later this evening. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. [applause] i will certainly treasure this. this will go into my baseball try and i have in my office. i'm just as enthusiastic about baseball as justice blackmun was. i would have joined the first part of his opinion. [laughter] when the marshals drove me here to the hotel last evening after they picked me up at the airport, i had a request which i think that may have thought was rather strange. a given street address and i said i want to drive past year. the address was the former location of sportsman's park and the first bush stadium because that is where rogers hornsby and dizzy dean and stan musial and

bob gibson and all those great players play. for a fan like me seeing that, it was an experience that i want to have. this will be displayed in my baseball museum in my office. thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up and about 20 minutes here on c-span, we will have house minority leader steny hoyer and maryland democrat who will discuss manufacturing issues for the center of american progress live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. the u.s. house will be in later today, on tap is a vote to raise the debt ceiling by $2.40 trillion requiring a 2/3 majority of the house to pass and we expect that vote at about 6:30 eastern. later in the week, the house is expected to attend meetings at the white house to discuss the depth. issue.sbt

also today, a discussion on u.s. engagement in southeast asia featuring a speech by kurt campbell, assistant secretary of state which is hosted by the strategic -- the center for strategic international studies. that is on cspan 3. remarks from house minority leader steny hoyer are coming up and until then, your phone calls from this morning "washington journal." the front page of the open clay usa today." almost 4 million homes have been lost of foreclosures and a last five years, turning many former homes into rentals. of the 100 marjah cities, some

of those were irvine, california, which went to 4% --

we want to get your take on this -- it is owning a home still the american dream? what do you think about housing policy as well? this story is on the front page of the "new york times calls " this morning. it says that the giant -- the desire to own your own home --

the telephone numbers are on your screen. renters, we want to hear from you. is owning a home still the american dream? we will keep reading while we wait yfor your phone calls to comment.

we will go to dallas, texas, a democrat joining us. what do you think? caller: i paid $12,500 from my home in 1974. i was making $2.65 an hour. our house payment was $125. that is not going to happen no more.

host: are you mortgage rates now? caller: definitely. host: do you have kids? caller: i had a two brand new kids, actually. host: would be your advice for someone seeking a home? to you think it is the american dream? caller: i do not think so. i think it is gone. i am on medicare and also supported in social security. if i had a house payment, i would free. host: to you think it is the role of the federal government to help people get a home? caller: that will have to. it will be that or 20 people living in the apartments. it is scary. host: you said if you had a housing payment today, you would be out on the street.

how much was your payment? caller: $125. my house now, they're renting for $500 a month. i could not do it. just could not do it. ast: let's hear from steve, renter in arlington, virginia. caller: i think the premise is incorrect. i think the american dream is to give your children a better opportunity than you had. that is why immigrants come to our country. it is what we strive for as citizens. host: ok, so about owning a home, you think that is not the american dream. caller: it might be a target, it

might be in and resolve, but the primary part of the american dream is just doing better by your children. host: so you think that the government has no role in this? caller: the government has a very little role in much at all, yes. host: let's go to vancouver, jim is joining us. caller: i don't think that question is is that still the american dream. i think it should be is it feasible to even buy a home with the market in the past few years. host: are you a homeowner? caller: no, i am a renter, i military and i bounced around a lot. but this is what i have seen of the american dream as far as owning a home. first, the elderly are not given any tax breaks.

when people get between the age of 55 and 65 and start having problems with their health care, i have had family members who had to sell their homes to cover the cost of their health care. not to mention the taxes and not bloating of the market to sell. washington watched the market get inflated with nothing to regulate it. now people are you losing their homes left and right. and another issue, we do not have an economy. host: have you looked into possibly buying a home? i know you are in the military and bounce around. but as an investment? caller: i did back in 2004. the air force had been stationed in tucson, arizona. i was down there i year earlier and i took a look at some nice

starter up, 2-bedroom homes going for $75,000. i thought that would be a good investment. when i got myself transferred a year later, the same homes were going for twice that. and then when these real estate brokers were telling me that i qualified, i am thinking to myself, the math is not working. and that is what these people were trying to do, scare me into buying. they kept saying things, if you do not buy now, you never will be able to. and when you see everyone's way dropping as the housing industry goes through the roof, you know of some point, someone is going to be pulling the market out from underneath there. i was around during the savings- and-loan scandal with john mccain. they did not do anything to correct the problems.

they shifted the scam. host: what have you been doing with your savings and you have been a renter? caller: most of my savings are put into the bank. but with today's housing and banking market, you can only get 0.25% interest. when i first target saving kid -- money as a kid, i got 6%. the mentality of the people, it is a big disconnect between main street and wall street. wall street is basically trying to figure out every way were they can get as much money out of the consumer as possible, no matter how crabby the product. host: we go on to the democratic line. viola is joining us. you are on the air. caller: yes, i have a question.

i asked my husband, a major migraine question. i think it got so bad that the a has treated him. he had to take early retirement. he was a soldier and is not quite what he was. host: what does this have to do with housing? caller: he ended up overdosing from the madison the va gave him. and i called 911 and took him down, but they would not accept him away. they turned him away and would not treat him no more. and he was sent back home, and

he committed suicide because they are -- because he always thought the army would protect him. he had protected them for so long and that they would surely protect him, but that was not what happened. and just after that, i am diagnosed with lou gehrig's disease. host: we are sorry to hear about your situation. let's go on to sally, an independent in california. is owning a home still the american dream? caller: not under this situation, absolutely not. the woman had a lot of pain with her situation. but we need to shift in this country. i am a conservative fully trained accountant, and in the area i live, it is very expensive. you're looking at $4 a square

foot as a renter, which is ridiculous. we need to completely shut out ideas about transportation and housing. -- a shift our ideas about transportation and housing. we're going to have a transient work force and we need to shift our perspective about the belongings that we are lugging around and the rules about housing. in other words, we need to be able to own a piece of property, be able to direct alternative forms of housing on the property within a certain set of rules by men is a palace, but they need to change the building codes to allow transitional housing that people can generate by communities on their own. host: what happens right now, those municipal codes that

prevent transitional housing? caller: you have the housing industry, the builders and all that, these huge lobbies to put these regulations and the place. host: what are they? caller: the building materials that you can use. i do not know the actual details. but they are locked up by lobbyists from the building industries. it is all to keep in place this whole dynamic of the 30-year mortgage. what has happened in this country is that now we are -- i saw this coming 20 years ago. we are on an evening play infield with the rest of the world. the cost of housing has got to come in line into the reality that most of us will be transitional workers, no longer the company jobs.

host: what does transitional housing look like? caller: you could have cob houses, straw bale housing, much more affordable materials. and it is going to be based on the weather patterns of the regions, but it has to be allowed within these municipalities. host: we will keep taking your phone calls. some more headlines. this is the cause of " usa today" about sarah palin and her speculation. palin told cnn yesterday that she would definitely had to iowa. she was quoted as saying that she was sure she would go to iowa at some point. she is coming in to% percentage

points behind mitt romney. romney is expected formally announce later this week. she told chris wallace on sunday they she could win the presidency if she chose to run. cnn out with a new poll showing that mitt romney would win if he were to get into the race. romney came in second, juliani about 16%, from the 15%, and palin comes in third in this latest poll at 13%. more about politics coming up this morning at 7:45 a.m., talking about 20 to politics than. but we will keep taking your phone calls about owning a home. in a minute, this editorial from the "washington times" about a

vote happening this week in the house. one of the things that democrats like about high unemployment is the ability to dole out of to 99 weeks' worth of free money to those without jobs. here is the "new york times" territory. the economy needs more help but health -- help is not forthcoming. if washington will not do what needs to be done, there can be

things done to keep the economy from getting worse. mike is a republican in virginia. your our next phone call on the issue on whether owning a home is still the american dream. what do you think? caller: i hope it is still the american dream. my wife and i are both retired

and we had a good income. we are able to afford our house. we're making about a third of what we used to make. powerhouse lost some by you, and yet it is still more the what are mortgages worth. we are hopeful. we're concerned about our children. my son is renting a house in a rented by situation. host: how does that work? caller: he wants to buy a home eventually. i am hopeful that people will still look at buying a house. i understand the ladies. , sally, she had a lot of fantastically good points. but most people do not want to be transient, moving from place to place. they want to settle down in one community and establish ties there. their children can go to good schools.

housing, living in a good neighborhood, those are things that people still aspire to. we want to live in a good neighborhood with good schools. we want to see our children educated. we want to see our grandchildren educated. i am hoping that people still believe in buying houses. granted, the economy is terrible. and we would like to see that change. i think that article that you had where people, hundreds of thousands of people could refinance at a lower rate, and thereby encourage spending, it would make the economy better. but i do not know that they would refinance my house, considering my age, and everything. host: that is the "new york times" if there auctorial, their opinion. let me tell you about this survey. 76% of adults feel that they're more manages to renting versus

hundred 64% cited having the responsibility for major repairs as the major region. -- the main reason. >> if you missed any of the segment you can see it in its entirety on line c-span.org. right now, comments from steny hoyer. if he is at the forum on job creation. this is a starting. >> let me start by saying i flew back from cairo, egypt yesterday, which i see as relevant for a couple of reasons. first, i am relieved jet lag and i had planned on taking this day off, but this event was too exciting toomes. -- exciting to miss.

the second reason i bring it up is a i was in cairo for an event that was organized by something we organize out of here called the just jobs network, which is a network of think tanks from developing world countries as well as the developed world and it works on labour market issues of mutual interest. at this conference there was a comment by one of the the egyptian economists that made me think about our program today. he was urging me to move away from industrialization and instead focus on agriculture, putting back into the land that was taken by the government there. when you are facing large unemployment and you want to advance your economy, you do not think about going back to

agriculture. what he said to me was, more or less, that he did not think that the egyptians could build things. ironic, given that i built -- i visited the pyramids the next day, but that is what he said. he said the only reason they assembled automobiles in egypt is because they were tear of -- there was a tariff and egyptians made a shoddy vehicles. and he said that the egyptians would not do well and making things. i have talked to other egyptians and they disagreed with that, but that some of what we have heard about u.s. manufacturing. it is, of course, observed for people to be talking in egypt about -- given that different

histories of our countries in terms of manufacturing and very different situation presently. i think that attitude in the u.s. has been quite harmful and it has caused the country to some extent to not pay the attention it should do what is still a very important sector. that attitude, and what i saw as the dangers of it, was the large part of what motivated me to write a paper we released a couple of months ago. notwithstanding the challenges we face, u.s. manufacturing is still very competitive in the world and produces enormous value and really hit above its weight in our economic well- being. we have copies of the report back there. it is called "a promise of

american manufacturing." petco wrote it. -- by co-wrote it. the u.s. is still out producing almost every other manufacturing country in the world and we are a major exporter of manufactured goods. and it is not just because consumers, around the world are buying american made products out of an act of charity. they're doing it because we are producing competitive goods in large quantities. i think we had a pretty market -- a pretty modest goal, which is to get people to understand that the u.s. manufacturing is far from a lost cause. it is not just some historic relic and it is actually a great strength for the country. what it did do was out on the policies -- outlined policies of the challenges that we face.

it is mentioning that we have -- is worth mentioning that we have had very aggressive pro- manufacturing movements compared to other countries. there is a paper called "low carbon innovation" that focuses on technology, particularly th moving to a low-carbon economy. we have a great panel today to talk about policies and where manufacturing is going. let me introduce that panel. congressman steny hoyer of maryland to my immediate right need little introduction. nevertheless, he has been a member of the house since 1981 and is currently the house

democratic whip and leader of the democratic leadership in the house. he served as majority leader -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> and prior to that he was the democratic whip. he has been a strong advocate. i have seen him a close and certainly publicly be a very strong advocate of the american economy and also focused on national security. the very relevant today, he spearheaded a coordinated strategy to support job creation by creating an environment of businesses to can innovate and make products in the u.s. and sell them to the rest of the world, some of which he has brought with him. next let me introduce ron bloom. he is the senior administration

counselor for manufacturing policies since september of 2009 and has been the senior toretary -- senior advisor the secretary of the treasury. it is important to note that when the u.s. auto industry was on the brink of collapse, the president made a show of help with some strings attached ron was key in an effort to save the industry and many, many u.s. jobs. he has been having a few good weeks recently. last week, the treasury announced that chrysler had repaid $5.9 million -- $5.9 billion, which brings the total to over $10 billion. gm has hired more workers in the u.s..

reflecting back on that is useful as we think about the public role in the relationship to manufacturing. prior to joining the treasury as artment, ron served u specialist to the president of united steelworkers union. chandra brown is the vice president of oregon iron works and president of the united streetcar. united streetcar was founded in 2005. oregon iron works was founded in 1944 and is a world-class complex metal fabricator and systems integrator serving many industries. she has worked for oregon iron works, where she started as an administrative temp for over 15

years. she is responsible for overall to -- overall business development and marketing activities. thanks to hurt in large part, they are one of the largest companies in oregon, according to the portland business journal. in august, 2010 she was appointed to serve on the u.s. manufacturing council santa subsequently appointed to the organ business development -- and subsequently appointed to the oregon buthis is development commission. started. obviously, the administration came into during -- came in during a real low in the economy. i wonder if you can from things a little bit in terms of manufacturing and where we were, a kind of progress we have been

making. specifically with record -- with regard to manufacturing. >> starting out with the low is a good place to start, unfortunately. it is really remarkable if you think 28 months ago what our economy was doing. but we lost 800,000 jobs when the president took office. the automobile industry was teetering on the edge of collapse. it is easy sitting here, particularly in washington, but almost anywhere. we forget that we were in a freefall. the current president did not have to be -- present did not have to be. the we could be a lot worse off in many ways.

the president took an enormous a series of actions, working closely with the democratic majorities in the house and senate at the time. those overall things are the reason we are not in a worldwide depression today. i think we need to occasionally stop and remember that. let me talk about manufacturing. during the recession manufacturing lost 2 million jobs [inaudible] [no audio] >> clearly, we are having some technical difficulties with our sonora for it -- from the center

for american progress. congressman steny hoyer of this morning talking about u.s. manufacturing and the job creation agenda. we are working to correct the problem and we hope to return to live coverage in just a moment. this is c-span. orda again, problems from the center for american progress this morning with remarks from congressman steny hoyer. he was talking about the future of the american job creation and the democrats' agenda for job creation in manufacturing. we still hope to correct the

problem and returned to live coverage in just a moment. right now, though, a look at the situation in afghanistan. >> freelance video journalist david acts was embedded in with the u.s. army in afghanistan in march and april. he joined the troops south of kabul on patrols of local villages and on a mission to clear the roads of i.d.'s -- ied's. he also talked with military leaders about the training of afghan army and police. >> what we're trying to do here is -- we have the area of operations, three provinces. they are very critical areas around kabul to try to expand the security beauport and that i am sure you have heard --

security bubble that i am sure you ever general patraeus talk about. security and government and elements, we are working to increase those here in these provinces, so that we cancel the transfer the security and governance and operations back into the cable hands of the afghans. lobar province -- logar province is just to the south of kabul. the security forces here in particular are making great strides, both with the police, the afghan national army, and also their intelligence director. from my point of view from -- over the last five months or so, incredible progress has been made with the police,

specifically in logar and wardak provinces. what the government is attempting to do is get the security back to the people. that is the alp, the afghan local police, the committees are stepping up their own police force. they get training by the afghan uniformed police. local communities hiring from within their communities to defend their communities. they get training by the afghan basis. it partnering and mentor should. economy oversight from both forces and they are paid, a quick, uniformed by the ministry of interior. -- paid, he quipped, uniformed

by the ministry of interior. -- vpaid, equipped and uniformed by the ministry of interior. >> a as we look at the afghan army, from a security standpoint, is out there patrolling, out there insecuritsecuring the local popn and showing that they are a cable force. police as well. they're focused on moving into those civil relationships that we see over time. i think we will start to see some transition. some areas are especially close to the district. they get out and you kind of beat cop kind of thing -- and

they do a kind of beat cop kind of thing. we are doing development based on the funding that we have, and messaging, and showing that we have capable forces to allow for transition at some point in time. >> i think security overall is on a positive trend. i definitely think we are making improvements. one of the ways we see that manifest itself is we see it especially on the local level. there are a lot of people getting fed up with violence. and not only coming to us to seek assistance, but also in some cases working out ways to take care of themselves because nobody can take care of people as well as they take care of themselves.

when you start to see that sort of stuff happening, which we are starting to see, i think success is down the road. there is a local town that is near a major road. it is pretty much a battle ground at times. when we moved through that area, which is necessary, the enemy comes from outside the town and uses the occasion to fight. -- that location to fight. most of the people are uninvolved and are seeing the negative consequences of the fighting. we encourage the people here tad we engage them to help.

basically, the people and their governments are going to solve their problems. >> have there been any security setbacks? >> there is an ebb and flow is the way i would describe it. it is not as if everything is on a positive trend all the time. the when you pay attention into one area you will sometimes take a few steps back in another area. it is kind of a constant balancing and assessing of what you need to do from a security perspective as well as the other efforts we make. but from a security perspective, it is where you need to -- where you need to go and what you need to do. >> to your best knowledge, how would you gauge the opinion of the local people regarding the taliban and also regarding

yourself, the coalition and the u.s. army? >> here is what i tell -- i can tell. a lot of the local people are tired of the fighting. i think the insurgency is a vast minority of people. people are fed up with the day- to-day danger to themselves and a constraint upon their daily lives without having to worry about being secured. in a lot of ways, people understand that they need us for their security. what the police -- what the people really want and what i see is that they want afghans to provide their security. those are to give a positive steps, in my mind.

working through the afghan army and police and the people want them to provide for their needs versus us, so that is another step in the right direction. >> what is the attitude of the hearts and minds? do you do things like that, try to win over the local populace? >> what we tried to do is facilitate the army and police during that period -- doing that. our number one army is to provide the protection that they need, but the way we do it is by funneling it to our partners. it is not as providing them something that they need. it is not us helping them build

a speedboat in their village. it is us setting conditions to allow afghan security forces to do it. but what about the afghan security forces in braki barak, for instance, the army? >> the army are here with us. the police are as well. pretty much everything you need is in one spot as far as army and police. we are just now getting into the warmer months of the year. we expect activity to increase from an insurgent perspective, also from the security forces perspective. the people can communicate. they can provide security. and their leaders plan pretty well.

>> what do they need from you? >> what they really need from us is kind of the next up -- next step that we can provide them that they are not as good at yet, such as planning and logistical operations. we can organize a way to resupply and things like that so that it does not take a week- long. we are not just at an advisory level, but we are also literally on patrol with them. we can contribute some experience because we can't show them how to better connect operations -- we can show them

how to better connect operations. >> and how are they doing? >> they are actually doing pretty well. the main issue in baraki barak, the number-one factor is police. when you have a district with 100,000 people in it and you have 4345 police to secure the population, obviously, the challenge is to -- and when you have 43-45 police to secure the population, obviously the challenge is to increase those numbers of police. many communities have community policing.

they need our support to handle than -- to handle that. if somebody calls them, they need to be able to provide assistance because if they do not, they will lose the trust of the people. and that is paramount. the numbers keep increasing. if we work with what we have. -- we work with what we have as far as facilitating them and helping them secure their district. and from the afghan perspective, the afghan government side and the ministry of justice, the ministry of interior, they worked together to increase those numbers. but with quantity we also need quality.

there are folks that are not quite ready yet. >> there are top -- there are pockets of the baraki barak district where the taliban has actually gotten stronger in recent years. how does that affect your response in that area? >> it could go either way. we have to set priorities and there can only be so many places you can be at one time. you have to pick those priorities and move forward without plan. and make sure that next week you are still doing the right things. our idea is if we can provide

security to the populace, once we have accomplished, we can start moving into the less populated areas. >> what do you think is the most of the cool part of your mission here? not for you -- the most difficult part of your mission here? not for you personally, but the company. >> partnering is a challenge on a day-to-day basis because all of us are different and we do things differently. a lot of times it can be frustrating when you do not have an understanding of why and how things are being done, and things are not going the way you think they should. we have cultural gaps that you cross and one thing that is

unique about the soldiers is that i think they get that pretty well. >> [speaking in foreign language] >> patrols like today, it is good to go into a bizarre because you can practice your communication skills. in some areas they are the have a foundation of ability to talk with the people. like gary says and like we said

all the time, as policeman, our whole job is relationship. relations with the people and showing people that trust everyday. even one hour a day, two hours a day, three hours a day, it will still make a difference. they will see that. >> [speaking foreign language] >> lieutenant, did they talk well with the people today? is there anything you would have them do differently? >> [speaking foreign language) and

>> it was very good. >> over market speaking foreign language] -- [speaking foreign language] >> if there are security issues, than we have got to bring it up and talk to the chief and figure of how to do reinforcement things.

when it comes to the people, you would be good to have a sub governor. >> through training partnership and side-by-side, shoulder to shoulder operations -- like i said, you cannot have an effective counterinsurgency without first winning over the people. if you can get training that allows them to affectively

assist the people, we can also assist in peru -- into pushing into areas like baraki barak. \ the more we can get the afghan forces to stand on their own, the more we can push to get in to these other zones. >> i understand that a lot of what you do is establish an environment of climate. what is the philosophy you want your commanders and soldiers to ascribe to? >> i think we are extremely satisfied with the level of training when we came down here.

they come back to me and say, i know what is important. you've heard stories of the strategic corporal. our soldiers make strategical decisions every day. some of the things that these guys decide to do could affect president karzai's decision making, president obama's decision making. they understand the importance of what we're doing here and the importance of the decision making we are doing every day. and probably, the answer to your question is, respect and getting every soldier to understand that they are here to protect the

afghan people and that is their mission by, with, and through the afghan security forces and that can only be done with the mutual respect of the afghan people, mutual respect of the afghan governors and understanding that they have a different culture. we have to understand. before we can you give a lot of training on afghan culture. is very different for a 19 or 20-year-old man and woman to go to another country and operate and say, by the way, you are not in america anymore. it is very challenging for all

of us and the important is that you have to have mutual respect and remember that they live in a different culture. against the decisions that have to be made on cutting back -- i guess, the decisions that have to be made on putting resources, i have not seen that. i have done all that i can do to establish command in afghanistan. of course, this summer as things begin to change, i am sure we will evaluate what we need to accomplish that. >> if you wanted to say something to our american you're

sure, would that be? >> -- american viewership, what would that be? >> first, the support given to the troops by american civilians is incredibly critical. it is a tiresome war. as you see in the media these days with people saying that it is not worth fighting anymore. but i will set i believe we are going in the right direction -- i will say i believe we are going in the right direction with the same amount of focus --

and with the same amount of focus we can accomplish strategic goals and accomplish our mission here in afghanistan. >> do protection and security in afghanistan -- protection and secured in afghanistan depends largely kandahar province. that is the headquarters of the taliban. the provinces just south of kabul, which are the agricultural provinces, places like logar and wardak, they are

ied galleries, just bombing galleries. toy're working or to try lock those provinces down to protect kabul. but there are thousands of i-80 's per year -- of ied's per year. a few days before was caught up in an ied explosion pin logar province, i was talking to a group of men who are responsible for finding the ied to protect the other men.

gregg's our purpose is to clear the roads -- >> our purpose is to clear the roads for possible well for the soldiers as as the nationals as well as they -- as they travel these roads. our mission is to protect the population and provide them the ability to move freely. >> these guys will roll out every day in these gigantic armored vehicles, mixing vehicles -- a relief tall one with a robotic arm called the buffalo, and another that scans the ground and protection vehicles. they go out in this big convoy and depending on the nature of the road an area of the road

where is practical to conceal a bomb, and they will cruise around and hope that it blows of their vehicle instead of another vehicle. the buffalo trucks are very tough. it is very hard to destroy them. even so, these patrols take a higher proportion of casualties than other units. for roads the it might be the patrols have to travel on foot,

they will get out of their vehicles and walk up and down the roads and probe the roads with bayonets and these world war ii-style metal detectors. if they detect anything, they get on their knees with a bayonet and just start poking on the ground, trying to gently uncover what is underneath. if it is an ied, the call in a bomb squad -- and they call in a bomb squad. they will come in and partly this goes of the bomb by wiring it up with some c4 and following it up in place, sometimes using robots. this is very tedious and dangerous work.

they live this lonely existence. just a few days after i was with them they were struck by an ied and insurgents followed that up with rockets and gunfire, what they call complex ambush and give those soldiers from that team were killed. >> this has proven to be successful with the threats that we have seen here and afghanistan. with the goods on the ground, the mechanical tools that we have available, and their eyes on the ground, we are finding

more i-80's this way than any other way. we have to constantly change -- finding more ied's this way than any other way. we have to constantly change the way we are detecting them and tried to manage this from different ways. the guys that are replacing the i-80 or building the site -- the ied or building the ied, finding them we are not having a great effect. we are living day-to-day we are trying to find the ied, ziebart not eliminating -- but not eliminating them.

the best way to attack the enemy based off of what we have seen is trench. and we go out there on a daily basis. >> i was embedded with a unit in the 10th mountain division, the army's 10th mountain division in the logar province of afghanistan. and we were to visit the village that is right outside a major there.as base they had some problems that they blamed on the coalition like coalition construction activity.

not at all 2 for lead to the u.s.-led alliance. the 10th mountain division had the idea to go into the village and to take along some afghan troops and jordanian troops and use the afghans and jordanians because they are muslims to drop .n on the village's mosque they dropped off some supplies. on march 19 we drove into the town in a convoy of american and afghan and jordanian vehicles.

there was some indication early on that things were not right in the village. the village has already -- has always been sort of borderline. it is not uncommon for the kids to durocs at the coalition controls. on this day there was a verbal barrage -- for the kids to throw rocks at the coalition controls. on this day there was a veritable perata. a gunner was struck in the face and was bleeding. his officer was furious and came to check on him and then found

the older and i yelled at him and said we have to work together. and the older said, what can i do? their kids. they sort of dewpoint doud for a little while and then made peace and we continued the patrol. we did not have reason to fear that the problems would escalate beyond a few thrown rocks. the units go up and down the road and check for improvised explosive devices and i had been told that they had checked and there were no known ied's on the road. ..but that afternoon we left the village and got probably 50 yards down the road. we happen by what looks like an abandoned motorcycle when a bomb

exploded underneath the vehicle i was in. there were seven people in the vehicle, including myself. of the seven, five were heard enough to be evacuated by helicopter. those near the back of the vehicle, for this from the blast -- furthest from the blast, were not heard, although concussions are difficult to detect in the short term. groaning sounds]nd

t. we need to get ou we need to get out of here. >> oh, my ankle is killing me. oh, my goodness. oh, my ankle.

>> my kevlar. i do not know where my kevlar is. >> do not worry about it. >> in the aftermath of the blast, the army evacuated five people inside the truck and i stayed behind with the patrol as they cleaned up the damage, investigate the blast site and then ultimately left the village as villagers gathered on hillsides watching us like some kind of a spectator sport. the bomb that struck the truck i was in could have been another -- a number of ied's that the taliban and other extremist groups use. it was made of old military grade explosives like artillery

shells. there are different kinds of trigger mechanisms, radio controlled blasts, blasts te,ggered by a pressure pla and some are even triggered by a trip wire being that goes across the road. this was probably pressure plate and probably not an old artillery shell because those are the easiest to detect. being made of metal, you can use an old-style metal detector to detect them, but this was not detected. it might have been fertilizer pact on plastic or wood with a te.ssure playe i think that is likely because it struck the first vehicle in

the convoy. in considering it after the fact, the bomb had likely been there for some time. . someone triggered -- someone tipped off the taliban. they heard we were in town and someone drove out there on his motorcycle and prepped the bomb and then abandon his motorcycle and went somewhere to watch. these days, the standard vehicle for any u.s. patrol in afghanistan or iraq, it is a

very tall be a goal with an angled body that helps deflect bomb blasts from underneath or from the side. the pentagon began buying tens of thousands of these things at about $1 million apiece in 2007 and 2008 after ied casualties spiked in iraq. today, iraq is not so much the problem, but after several years where afghanistan did not arely have any ied's, they now the major killer of american troops there. nearly half of the casualties .d's been victims of a id about 1300 are discovered every month and lemont and there are a

number of -- and billone of and a number of them are never discovered. -- about 1300 are discovered up and ath and billonblown number of them are never discovered. the survivors suffer long-term consequences besides the injuries. brain injuries are a huge problem now. i have read something like 25,000 american soldiers have been concussed, and most of that is a from these ied blasts. >> we will leave this now. we had some technical issues

with the center for mayor in progress report this morning. legislative business will get under way at 4:45 p.m. eastern also this week in the house, a resolution regarding u.s. military action in libya. in the house gaveling in this morning, and legislative business at 4:45 p.m., the votes at 6:30 p.m. now to live coverage of the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. may 31, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable tim griffin to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the

chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, chairman ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to recognize an amazing organization headquartered in my south florida district, alpha lit is a faith-based, nonprofit organization that provides education for the world's poorest people. they offer many programs from basic education, preschool, nutrition, microcredit, and community development, but its core mission is to eliminate

the human suffering caused by illiteracy. alpha lit is active in 24 countries, in latin america, the caribbean, africa, and portugal. as you would see from these posters here, mr. speaker, these are the volunteers and the many participants in alpha litvinenko acy programs throughout the world. since its founding in 1961, seven million individuals have had their lives transformed by alpha lit. because it also provides comprehensive health programs that focus on hiv-aids, tuberculosis, malaria, and cholera prevention. this year marks its 50th year of service to the world's most vulnerable population. 50 years of empowering individuals through literacy. it is an impressive achievement and yet alpha lit knows there is still much more to be done.

worldwide, 774 million adults lack the ability to read and write. think of that staggering number. 774 million adults. that is one in five adults throughout the world is illiterate, with 2/3 of them being women. in addition, 75 million children have never had the opportunity to go to school and many attend infrequently or they decide to drop out. as a former florida certified teacher, i know the importance of a quality education. it is one of the best ways to ensure that a child will have a stable and productive future. literacy helps bring communities together and it helps prevent violence and poverty. last year alpha lit had over 120,000 students enrolled in its programs. students like the ones that we see here in these posters.

alpha lit is always striving to reach more people and that is why it has started an adult and youth education program in liberia. they have opened facilities in 10 of liberia's 15 counties, quite an impressive achievement. liberia's president has become involved with alpha lit's program. program participants in liberia say that alpha lit has taken them from darkness to light. they say that before they could not read a simple street sign or know what a danger sign meant. but now they truly see everything. the women and peace building in liberia has been active participants in the program that alpha lit offers them. it is a group of christian women activists that formed during the liberian civil war. they come together to pray and

discuss issues of concern for their fellow liberians. alpha lit has provided them with the know how and confidence to continue their work. after 50 years of service and dedication, alpha lit has built a legacy that is truly impressive. mr. speaker, i commend alpha lit for all that it has done to fight illiteracy and ignorance throughout our world. let's hear it for alpha lit and 50 years more of service. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. like most of my colleagues, i had the opportunity to speak to

a number of veteran groups on memorial day in my district. as always, i was very humbled when i stand before those who have fought for this nation and the families whose loved ones did not come back from wars. i would like to -- the house to know that when i talked about the mcgovern-jones amendment to get our troops out of afghanistan, the statement received a very strong applause. showing the very strong support of the veterans of the third district for getting our troops home from afghanistan. after my comments, i had many of these veterans come up individually and want to talk to me expressing their support and telling me that they agree with mcgovern and myself. mr. speaker, i would like to thank the 26 republicans who voted in favor of the mcgovern-jones amendment last week. i believe we came within 11 votes of passage. mr. mcgovern and i will continue to fight until there is a definite plan to bring our

troops home before 2015. bin laden is gone and there is zero taliban presence, al qaeda presence in afghanistan. we have done our job. in closing i would like to quote lesley guild from his may 9 article in the "wall street journal" and i quote, afghanistan is no longer a war about vital american security interests. it is about the failure of america's political elite to face two plain facts. the al qaeda terrorist threat is no longer centered in that ancient battleground, and the battle against the taliban is mainly for afghans themselves. mr. speaker, i have with me as i do many times the true costs of war is those who die and those who lose their arms and legs and those who are paralyzed and blind for the rest of their life. beside me is a very, very frank

picture of war. it is an air force honor guard at dover air force base with the officer in charge saluting the transfer case that is covered with the american flag. i would say, mr. speaker, to both parties, how many more have to die in the next four or five years before we as a nation and we as a congress wake up to the fact that karzai is a corrupt leader. he has a corrupt government. we are spending $8.2 billion a month to prop him up. and yet, mr. speaker, on this floor of this house i have been part of many, many debates when people are saying, we have to cut the senior citizens, we can't keep their programs going. we got to cut the children so they can't get milk in the morning at school. we make sure that karzai gets his $8.2 billion every month in

afghanistan. for what we can't even account for. mr. speaker, mr. mcgovern and i will again this summer have an amendment on the floor to bring our troops home from afghanistan. i will say to the moms and dads and the wives and husbands who have lost loved ones in afghanistan, you have won the war, the war is over. bin laden is dead and the taliban do not exist in afghanistan anymore. so, mr. speaker, before i close as i do always on the floor, as i look at this poster with the flag draped coffin, i will ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, i will ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, i will ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i will ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of got for his people and great nation. i will ask god to please give

wisdom, strength, and current to prom that he will do what is -- president obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of god for this nation. and i will ask god three times, god please, god please, god please continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a 6 rule -- of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today. later this week the house of representatives has been invited to meet with the president to discuss debt and deficit issues. we could see legislation involving military action in libya.

more live house coverage when the gavel comes down on c-span. one other item to pass on to you, president obama has made his choice for commerce secretary to replace gary locke. businessman john bryson expected to be announced at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and we have more live events coming up at 2:00 eastern. a hearing on global perspectives on autism. you can watch that on c-span2. also the electrical grid. it includes members of the energy department. you can see that on our companion network, c-span3. you're watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs every morning it's "washington journal," our live call-in program about the news of the day, connecting you with elected officials, journalists.

weekdays watch the u.s. house. weeknights watch hearings and public hearings. week nights watch the supreme court. on the weekends watch "the communicators" and "newsmakers" and "q&a." it's searchable on our c-span video library. a public service, created by america's cable companies. a discussion now on contenders and possible contenders for the republican candidate for president in 2012 from this morning's "washington journal." , the associa editor for the politics channel. let us begin with the speculation over sarah palin and the headline in "usa today," trailing her on her bus tour. is she running? guest: no one really knows.

she is on a bus tour. people do not know where she is going to go on the bus tour, a new mpshire, but if you look at the website, it is not like she has set up a schedule of places to go. it is hard to speculate about. someone asked her at gettysburg if she was running. she said she did not know but the republican field with shakeup a lot. sending mixed messages. this is a strong sign that she is getting on a bus and going upnd down the east coast and in new hampshire, she is thinking about it seriously host: she added to cnn that she will go to iowa. guest: i think i would figure prominently in her calculus here she is going to go for this nomination. iowa had good numbers in since the 2008 campaign. we've seen her approval rating

trail of some, but she has clocked in good favorable among iowa. she was at 70% shortly after 2008. that would be a good place for her to go. no reason for her not to, i would put it that way. host: what is the impact of her not saying that she is running? guest: it is a guessing game for everyone. if your temple auntie -- if you are tim pawlenty or mitt romney, you're guessing. you know what to plan what you're doing around sarah palin running are not, but you have to wait and see whether the followers of sarah palin will turn out against them or if it will not be an issue. host: and will be the impact if she decides to get in? guest: it will be interesting. it is hard to know how she will do. she polls well. she is around second place right

now. mitt romney is the clear leader in this race, but the polling is early. it is a reflection of name recognition. how many republicans out there know you, and that they know you, you will do all well in the polls. mitt romney is around 50%, and sarah palin in the 12% range. -- mitt romney is around 15%, and sarah palin is in the 12% range. i think we know that nationally people have made up their minds about sarah palin. she is seen as a divisive figure. are on the badles side of 50%, but republicans seem to like her. when people are presented with a few options, when sarah palin passed a debate with mitt romney and others to come out an

attacker, it will be interesting to see what happens. no one has wanted to take swings at sarah palin for the last couple of years. after that starts to happen, who knows what will happen? host:ow much money is sarah palin raising with his bus tour? guest: i do not know the engine to that question. her organization sarahpac is doing quite well. it is not at the level of nes in words. sarah palin is pretty good at fund-raising. mitt romney is also pretty good. i do not know what his bus tour will take in for her but it is generating interest. people show up and will see that she is going to be there, they willhow up and wait. it is a label like a book tour.

she goes around and people show up to seeer. she does not need a lot of advance work. at the motorcycle rally, she only had one advance person with her. she can draw people. host: it is pac, sarahpac. are there legal limits to what she can do with that money? host: i think your tap at $5,000 per person. you cannot just take an unlimited money for your group before you are running. in terms of restrictions, it is very similar to running a presidential campaign. the federal limit is low enough that you cannot just rake in a couple of donors. you have to spread yourself then. host: when she was asked, she told people to go to the website. i want to show you an ad for the bus tour featured on her

website. we will comeack and go to your phone calls. >> ♪ >> we have a vision for the future of our country, high time tested approach. freedom is at god-given right and it is worth fighting for. [applause] the constitution provides the best road map for the more perfect union. these are enduring truths, and these enduring truths have been passed down from washington to reagan and now to you. we know that our best days are yet to come. [applause] host: sarah palin in the latest cnn poll comes in at 30%, third

place behind juliani who got 60% and mitt romney, who got 15%. guest: interesting to seeguiliani up there. i did not see a lot of people thinking that he is seriously considering running. it seems like those polling numbers are more about people knowing who he is and having higher recognition. everyone knows him from the days after 9/11. it is interesting to see a candide that peopleo not think will win topping the race. you ha to discount that and look at after him, who is it? his polling so well, our people unsatisfied with the field? do people want someone else to get in? if he got in or chris christie, the governor from new jersey, died in, would people glom on to him? or would it be a short honeymoon? the candidates that they have

maybe the best ones. host: those people were asked who would be your second choice. mitt romney that 50%, and they newt gingrich just up the third place at 10%. guest: i do not know if he would be happy about doing better in the second place poll. interesting to see, when you figure different candidates in and out of the equation, how they shipped all around. when donald trump was in the race, it actually hurts sarah palin. now she is doing better by a couple of percentage points. when you look at polls coming out, she has bumped up a little bit. trump took some of the wind out of her sales. if guiliani says he is not running, what will change? host: newt is in a three-way tie

with michele bachmann and sarah palin. they each come in at 10%. is mhele bachmann running? guest: i think she is probably running. she is taking steps in that direction. i think that palin's presence might change the calculus for her. people see her as a sarah palin part ii. she is beating back that impression. they had been pretty close politically. they held rallies together. bachmann really allied herself with sarah palin. host: shelley is a democrat in west virginia. 2012 politics is the subject. caller: thank you for taking my call. sarah palin is not running for president. the reason is, if she was, roger ailes would have suspended her

from being a xbox contributor a long time ago. i would not vote for any way. host: melissa, a republican in buffalo, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all, am a republican and i would never vote for sarah palin. if she could not hack it as governor and she resigned after two years in office, there is no way in the world she could handle being president. i do not buy the story that she quit because of ethics investigation. her own lawyer confirmed that she quit because of all the pressure put on her by all of the critics. secondly, i would not vote for michele bachmann because she has this problem with rewriting history. i think another problem is that during the 2008 elections, or 2010, i am sorry. no, 2008, obama was running for president and have a problem

with the democratic party started a rumor that rh limbaugh was that the facto leader of theepublican party. and then the republican leader started apologizing to him. we need leadership in the republican party that will not kowtow to democratic rumors and to some radio disc jockey with a loud mouth. host: of tse who are running, who would you vote for? who might you vote for? caller: i answers in looking at herman cain as a candidate because i like his perspective on the israel-palestine relationship has the united states goes, and i like his ideas about the economy and where we should be going as a country. guest: it is interesting to hear positive comments about herman cain. he is a guy running from the tea party support.

apparently, a very smart guy. at think he has an advanced degree in computer science and works for the navy developing ballistic. he is clearly a smart, charismatic guy that could draw some support. i do not think enough people know about him but he is definitely an intriguing candidate. it is interesting to hear melissa say the republican party needs leaders who are not going to kowtow to rumors and saying she will not vote for sarah palin because i think she wants to be seen as someone who will stand up to president obama and go at him to the extent that that might be catching on. caller: good morning. i have a think chris might want to look into.

you cannot do any typical. all tipping are pro rated against the salaries. it is just pro rated against the salary taxed, and then that money is given to the stadium. gov. tim pawlenty was in support of that and so was the republican that ran last fall. u guys should really look into this because this is a character of this crazy man who is coming out of minnesota. >> you never voted for tim pawlenty? caller: why would you? i did not know that those rich billionaires and needed welfare like that. host: have you voted democrat? caller: i voted republican a long time ago and democrat.

a check out michele bachmann and summer her czy stuff, too. host: what about the governor tim pawlenty's record in minnesota? could it come back anything? are people lookingnto that? i feel bad any pennies being dumped on you like that. ality is running on his record in minnesota. as we delve into it and find out more about it, maybe people will start challenging him on it, but for now, that is one of his selling point when he goes out and speaks about stuff. he is talking about how he left minnesota in a good, a financial shape and that is what he campaigns on. that has been a huge topic of discussion before it democrat

politics and republican politics. some of the talking points are about h he negotiate better deals for taxpayers and the unions. he sees his record as a strong selling point. host: the next call comes from dallas, tx. is gov. rick perry going to run? guest: i do not know. at that would be interesting. he is a guy who has generated headlines by appearing at a tea rty rally and suggesting that texas seceded from the union. i would like to see rick perry in the race. it would be very funny and entertaining to see how he handles himself in that debate. anybody hinting at a run at it is tough to tell if they are serious enough. host: go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am curious to know how is it sarah palin's bus tour being

financed? who i contributing to that? thank you. guest: i believe it is being financed through her political action committee. the restrictions are that are such that she has to take donations from people and not corporations, all financed with money that she is being given by individuals or other political organizations. the ca on that is pretty low at around $5,000. it is t like there is a company financing her bust door anything like tha a-- her bus tour or anything like that. caller: i wanted to say that as far as 2012 politics go -- i am

17 years old and 2012 will be he first election that i will be able to vote in the. -- in. originally, i set out three candidates. mike huckabee, herman cain, and mitch daniels. i like herman cain because i am a black conservative, a son of a preacher, and he is a really good guy. a ticket to really want to see in 2012 and that think we have a good chance of seeing is mitt romney end allen west. that is going to be a very powerful ticket against the democrats, and alan west is going to make a great leader. he has a big future ahead of him. that ticket is going to be

pretty big. host: that corresponds with this headline. r and the of the candidates that we talk about the most or have said they are going to run for sure -- mitt romney expected to make an announcement later in the week -- or anof them considering the tea party candidate? guest: mitt romney, i think probably no. since the rise of the tea party, mitt romney is one of the few national politicians -- there was never a point when you saw mitt romney drive hard for the tea party vote. tim pawlenty -- i do not know if he is a tea party candidate. he has some of the talking points in his repertoire and is all for reining in government spending. does he really have the feel of

a tea party candidate? part of the tea party is these messages about reducing spending, raising taxes, but it is kind of an anger and outrage associated with the tea party that i do not know if a guy like tim pawlenty will be characterized by that kind of candidate. sarah palin could be a tea party caidate. newt gingrichs kind of played for the tea party vote, and the kind of a firebrand when he wants to be. he could vy fo the tea party vote. the tea party vote has not been secured debt. i doot know if any one candidate will end up with it. host: let's talk about the other side of the aisle. here is the associated press this morning, saying that barack

obama tapped into a record near 50 million voters for the first time. what do you make of that? guest: that has been the question of his campaign and the political arm of his presidency. he broug so many people in who were not actively engaged in politics. it was kind of situation where people thought is that this permanently going to change the landscape? expanded the democratic field? to perpetuate that, the democric national committee spun off his campaign and

created this organizing group with the idea of keeping everybody engaged and involved in getting them to lobby on the grass-roots level. they try to get people together at their houses in a non- election year to sit around and talk about what they like and what they do not like. it will be a test whether people will stay engaged in that. now they are turning it into this group organizing for america and now is going back to the 2012 campaign. it is a difficult thing to do. i guess we will find out whether it worked or not. host: the washington post has this front page story.

guest: the last part is definitely right. that would be a really bad thing for republicans if obama was able to carry one of those states. can he do it? that is pretty tough. if obamacare wins taxes in 2012, i think that is a big, big thing that no one would've seen coming. you know, maybe wishful thinking on the part of democrats? gettg out there now saying we are going to win the texas and

georgia and present a strong image to piggyback what they did in 2000 aid. trying to get people to vote for democrats in north carolina in virginia, to have a democrat carry th state, that was big. you know, we do not know if it is going to continue going in the next election year. you saw the momentum in north carolina when democrats started getting barracks organizing came together at the neighborhood level. getting people together because they did not like what george bush was doing as president. now we are removed frothat. that definitely helped all the way for the obama victory and the shift. host: we will go to baltimore,

independent line, john. caller: thank you for taking my call. how are you doing? i have two things. the congressional seats that are open for reelection should be more interesting than the presidential election i think. as far as the presidential election, the incumbent usually does win, but on the republican side, i would like to see herman cain or rick perry, but ron paul, you do not hear much one way or the other about ron paul. i agree with a lot of his ideas. if he does not get the republican nomination, he would make a good vice president i would think. i still think especially of the sete seats up for grabs are going to be more important than

the president will election. host: why do you say that and which ones are you watching? caller: there are more democratic seats up for grabs in the senate, and i do not know how many in the house. the republicans control the house already even though i am not 100% happy with either party. that is why i am independent. when you have a republican- controlled senate and house, you probably get more done wheer the president is a democrat or republican. host: here is the front page of the boston globe this morning about that senate seat in massachusetts --

guest: that is like a barometer election. took away the democratic supermajority and the senate. the republicans can not like hearing that, and that their candidate who s a golden boy for a little bit who led the resurgence in congress, that he is not fearing to well ahome. if there is a canary in the coal mine to say anything bad about republicans, i think that is what we are looking at. it might not be that surprising. there was starting to be backlash against the president and what democrats were doing, and maybe some of that has faded. he has had to find his way in congress. it is kind of a finger that the media does now, when something like the right and budget

happens, everyon is asking scott brown what he thinks about it. people want to see if scott brown is going to side with them. so scott brown is now drawing tremendous attention from everybody if he is going to go with the republican party. he is the first guy that people ask when the ryan budget comes out. host: this tweet coming in with different numbers from the gallup polls -- talk about the impact of the economy on 2012. guest: that has been a story line that everyone is following. the economy is supposed to be the driving factor for president

obama and how much it has to recover for him to win reelection. i think it is still driving things out there, and its drove a major backlash against him when the stimulus came out and people saw the government spending money. as the economy improves, i think obama is it may be getting on a surer foong, but the question is will it be enough? even though the incumbent usually does win, it is hard for the and, to winhen the economy looks bad. it is something that president obama will have to overcome if it does not get better. host: we will now go to new york. caller: the comments concerning sarah palin, i have been

thinking to myself, my god, [unintelligible] how is she going to overcome the from the media? to me, it is so daunting. the only hope that she may perhaps have -- whether or not she has to go through that filter, i would think she does not have a chance. but the same token she is able to avoid it, maybe the the new internet has lessened the impact of the media, the old mainstream media, i do not really know but that has to be on her mind.

these vicious, non-objective attacks on her as she has come into the scene. a host: so, jim, she would have your vote? caller: absolutely. guest: sarah palin in the media has had advtisements for so long. she has opposed herself as someone who speaks the truth while the mainstream media distorts things. it has been a constant fight. the interesting there is, yes, i think it would be tough for her to go through the media filter especially when you have commentators say you bad things about her, but she has almost insulated herself fromhat same period a whoever criticizes sarah palin in the media has been discredited about what she has said about the media. the fact that she has campaigned against the media and on its

inherent falsehood, it is kind of like you are either with her or against her, and if the media says something bad about her -- i do not think the media saying something bad about her can turn someone off that is supporting her. i think it reinforces the narrative about what she has put out there about what the media is. sarah palin is such an interesting candidate to look for because she may not even need field staff in the traditional sense as far out as other people do in states. as we saw at her book tour, she can go to bars and nobles and thousands of people can turn out for her.

candidates setting up their campaign this far away, we have not seen the sarah palin dudack, and that might not be a problem for her. a -- we have not seemed sarah palin do that, that might not be a problem for her. is totally irresponsible to think that she could do well without getting into gear sooner, but sarah palin has this innate draw. host: does that mean the other candidates have a set of field offices in all -- and iowa and new hampshire and getting together resources? guest: yes. i don't know how many volunteers that have, but tim pawlenty has people in iowa, mitt romney has a lot of people in iowa. the top candidates are on their way to building a campaign

structure. the ones who have not announced yet, we do notnow how much they are spending. they are in this legal limbo that it will have to announce to the federal government that they are testing the waters. they do not have to start regularly reporng to the federal commission until they announce they are running. as a certain number of days past, they have to file regularly. yes, they are raising and spending money, but we do not know how much. host: it was reported at tim pawlenty was able to raise $10 million in one day. guest: and that was on top of how many millions of dollars of his own at that he can spend. host: but we do not know how much he has spent yet. will that figure come out this week? guest: i am not sure if it will be this week. it will be each month or

quarterly. i will have to get back to you on that. host: george, an independent, go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to talk about tim pawlenty and minnesota. people do not know but there are eight classes of a felony in minnesota. the most in the nation are too easy to make criminal. the fih amendment does not apply to the states. as i understand, sandra day o'connor is going out on a mission to get ridf this notion of an elected judges in ates. i have not sn any politicians talk about these things but it needs to be aired. thank you. caller: hello? i would never vote for a republican for three reasons.

when bush was in, the bankrupt this country. at least the democrats -- bush was in office for all of those years and they did not get him. he was too close to the oil wells. that is number one. host: we will leave it there. we saw george w. bush was an issue back in 2008. what about 2012? guest: someone pointed out recently that obama won in 2008 running against george w. bush had had such a favorable lansky for his election because of that. at that point, nobody liked prident bush. people thought he was so terrible.

his approval ratings sank below 30%. it was a bad situation for republicans. it was a tough situation for john mccain who had to go to the white house. this time, are we far enough removed that george bush does not matter any more in this election? do people still -- to republicans still have to deal with that issue? i think we might be farnough away for some people, the memories of bush fading. it might not be a campaign issue, but it might be an underlying issue. host: here is a headline in the baltimore sun that this morni --

guest: none of the people sitting on the sidelines of the republican party are running for president. no one has been as forceful as chris christ. he has been so adamant that he is not running. if people in iowa are begging him to run, is it going to look like chr christie has passed on the election? host: according to "politico,"

chris christie is meeting with organizers at the governor's mansion in princeton, new jersey? guest: yes, it looks like they really want him to get into. -- in. host: monroe, louisiana. caller: why are we putting iraq on the back burner when it is becoming a very democratic state and it is going to affect all ofhe other countries are read it? we see part of it by the uproar, going in with syria and iran -- host: what do you think a role that it should play in 2012? caller: we are currently creating a state with obama's help that will help israel, and

picture the other states around it watching what is happening in iraq which is great. host: what about national security issues? guest: afghanistan is going to be a huge issue. it is interesting to hear iraq posed in that kind of light as a success story because it has been such a political albatross for politicians here. to hear it posed as a success story, you know, it is an interesting thing to hear. the big question in domestic politics is voters will be voted on afghanistan in 2012. the withdrawal that is supposed to begin pretty shortly here, how fast is it going to be? we do not know. it is such a tough and because if things go badly there, it is going to look bad for obama and tough for him to win votes. if he does notull out fast

enough, he loses support from his base. i think the war is going to be a major factor. host: we are going to be talking about national security ises shortly with bill gertz from the "washington times." let me show you this piece. iowa's record there back in 2000, pickled george w. bush. they have not picked the right one since 1988. with these two states have an impact on 2012? guest: i think so. there is so much momentum you can get from coming in second or third. we saw the last time around michael huckabee carried a national campaign way into the

2008 primary. i think he was the last man standing against john mccain because basically he won iowa. they might not pick the front runner, but if you look at who places second or third in new hampshire, i think itas a lot to do with it. host: jimmy, last phone call for chris good. caller: i have three points. number one,he economy will be a majobstacle or a major asset for barack obama. i think he can quickly say it is better than what it was when i first came into office. if you look at the empirical data, that is the case. sarah palin has had numerous opportunities to convey what she thinks publicly.

we have long debates and you can really see that she more relies on talking points when it comes to the heavy knowledge base that you need. i don't think that is changed. she is a wonderful, likable person, but in terms of an intellectual heavyweight running for president, i think she lacks that and the media sees tha i think mitt romney will be the nominee for the republican party. the problem with hims he has is social policy when it comes to medicaid and medicare that he author in massachusetts. now he is running away from that. i am sure the democrats ar >> well, coming up at about 1:15 today, president obama will tell you his announcement

for commerce secretary. we'll have live coverage of that here on c-span again at 1:15 eastern. until then, your phone calls from today's "washington journal." the front page of the open clay usa today." almost 4 million homes have been lost of foreclosures and a last five years, turning many former homes into rentals. of the 100 marjah cities, some of those were irvine, california, which went to 4% --

we want to get your take on this -- it is owning a home still the american dream? what do you think abo housing policy as well? this story is o the front page of the "new york times calls " this morning. it says that the giant -- the desire to own your own home --

the telephone numbers a on your screen. renters, we want to hear from you. is owning a home still the american dre? we will keep reading while we wait yfor your phone calls to comment.

we will go to dallas, texas, a democrat joining us. what do you think? caller: i paid $12,500 from my home in 1974. i was making $2.65 an hour. our house payment was $125. that is not going to happen no more. host: are you mortgage rates now? caller: definitely. host: do you have kids? caller: i had a two brand new kids, actually. host: would be your advice for someone seeking a home? to you think it is the