y of georgia and a democratic representative of california. we will discuss the pentagon's so-called equivalence of doctrine, allowing for a contentious -- conventional weapons response to cyber attack. our guest of the former deputy deputy assistant secretary of defense. "washington journal" is next. >> on this vote, seven are recorded as present. two-thirds not being in the affirmative, the bill is not passed. ♪ host: on 97 yes votes came from democrats, while the others joined the republicans in rejecting the claim debt ceiling vote. good morning on this wednesday, june 1, 2011.

last night's vote comes as the entire republican conference meets with president obama this morning at the white house. republicans say that they are sending a message that is politically -- it is politically impossible to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts. democrats called the vote a political stunt. we want to get your thoughts. the telephone numbers are on the screen. we will begin with the baltimore sun and there's a story on last night's vote. they said that the proposal would increase the borrowing capacity by $2.4 trillion to cover the government's obligations through the 2012 calendar year. it was also designed to force on to the record democrats who sought a clean vote free from demands of budget cuts and policy changes.

on that issue, "hill" says last night's vote with democrats in an awkward position. after 114 members of the caucus signed a letter from peter welch calling on republicans to bring this to the floor. many of those democrats reverse themselves when it became clear the republicans were granting the request only to see the legislation failed. back to the "baltimore sun." its is the u.s. chamber of commerce has been working with lawmakers, many backed by conservative tea party supporters, to see the debt ceiling eventually raised.

a republican in brentwood, california, what did you think of last night's vote? caller: seven weeks ago according to the headlines, they did and then a clean lift of the debt ceiling. that proposition was put on the floor yesterday and at 44% of the democratic caucus will not go along with that. how will they return to their districts and tell their constituents that they are in favor of extending credit to these credit-challenged politicians with no protection at all? it has been two years and since the house and senate has passed the budget in times like this. and yet according to "politico", they are unlikely to produce one this year. you saw in the senate last year that obama is budget published

in february went down 97-0. leadership, anyone? host: i was wondering about the arguments from democrats saying that this type of vote that you saw last night, if it is rejected in the end, could spook the financial markets. caller: what is spookier than anything else is that nothing is done to restructure our budget, our big 3 government programs will disappear. in what, 10 years? host: "new york times" on this issue. republicans scheduled the vote for after the stock market's close.

craig, an independent in texas, good morning. caller: the whole thing was about politics as usual. it was not what needed to be done with this country. host: what should be done about the debt ceiling? should it be raised? caller: it is going to be raised, i do not have a problem with that. if they restructure the taxes, i do not see that happening right now. host: if they take a debt ceiling but again before the august 2 deadline, do you want to see spending cuts attached to it? caller: i want to see a balance between spending cuts and tax increases, and if i had my way about it, we go back to the late

1990's tax structure under president clinton. to me, i am a retired military and senior citizen. i can remember taking home half my paycheck and i did not have a problem with that because we had a war to deal with. and now they do not seem to want to pay taxes and have all these wars and spend all this money with corporate america not paying any taxes on it. it's totally insane to me. host: a democrat in virginia. caller: i hear the republican party always wanting to balance the budget. you have to take medicare and social security away from the people. in the meantime, they are not talking about their salaries, their pensions, their

entitlements. they will not touch their entitlements but to touch all entitlements. i do not understand anything that is going on right now. the military complex, all of our money goes into three wars but nobody talks about how to take care of us americans. we do not take care of americans. the republican party lies. the democrats tried to play but i do not think any party cares about the american citizens anymore. and that is what i would like to say. host: will show you some of last night's debate this morning. we will show you what dave camp said who brought the legislation to the floor. this is what he had to say. >> businesses washington -- in washington as usual is over. republicans will not accept an

increase in our nation's debt limit without substantial spending cuts and real budgetary reform. this vote, a vote based on legislation i have introduced, will and must fail. most members are not happy when they bring a bill to the floor and it scales. but i feel that defeating an unconditional increase to be a success because it sends a clear and critical message that the congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in americans affection for deficit spending. host: ahead of this morning meeting with republicans, the entire republican caucus, but white house spokesman says that obama plans to listen to their concerns -- mike, democrat, good morning. caller: i think the republicans

are very disingenuous. and that is putting it nicely. when they talk about being against tax increases, many of us want to go back to the clinton-era tax rates, we are talking about a difference of 4.5%. the american people are being fed these misleading -- that democrats want to raise taxes, but we are only talking about 4.5%. i think it to be across the board back to 35%, i believe, to 39.5% for any time we hear the republicans say, the democrats want to raise your taxes, i think someone ought to step in and clarify that we are only talking about a 4.5% increase that could raise trillions of

dollars, not to mention that there are so many other things that before they started dismantling medicare, there are so many other things that could be done in this country. i agree with most of your callers. many republicans as well saying that we need to cut back on the military, and why are we in japan and germany and korea? maybe korea, there are so many things that the congress could do. genuinely, to raise taxes, miniscule, 4.5%, and i am just a middle-class guy and i am willing. thank you for c-span. host: larry in indiana or idaho? caller: idaho. i enjoy listening to c-span every morning. i like to respond to the lady that called in just a moment ago. i am a republican, and i certainly do want to push them off the cliff.

i do not want to take anyone social security. i do not want to take anybody's medicare or medicaid. and i don think senator tom coburn of oklahoma does, either, or any of the other republicans. host: are tax increases on the table for you? caller: yes, ma'am. in order to get this thing under control, we have to increase taxes, but we have to make spending cuts. host: on the bipartisan negotiations that vice-president joe biden is leading over revenue versus spending, here is the "washington post," saying that the talks are under way led by biden.

this time around negotiators have agreed to pull about 200 billions in savings from various programs, including federal worker pensions and farm subsidies. with obama to host house democrats at the white house later this week, steny hoyer, the democrat from maryland, the no. 2 in the house, fired a warning shot tuesday. let's go to nevada, charlie, an independent.

caller: i appreciate very much c-span. i would like to see the government take an honest circle approach. there is money but they have driven all the jobs overseas. they got tax from all of these people that used to work. now we have great unemployment. if they would very simply put duty on all the goods coming into this country, then the industry would move back to the united states so that people would have jobs. if we would not have these cheap jaunt that we get from overseas. number one. number two, an arizona if you hire illegal aliens, take their licenses away from the corporations. they have got lost. why did they not enforce them? why did not look after the people instead of after the rest of the world?

host: we're talking about house rejecting last night along -- all republicans voted no on raising the debt ceiling. 97 votes to raise the debt ceiling came from democrats. we will keep talking with you about that, getting your take on that. but let me run for some of the front pages this morning. "new york times" has the story. new jobs are created to raise the rubble. this is left a trail of destruction to what the south. the hon steadies' recoveries seem to be finding our football. we will be talking about that on "washington journal" as well, how the economy has been impacted by the disaster. and also this week, the food stamp program amid a record number of recipients, the story

on "abc news." there will review the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill to the department of agriculture that includes $71 billion for the supplemental nutrition assistance program. that is $2 billion less than what president obama requested if but a 9% increase from 2011, which critics say is too large given the sizable budget deficit. 14% of americans now rely on the federal government's food stamp programs and it has become a politically explosive topic. the front page of the " washington post" says this. stopping strikes on afghan homes. it may complicate withdrawal plans for obama later this month. out of libya, this morning, and made a top official says the military alliance and its

partners has extended the mission another 90 days. that comes from the nato secretary-general. it will send a clear message to the cat out the regime that we're continuing to protect the people of libya. and then "the help" reports that steny hoyer intends to oppose a resolution to pull u.s. forces from libya when it hits the floor today. it is part by dennis kucinich and would undermine the relationship between the united states and other members of nato which is helping to lead efforts to help libyan rebels overthrow longtime dictator muammar gaddafi's. the democratic line, libya, what you make of last night's vote? -- lydia. caller: the republican hypocrisy is amazing. they raise the debt ceiling five times in the george bush

administration. the debt that we have is the direct result of george bush's republican house and senate. they did not have a problem when they had a surplus. prescription drugs, two wars, all of that put on the credit card. i say raise taxes on the riches. their children should go fighting in this war. if the poor and middle-class whites and blacks and hispanics are dying for this country, and they are touring europe on the riviera. they are parasites as far as i'm concerned. they've done nothing for this country and they want to balance the budget on the backs of the old people. the poor, they want to take away their stamps and give them oil industry's $20 billion or something. it is ridiculous. host: a republican in ohio. you're just looking at that debt clock in real time. the head. caller: that is what is

ridiculous. there many white people fighting the war right now. 90% are the ones getting hurt. i agree with the guy from the data. he had it right. -- from nevada. he had it right. were we supposed to have the budget in october? isn't that the law? maybe you could find out and let us know? i think that is the law. it is supposed to be done every october. host: phyllis in illinois, your take? caller: good morning, greta. our troubles began when reagan took us off the gold standard. we print money at will. we do not have to have gold in fort knox to back it up anymore. in the meantime, they were spending money like crazy, and then as of september of last year, the congress of rhode $13

trillion out of social security, and over the years, since reagan, a bar at over $22 trillion out of medicare. if they want to save money, bring our troops home, put them on the borders, put them into the railways and airports for our security, bell said a $70 billion a year. plus the oil and ammunition and tanks that we're building, would be close to $2 trillion a year right there. what is going on is too many of our congress people, representatives, are too busy investing their money in hedge funds and on the gravy train. they could care less about the people of this country, what is going on is a sin. host: president obama picked a new commerce secretary.

the pick made the front page of the financial times this morning. this is above the fold of the "financial times" this morning. a democratic caller, go ahead. host: this is robert from arizona. i would like to make a comment that will shed quite a bit of light on history and do quite a bit of finger-pointing. my comment will be extensive, so bear with me, please. since my dad was a younger man and i was a kid, my dad impressed me a lot with how this country was always willing to get into wars. get them ignorant to fight wars, and also through reagan,

they raided the social security fund, and it has been rated many times. and from my standpoint of finger-pointing, let's start finger-pointing, because if we do not have job, it is because the rich get richer. when the rich get richer, the poor and the very poor and the old and the dilapidated and the cities and counties and states that do not have money, they are looking for money, so they -- host: robert, when it comes to -- we have a lot of people calling in so we cannot have it and extensive speech. we will go to charles, a democrat in mount pleasant, texas. you're on the air. caller: i wanted that banks c- span first. second, i wanted to say to the man in maryland that spoke earlier, when she runs for president, i will be right by her side because i was impressed with her comments. to get toward the issue here, i

would like to say in what we're looking at from the house currently is a very charged republican base that you more on the periphery they represent a large conservative movement's of this country. it is going on in 2010 and i think we will see it die off in 2012. but to play games with the debt ceiling is such an ignorant and ridiculous type of discussion when you realize that we have never defaulted previously until this current conflict. my thoughts on that are simple. to play games with a debt ceiling is ridiculous. to make it a political issue is not uncommon, however, i hope people realize that when they start throwing off comments like, the very strong

conservative charges of socialism or some other type of issue, they are missing a larger point. you were looking at bankruptcy before rectifying your issues. host: this is what a democrat of michigan had to say during last night's debate. >> this is a ploy is so egregious, the republicans have had to spend the last week pleading with wall street not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery. if republicans were being truthful, that would bet they are looking for political cover in doing so, they risk blowing a hole in our nation's economy. they had acknowledged that their timing is an effort to change the subject. less than a week after they plan to in the medicare, there were dealt a major setback by voters in new york special election

whose democratic winner will be sworn in tomorrow. host: we're talking about houseboat yesterday rejecting the so-called clean and debt ceiling increase, and on the issue of how the financial markets might react, all wall street journal said this. the bond market betrayed little sign of worry over the debt limit. oklahoma city, scott, a republican, you are next.

caller: [unintelligible] host: let me put you on hold so you can clear up that line. we would go to chicago, bill, an independent. caller: under the , it could be extended because the people who have control of the country and control the money are so selfish and greedy, they do not want to do anything for the benefit of the people who need help or the corrupt people who run this country could even get richer. that by it would make a difference to extend the taxes of the super rich. host: the "wall street journal clause could also says --

for beignet beach, the democratic line. caller: thank you for your stalwart coverage of the issues at hand. my comment is just about the shell game for republican party place. they have been doing it for a long time, ever since the k street mafia was in place. and they continue to do it now. if all goes down to the same thing -- they want to get rid of the programs that benefit the poor and the middle class. they have no desire to continue those programs. and they will do everything they can to destroy them. host: rich, a republican in homestead florida. caller: the reason we had a surplus is because clinton, when he was in office, he had a

republican congress. and i think that, what is that? i forgot. host: we will move on then. other headlines for you, the front page of the "wall street journal." home prices sank in 2002 levels. consumer confidence falls as pacifism of -- pessimism grows. you can see that all of these cities are down in the housing market. they are below 2000 levels. and also in the newspapers this morning, here is the "new york times." justices blocks sued over the use of material witness law against detainees. they unanimously ruled tuesday that a man detained after the september 11 attack may not sue for the misuse of the material witness law.

it was a unanimous. it did not buy like clearly established law. mr. ashcroft was entitled to a qualified immunity from suit. that is open code york times calls " on the supreme court decision. another story. the obama administration is expanding a program created by the new health care law, moved tuesday to make health care insurance more important -- affordable and a sensible. also out of libya, it says that

colonel gaddafi is not backing down. he has refused to step down despite the protest against him in tripoli. his government was running out of food. the south african president after talks with the libyan leader. jamie, ato california, democratic caller. what did you make a last night's vote? caller: i wanted to comment. i believe that the republican party is absolutely sabotaging everything that the president is doing to get us back. our feet in the united states. i think that it is the selfish greed, and they should really pulled back and allow him to do the things and complete the accomplishments that he started. we need to get our economy back on track. host: what about spending cuts? would you agree to a bipartisan deal that included spending cuts

to different domestic programs, military spending, etc.? caller: it is going to harm medicare and the military that needs their help. host: all those things are off the table for you. caller: absolutely. host: the phone lines may be scored. is this kathy in california, a republican? you are next. caller: the republicans are trying to save the country. the only way we can have this debt and deficit because we are in reserve currency. russia and china are starting to trade among themselves without going to the dollar. and what standard and poor's saying in the future we might be downgraded, as our grade for, what is the word, safety with our currency, there is a good chance that we might not be the reserve currency. which means we will not have the money for the programs that

everyone is calling in and saying they are refusing to want to cut. how money will not be there. we could see hardships that people cannot imagine in this country. republicans are trying to cut spending so that we lower our deficit so that we're not in danger that happening. we have out of control spending. i understand people saying that the altar ridge are not taxed and now, but how about if the altar ridge -- ultra rich have higher taxes but that money goes to lowering taxes on the middle class, really get sandwiched in between with the tax burden, because the lower class do not pay much committee upper-class, the super rich do not pay taxes, and the middle classes are really suffering. taxes overall are too high and our spending is too high.

we need to dial it all back in order to save the country. everyone should look at the argentinian crash. google licht and watts the different movies -- google it and watch the different movies. they had the largest middle- class of all south american countries. watch how it crashed and it will be an eye opening thing for everybody. and as for obamacare, that already does cut money from medicare. everyone is crying about paul ryan's budget. people have to look at that. that is also in obamacare. host: more on the breakdown of yesterday's vote. we told you that all 97 yes votes came from democrats. 82 democrats voted with all the republicans. seven democrats voted present as a protest vote.

some political headlines for you this morning. here is the new york post on chris christie, the new jersey gov. meeting with some i a blood donors at the new jersey mansion yesterday. and it -- iowa donors at the new jersey mansion yesterday. it was the tip of the iceberg of republicans are urging him to run for president because of his excellent record in new jersey. also this morning out of new york, here is the "new york daily news" with their headline on the governor of alaska -- former alaskan gov. sarah palin meeting with donald trump in new york. it is called the peak set summit. -- pizza summit.

the "baltimore sun" endorses the bus tour. republicans may be fretting that the party lacks a clear front runner, but the former alaska governor is correct that competition will breed success. also to let you know that jon huntsman, of possible 2012 contender for the republican nomination, rights today in the "wall street journal," some argued that half measures or for delaying the inevitable because the politics are too hard. but delay is a decision to let america declined. attempt butn's oppose the reforms without

imposing an unaffordable tax burden on future generations of americans. that is jon huntsman in today's "wall street journal." this editorial about anthony wiener, him claiming that his twitter account was hack. by monday night the lawmakers had a lawyer is out. he had not call the cops and refused to say why. the reticence to go after someone who had packed into its accounts. their questions why he would not do that. more than 40,000 people have signed on to follow him on twitter, he follows 198. one of them was the woman who received the photograph. another was new jersey nurse nicole aquino.

the look of the san antonio, texas. mary is joining us, an independent caller. we're talking about the debt ceiling but last night. what did you think of it? caller: i thought it was horrible. i think they've republican party is the worst thing, this particular one, one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country. i think they need to be voted out. they are not patriots. you do not call that patriotic when you want to give money to the rich and have tax increases -- decreases for the rich people, and take away from the poor people on medicare. the older people.

how can they stand up there and say, what is it? are they getting money from lobbyists to do this? this is a horrible thing. and they're trying to hold this president hostage, and i hope he does not fall for it. host: another caller from san antonio, texas. he is on the republican line. caller: everyone calling in bashing republicans on last night's vote need to do their math. 82 democrats voted for this as well. it seems like that as a bipartisan vote. a lot of people looked at the center was an and irrational decision they're raising the credit card limit is not the question what -- the answer without spending cuts. people wanting to go back to the clinton-era tax cuts, and that would be perfectly fine for republicans to adopt that as their tax rates.

but on top of that, go back to the clinton-era spending levels. if we did that, we would be in a much better place. people need to quit calling up and saying that this is a republican doing this or that. last night, more than half the democrats voted for the same thing. if the republicans are bad for doing it, the best the democrats are just as bad. host: let me run this by you. some in washington are worried about the message was sent to the financial market. chris johnson at the chamber of commerce says that --

caller: ok. markets rise and fall. where is the market now? has not gone back to where it was? host: are you concerned at all? that was a lot of wealth, some would say, not just wealthy individuals, but 401(k)'s, pension plans. caller: i think everybody knows that, but about a year ago, people did not know what the debt ceiling was. now everybody knows about it. now at least we are having a conversation. our country is in bad shape financially. if this was most corporations, the sec would be shutting them down and taking them to jail. but they have to do something. there has to be a start to where our government becomes accountable for the money.

that is not what the money is meant for. host: tim geithner writes in " about "washington post, the auto bailout. two years later, all three american automakers have returned to profitability. we demanded tough concessions from chrysler and gm. they were forced to cut their bankruptcy, clean their balance sheets, and adopt stringent plans to move toward profitability. we gave the companies enough space to make sound business decisions and push ahead as they would in a private restructuring.

that is timothy geithner, the treasury secretary, writing in today's "washington post." he will be on capitol hill testifying today. in new haven, chris, democratic line. we're talking about the clean debt ceiling increase rejection. what does that mean? caller: it means that we cannot raise the debt ceiling without some spending cuts. but like the guy from idaho and like the guy who just but said, there has to be some revenue increase, tax increase, and alaska i just said he would be content with the tax rates during clinton, but also spending limits like in clinton. and if you take the hysteria out of it, there is a lot of agreement out there. i even think like the guy

from idaho's said, that tom coburn is not the ogre that people are making all republicans out to be. there are republicans out there that are able to be taught to, and we can come to some agreement. host: do you think that joe biden is the one to lead those types of negotiations, where they come together and agree to but tax revenues and spending cuts? caller: i think he is speaking for the president when he does that. that is the leadership that people were complaining is not being given. i think that obama likes to take a lot of people's points of view and listen to them and then finally make a decision. and he does in private, just like the big compromise a few months back, with the different -- i cannot even remember the name of it. but the last budget, and he will come up with a compromise

now. i think that we can do this. host: the front page of the "usa today" has the cellphones story that you heard about yesterday. there is a possible link between cellphones and cancer. health experts say the risk may be small and further research is needed to draw a definitive conclusion. but the experts say, there's not enough evidence to know whether radiation from cellphones causes cancer, but people can take the steps. inside the financial times -- excuse me, the "baltimore sun", the more details about the study. it is not saying definitively that it increases the risk, but limited scientific information exists.

we will go to phoenix, alex, a republican. what is your take on last night's vote? caller: i have three things to say. the first thing is that i want to applaud the republicans for taking the courageous stand against the democrats. some of the democrats were also in favor with the republicans. i want to applaud them, too. the second thing, i must not market trader. but pre-markets, the dow jones is only down by 14 points.

it has less than an hour and 50 minutes left to go until the market opens. so it is not a big deal. host: i read one quote from a trader that did not know the vote had taken place. do you think a lot of the traders new? caller: i think that they knew, but because they knew that because tim geithner said that this explosion will not happen until august, no one is concerned. they are pretty sure that the gop in president obama will strike a deal. host: what happens if they do not and the debt ceiling is not increased? caller: what happens if they do not is armageddon. host: explain that for people that are not in your world. caller: america will not be able to borrow money anymore, because china and other countries will stop loaning them money. it will turn paper money into

paper. again, that is not going to happen, because the gop and obama are going to make a deal before the last moment. neither side is going to let the country fall apart like in 2009, september, they did not let the country fall apart, either. there will always make a deal at the last moment. host: if it goes right up until the last moment, right up until august 2nd, to the bond markets start to get shaky leading up to that vote? caller: yes, i think that in late july will start to see some sort of worry. and as we get closer and closer to the final moments, the market will start to react. but immediately, right now, the end of may, early june, i did not think anybody is worry that this point. we're all expecting president obama and the republicans in congress to make that deal. host: we will go to nashville,

tenn., you are our last. caller: this is milicent and i am glad to be able to talk to you. i think that we're going to have to increase the debt ceiling. i do not think that we can get around it in terms of wanting america to be the way that it has always been. we are going to have to do that. i am very disappointed in the republicans and how they have come in with the stand that they are going to do what they are going to do, and they are not. to listen to anybody else. i think that that is terrible. all of them are supposed to be there to be our representatives. i think the people that have called here, if the people that have called in other places, are saying that they would even like to have increases in taxes, but the republicans are so staunch in their stand that they do not want to listen. host: all right, we will have to leave it there. we will continue the

conversation after a short break. in 45 minutes we will talk to jackie speier, the senior democratic whip, about last night's vote. but next, phil gingrey who sits on the republican study committee, we will talk about the debt ceiling bode. we will be right back. ♪ >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first

session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. also information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at -- c-span.org/shop. >> sunday, the balance between security and liberty, the difficulties of a climate change treaty, and the limits of international law. your questions or author and university of chicago law professor eric posner. he will take your calls, e-mails tweet, mails -- and e-mails live on c-span. >> every weekend is american history tv on c-span3. watch personal interviews about historic events on oral history, our history books of the sharing some of the best known history writers, revisit key figures,

battles, and events during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms across the country during lectures in history. the behind-the-scenes at museums and historic sights on american artifacts. and the presidency looks at the policies and legacies of past american presidents. they are complete schedule at c- span.org/history, and sign up to have that e-mail to you by pressing the c-span on alert button. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman phil gingrey, the republican of georgia. he represents mary at, and he is a it republican study committee member as well. here is a " son in the paper about last night's vote. from senator mark warner. shutting down the government, you can go to the 11th and half hour. the consequences --

guest: that may be true. of course, that take that secretary geithner continues to give congress continues to change. the latest report is august the second. it may change again. but certainly revenue continues to come in. we continue to tax the american taxpayer and revenue comes in on a daily basis. over $200 billion a day, and fat. and certainly the interest on the debt would be the number-one priority. the defense of the nation, probably the no. 2 priority. the safety net for our seniors, that would be no. 3 and no. 4. you get down to the bottom of the hat, and maybe put off paying other obligations, but this business of armageddon and drop dead and everything goes to heck in a handbasket on a date

certain, august 2, i do not believe that is true. i don't think most members of congress believe that. host: do you think about possibly being wrong? guest: absolutely we do. i think it is worth the risk, because quite honestly, all more irresponsible thing and not raising the debt ceiling or raising the debt ceiling would be to say to raise it without having any budget process reform, to simply say, ok, once again, for the umpteenth time we would go along with the federal government, with this president, with his treasury secretary, and accept what stock and barrel what they say, and the doomsday scenario, that it is correct and we will raise the debt ceiling and hope in the future we will have some budget process reform. but the american people do not want that. they do not want to continue down this road of $14.6

trillion, maybe $16 trillion after we raise the debt ceiling, without a significant commitment in law what we will do about reducing spending and overall cutting down of the debt. host: of the bipartisan talks going on with is president joe biden, what you want to come out of that so that you are a yes vote to raise the debt ceiling? guest: we've talked about a number of scenarios. the idea of a balanced budget amendment is one that i would like to see. the likelihood of that is not very strong. quite honestly, there are many states that may not want a balanced budget amendment. particularly if they get all larger share of the federal government largess into their state coffers. and it takes 75 of -- 75% of the states. we do not have time to wait for

that. those who say that we will have caps on spending as a percentage of gdp, bringing it back down 18%, said that into law and make it triggered that makes us cut spending if we go above that amount -- there are other things i feel personally -- why should we vote to raise the debt ceiling until each fiscal year we have passed every one of the 12 spending bills and we have a budget, a concurrent budget resolution passed by the house and the senate? how much money do you borrow if you have no budget and you have not passed your spending bills? i would say to the vice- president and the president, to get my vote, i want to see that done every year. i do not want to see spending bills a lump together, the on the bus stop, of putting military, veterans, along with

some other controversial discretionary socialistic-tight spending to force members to go into those situations. i think every single spending bill should be a stand-alone bill. that would be another provision that i would put in there before i would vote to increase the debt ceiling. host: medicare cuts? guest: medicare cuts are significance. if we do not do something about medicare, the trek the report says that by 2024, the fund will be insolvent. that is not that far away. the president himself back in 2009, june, i think, he said that the two biggest driver of our debt and deficit are the medicare and medicaid programs. and they are not sustainable. and yet the president and the democratic majority, all they seem to want to do is criticize any ideas that the republican majority has come forward with a budget, with a reasonable, sensible budget.

they do not even want to talk about it. they would rather use it as a political tool for 2012. that is totally irresponsible. host: some of your colleagues may have been burned by the political fallout. guest: obviously, the political fallout worries me. i feel that my republican party has the best ideas in regard to run in this country. i want us to keep the majority. i want us to get the white house in 2012, 2013. but i feel it is more important to worry about the next generation in the next election. each member of congress needs to have that mind set firmly in place. and i really believe, especially with this new group of 87 freshmen, republicans and house of representatives, that we do have that mindset. host: we talked about this during the first 45 minutes. one caller said that last night's vote showed that there is room for compromise.

why not go back to the tax levels during the blow clinton era and also the spending cuts that were put in place during the negotiations with republicans back then and the of the clinton administration? could you agree to some sort of deal with -- including tax revenues and spending cuts? vote wasst night's overwhelming. it would of taken a two-thirds majority to pass a clean increase in the debt ceiling. the two-thirds majority was against even then. some democrats are probably of the mindset that they do not want to be a clean increase. they want tied to increase in taxation. the republicans, most members if not all, do not want tax increases. we feel that we need to cut government spending, wasteful government spending.

and we feel like like the path to prosperity budget said, we want to simplify and lower tax rates, not only for individuals, but especially corporations. then you have a broader base of businesses and people paying their fair share and stimulating the economy. you have more job growth, and people, albeit at a lower tax level, paying taxes, and you end up with more revenue and not less. host: let us go to phone calls. a democrat from alabama. caller: thank you for c-span. sir, you have the lowest taxes right now host: are you still there? we are listening. caller: you have the lowest tax rates that you have had in 37 years right now. as far as raising the debt ceiling, you're not raising the

debt ceiling for the spending. you're using it to pay for bills that you have already incurred. to do all this cutting that you want to do with the lower and, you will hurt the economy more. that is what creates jobs, people having money to buy things. it is supply and demand. guest: danny, i think you may be right and you are right as fell level of taxation as it may have been in past years. you mentioned the clinton years, i think. but as everybody knows, we are in a global economy. while we have to compare is not our tax rate today 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, or immediately after world war ii when we were trying to pay for the war. we have to compare to our competitors across the globe to tax their citizens. the effective tax rate in this country at the corporate level

is so much higher than in is in most eu countries. we have to lower that tax rate to stay competitive globally. host: can you lower the tax rates and get rid of the loopholes? guest: i would agree to that. that is i would be willing to sit down with the democrats and for other loopholes. i think it is important that we be fair, that we do not let one special interest group lobby so strongly that they get an advantage over the common man. it is important that we be fair and balanced and eliminate as many loopholes as we can. host: norman, oklahoma. caller: i get tired of hearing about medicare when we need to

be talking about medicaid. and on the section 8 and social security, what do kids get social security kids for asthma because they have one arm longer than another? guest: karen, the medicare program is not working very well. it is about to break all 50 states. many of those states have democratic governors and democratic legislatures. in georgia, it is all republican. we are all suffering from the same problem. states cannot spend more money than they take in. so when that amount is cut or when the mandates for additional

coverage such as was included in obamacare, the 15 million additional people that will be forced on to the medicaid rolls in the various states are going to cost trillions of dollars in state budgets. republican plan, irresponsible digit -- a responsible budget. it gives states the chance to be the incubators of new ideas and entrepreneurship so that you get better health care to more people. host: we have a tweet about the cost of war. guest: it is a good tweet. i appreciate the question.

we should pay for the wars. will we first went into iraq -- when we first went into b iraq, i felt strongly that some of the money we were spending should be eventually pay back to us when they increased their oil revenues. i still feel that way today. that may be part of the way i was reluctant in including and ignoring the president of the war powers resolution of 1974 to just simply go into libya, a third front costing us more and more money that we did not provide for except for borrowing more money. i think the president should abide by the war powers resolution, as president bush did in 2002 when he came to the

congress and got overwhelming support in action in afghanistan and iraq. host: steny hoyer was talking about this yesterday. >> this is a serious issue. you put this on suspension. our country is in crisis from the physical standpoint. i don't think the pendulum has any idea what the facts are. -- from a physical standpoint -- fiscal standpoint. under brooklyn, less than 40. -- this is an important issue. this is not the adult moment that speaker boehner spoke.

the budget you voted for increase the debt by $1.9 trillion between now and october 1 of this year. host: did you agree to raise the debt under the george w. bush administration? guest: i think of voted quarter times to increase the debt ceiling and six times not to increase the debt ceiling -- i think i voted four times to increase the debt ceiling. members can sort of hide their votes from the american people. steny hoyer is a respected member and someone that i respect. he was making the point that the increase in the debt ceiling that has occurred over the past six or eight years -- i voted

against it more often than i voted for it. we need 11 up and down vote and not hide it from the american people -- we need to have an up and down vote. host: why was it okay then? guest: it was not a clean vote. the house would deem if the senate -- it would be deemed as past. we did change the rules in the house to eliminate the gephardt ruling. anyone could go back to the same smoke and mirror games to raise the debt limit without having to raise their constituents. host: when you voted yes, why was it ok to vote yes? guest: we learn as we go.

we know that the amount of debt that we have incurred, $14.29 trillion, is wrecking the economy. 20% of the rabbit goes to pay the interest on the dead -- 20% of the revenue goes to pay the interest on the debt. caller: i have a quiz for you this morning. under george bush, how many times did you raise the debt ceiling? guest: probably three times. host: a democratic call from detroit, michigan. caller: i'm a first-time caller and somewhat nervous. i am in calling in regards to the debt ceiling.

i want to pay back some other callers. raising the debt ceiling is to pay for the credit card the we have already incurred. it is like going to the mall and paying your bill and then you get the bill in the mail and you have to pay that bill. that is what the debt ceiling is. it needs to be raised. president obama did not take a dime from medicare advantage. it is like hmo. insurance companies were dispersing the medicare advantage. he took the waste from the insurance company and put it back into medicare to expand medicare for an additional 12 years. guest: i think you made my

point. you said that president obama did not take a dime out of medicare advantage. he did not take a dime. he took $120 billion. i don't know if you get your medicare through the medicare advantage program. some 11 million seniors did. they are not going to be able to do that now with this cut in medicare advantage. the money was not put back into medicare. the president suggested that it was. secretary sebelius suggested it was. it was not. it was used to create this new entitlement program. it had nothing to do what seniors or medicare and medicaid.

if that money had been put back, maybe it would not " insolvent by the year 2024. host: birmingham, alabama. caller: hello? host: we are listening. caller: i have called my congressmen. i called the senators. i cannot get a straight answer from anyone in washington. the constitution demands the united states government fill our border with our military. it protect citizens from innovation. -- invasion. that is what is calling -- that is what is costing billions of dollars. wrong about you're

that. the constitution does not call for our military to seal our borders. if our borders were militarily invaded, if mexico or canada were waging war against our country and invading our borders, then our military would be at the borders defending our country. i don't think that is what you're referring to. you're referring to the problem with illegal immigration. to defend that is not the mission of our military. we do not have the money nor the personnel to fight two wars -- three with the situation in libya. we have great men and women, border patrol, the immigration

customs enforcement, border security agents that the way fantastic job. i am talking about 50,000 in the aggregate. maybe we need more of that personnel. i have visited the border several times and i can assure you that and all my colleagues and friends that the border patrol is doing their job. i think the security of the border has improved. the problem is drug violence as it occurs and the threat of terrorism and all these other things other than just people trying to come into the country to get a job. host: tony in georgia. caller: representative gingrey, the republicans increase in the debt ceiling 10 times without

mention of the budget cuts? guest: we have talked about that on the show this morning and greta put the question to me. this is my ninth year. i had to admit that i have voted for the debt ceiling. if the were 10 or 11 times since i've been a member, six times i voted against it and maybe four or five times for it. increasing the debt ceiling without any budget process reform to get to our budget back into balance, even though we do not have a constitutional amendment to force us to do that, the responsible thing is the men and women elected, we have the responsibility to do the right thing.

i know the right thing now is to draw a line in the south and say, we're not going to continue to do this. it is fiscal irresponsibility. host: congressman phil gingrey taking your phone calls this morning. caller: i beg to differ with you on the point where you made on social security when the lady said that obama did not take anything out of social security. they went to insurance companies and said, i can give you the same amount of coverage for people on medicare. i can get some vision and dental for the same amount of money. the government approved medicare advantage. a couple of years later, they needed more money.

the government approved more money. that was unfair. the people in medicare were only getting what they were allowed. obama then cut it back to the amount of money that the people were getting. as far as the vote last night, if i was the lender and you were coming to me with these gains and i watched you get these gains, i would not lend you any more money. guest: you make a good point in regard to the medicare advantage program. the man of per capita spending on medicare beneficiaries -- the amount of per capita spending is some 12%, 30% higher than it is on people that get their medicare service with

traditional medicare. i don't think it was inappropriate to cut spending got medicare advantage, particularly if those were not provide additional benefits and coverage to people on medicare advantage. that is what the federal government was paying for. to cut the spending and not use it to strengthen medicare, to take that money and use it for a new in, a program, which is called the affordable care act. i think it is the unaffordable care act. how can you have it both ways? you spend it one way or the other. medicare cannot afford it and the country cannot afford it.

host: bill is next. caller: people say the answer to the debt ceiling crisis is to increase taxes. isn't the real revenue question the fact that 50% of americans do not pay any income tax at all? i feel like i pay enough. i would like to see some of the percentage of people that don't pay tax pay as well. guest: you make a good point. the top 50% of wage earners pay 93% of all federal income-tax. the top 50% pay 97.3% of all federal income-tax. that means the bottom 50% pay 2.7% of all federal income tax.

you can balance the budget forever as long as you continue to raise taxes. it is a job killer and the amount of revenue that comes in will gradually go down. president kennedy, president reagan, president bush -- all three of those presidents, when the cut taxes, the revenue went up. you say because of these marginal rates, cuts in capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends which are not taxed at the marginal rates but at 15%. that is what president bush did. it will cost $1.5 trillion. what happens on the ground is that we raised revenues something like $275 billion in

the first three or four years of the bush tax cuts. host: we have a tweet. guest: that is a good point. i have made it this morning and i will continue to make it as many of my colleagues have done. even without a balanced budget amendment, the responsible thing men and women of leadership -- there is not time to figure out the nuances that a that goes on up here. i commend a person like paul ryan and the committee in the house for bringing forth republican budget in the house that makes responsible, tough

decisions, maybe not politically popular, being willing to touch that is the most important to represent the people the way they deserve to be represented. host: fincher, california -- ventura, california. caller: the thing on huntsman, they wanted an alternative to the republican plan. let's start pulling health care at of the stock market. let's now go back to nonprofits. if you do that, there is 20% right there. straight across the board, minimum 20%. that is where you start with health care. as far as the debt limit, the

democrats were warned to be careful how they voted on an up- down vote. they did not want republicans using it against them in the election. they did not want the southpaws the republicans are famous for when it came time to election. guest: ralph, you say you're an independent and maybe you are. on this issue of the debt ceiling, you come down on the side of the democrats. i do not know what the political calculus was yesterday on the house floor. what the best political vote may have been -- i do not know. host: 0 was the republican calculus -- what was the republican calculus?

guest: it is pretty obvious. we want to present to know that raising the debt ceiling on the clean up or down vote without any top caveats, without any response will change in spending and budget policy, without any reform whatsoever is totally unpopular. it is not just the republican majority in the house but the majority of democrats in the house. we are going to the white house today. to mark, the democrats will go to meet with the president -- tomorrow, the democrats will meet with the president. we plan to listen carefully. we wanted to show the president that will simply not vote for an increase in the debt ceiling

because timothy geithner comes to us and says, we have fiscal armageddon here and everything will go to heck in a handbasket if you do not do this. host: what is the format for the meeting with the president? guest: we're having our conference meeting as i speak. i am sure the discussion will be about that. where do at the white house at 10:00 a.m. this morning. we're having our conference at 9:00 a.m. that discussion is going on right now. host: thank you for missing it and speaking with us. do you plan to ask the president any questions? guest: there will be 242 other hands in the air. host: the caller referred to jon

huntsman. he said the debt ceiling must be raised but it must include spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling. what do you make of jon huntsman possibly running for president? guest: he has been president obama's ambassador to china. he has explained that. that is a credit to him. former governor of utah. someone with a lot of curb appeal as a chief executive of the state of utah. i think he would be a very viable candidate. the idea he expressed about a budget and how he would do it medicare reform is kind of similar to the remark that tim

pawlenty said. he liked the ryan plan but they may want tweak it a bit. host: you voted yes for it. guest: it is ok with me to listen to what the nominee has to say and to listen to what the democrats have to say. this idea of them saying that they want to stay away from the third idea. some but it looks like paul ryan in an ad pushing grandma over a cliff. that kind of demagoguing, i think the american people are sick of. i'm willing to listen to

alternative plans to fix medicare. i am willing to listen to the president's and my democratic colleagues. i think it is responsible and wrong and not fair to the american people. host: do you want to see michele bachmann get into this race/ ? guest: i am an original member of the tea party caucus. michele asked me to join. michele is a well-respected member. she has a voice and curb appeal. if she gets in the next, she will be a player. host: do you think she should?

guest: that is up to her. caller: i have to say -- we have two wars that we have to pay for. we also need to cut expenses. you talk about exploiting -- we do not know what will happen with taxes. i dislike the guy intensely. he got a balanced budget. i find it disingenuous because they did not let medicare negotiate for back. even a sunny care managers -- even the signing care managers

-- medicare pays for drugs. in.t: i will jump guest: you mentioned a number of things. medicare part d was passed. we felt the marketplace should determine the price of drugs. the democratic minority at the top felt like the federal government should determine the price of drugs. they try to amend the bill -- t to amend the bill. they tried to set the price of the opinion -- of the premium that seniors would pay. we defeated that amendment.

we felt the market should determine that. you have to be careful about letting federal bureaucrats determined what the right price is. i say to you and to all the listeners and a special tour seniors in regards to the medicare program -- and especially to our seniors, what do you want? the 15 independent advisory board created by obamacare who will start determining where cuts to medicare will occur and what reimbursement to provide us will be? hospitals and doctors. or do you want those decisions the people you entrust your life to?

you want some bureaucrat saying you cannot have that because medicare spent too much money last year and you simply will have to die from your leukemia or cancer. or do you want these decisions being made by your provider. i think that is the most important thing. the obama administration says there will curb spending this15- advisory board making these decisions. we think that is wrong. i am open to suggestions in regard to solving our medicare program and keeping it from going insolvent in 2024 at protecting it for people that are 15, 25, 45, even 54 years

old today, and keeping medicare as we know it for the existing beneficiaries, 47 million of them, and another 15 million or 20 million in the next 10 years. tuesday paul ryan is destroying medicare as we know it -- to say paul ryan is destroying medicare -- host: congressman phil gingrey, thank you for joining us. we next will speak with representative jackie speier. first a news update from c-span radio. >> more on the cyber attacks that we will be

speaking about in about an hour. cyber attacks are being developed so rapidly that a new treaty is needed to control their use. one suggested using the united nations telecommunications agencies as a watchdog. the statement false announcement that the military would treat cyber attacks as acts of war. nato is extending its military campaign in libya for another 90 days. they are determined to protect libya's people. dennis kucinich introduces a war powers resolution later today in hopes of any u.s. involvement in libya. you can watch the house debate live on c-span television and

here run c-span radio. a leading outplacement firm said employers eliminated nearly 2% more jobs in may then they did the month before. government cutbacks are bleeding into the private sector. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span. every morning, it is "washington journal," connecting with journalists and policy makers. weekdays watch live coverage of the u.s. house. also, supreme court oral arguments. on saturday, "the communicators." you can also watch our programming any time and c- span.org.

it is all searchable at our c- span video library. >> now available, the complete guide to the u.s. congress. including the district maps and committee assignments. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we're back with jackie speier, who voted yes. why did you vote yes? guest: the interest and wanted

to reduce spending is real and important and we need to do it. this was a sham last night. this was all about pinning the tail on the donkey. we got word on a holiday afternoon that we are going to have this vote. it was really a joke. host: republicans say that this was to prove a test vote to show democrats and the president that a clean vote to increase the debt ceiling is just not politically possible. the majority of more americans to know what the debt ceiling increase. guest: i am for spending cuts. most democrats will say cutting spending is important. part of that spending is providing a tax cut to the wealthiest americans in this country.

when you look at a millionaire $100,000 tax cut, that is something we cannot afford. if you look at what we have to do to be responsible -- host: part of that responsibility is looking at medicare. medicare must be on the table as well. we must include medicare cuts. guest: what is interesting about my republican colleagues is that they did not get the democrats at all. we are not going to cut medicare. we are not going to cut the benefits to senior citizens in this country.

if we say, no longer will we allow part d, in which congress was tied in terms of negotiating, this you bet we will be willing to do this. look at the veterans administration and the kinds of discounts would get for pharmaceutical drugs. it is 2/3 of what we're paying. host: the republicans say that this is not catastrophic if we do not raise the debt ceiling. there is a proposal that the treasury could pay bondholders with incoming tax revenue and delay other payments pending a resolution and that that would be an ok way to let the government go about it.

guest: if we did not raise the debt ceiling, to pay the interest on our debt, it would require us to cut 35% of the federal government cost budgets. three $20 billion -- $3.8 billion a day. we would stop paying military personnel. that is the huge part of the federal budget. we cannot take ourselves down this road. this is pin the tail on the donkey. this is a sham. throwing sand at the democrats. fine, you made your point. cuts will be rational and reason and affect the wealthiest in this country as well. host: republican freshman from

tennessee, and this is what she said. >> we hear from economist belly of less than five years to turn things around for the united states will sink under all this dead. -- under all this debt. the time is now to fix this because we're out of time and we of the opportunity to change for the good the way washington is spending. but it does not seem the other end of pennsylvania avenue thinks we should change anything. they are happy to keep kicking the can down the road. the road has run out. when this measure to raise the nation's debt limit fails on the house floor, we will be sending

the white house a message -- you cannot get another blank check from us, mr. president. host: congresswoman? guest: i think she was telling the republican line. the president said he is willing to negotiate with the republicans. i never saw president bush engage with the democrats when he was in power. he will meet with the republicans today and the democrats tomorrow. i think that is good for the country. host: he will be meeting with republicans later in the week. steny or put out a warning to the president -- steny hoyer put out a warning to the president.

uest: i share mr. hoyer's position. last winter, a huge benefits accrue to the wealthiest in this country. i think he did that knowing he did not need house democrats. we have become somewhat irrelevant in this process. i think that is the nature of politics. the negotiations go on between house republicans and the senate democrats. that has what has become irrelevant. host: are you frustrated? guest: that is the nature of the dynamic. i think he will listen to us. in the end, he is the leader of our party and we will march behind him. host: steve, a republican.

caller: have you heard the phrase that too many cooks spoil the broth? guest: i have heard that. caller: it will be critical to both sides meet in the middle. maybe we need to hire some mathematicians and to get together on this. the mirrors will have to give up some of that money -- the millionaires will have to give up some of that money. guest: i think that is where we do have to end up, in the middle. this is part of the dance that goes on. i will hasten to add, welfare was chains under president clinton's -- welfare was

changed under president clinton's administration. those on welfare should look for employment if the children are over 2. welfare is not what is driving our federal budget right now. host: michigan, democratic line. caller: i want to applaud you. you have a tremendous speech. i want to applaud you for your courage on that vote. in michigan, we're going through some of the most devastating cuts we have ever seen in education. everybody knows the federal debt is out of control and we need to do something about that. the solvency of our country is more important than anything else.

i know my republican brethren will believe if we do nothing that life goes on. if this country defaults on its debt, we will be facing a depression that will make the great depression look like a minor bump in the road. now is not the time for partisan games. this has to be done for our survival in the world. guest: i agree with you. it will be done, probably towards the 11th hour. you are correct. every conservative economists that has spoken out about the debt limit and the need to i raiset has been clear -- and the need to raise it says we have no choice. we have to pay our bills. this is for bills we have

already incurred. the focus of bringing in spending is a good thing. it should not necessarily be linked to raising the debt limit. it will be now because it is leverage point for some of my colleagues. host: david from georgia, but independent line. caller: good morning. i know the debt ceiling needs to be raised. no new taxes off the table. that has to go. i am a poor man. raise my taxes. i'm ok with that. host: what about spending cuts? caller: some spending cuts need

to take place. host: what about medicare? caller: leave it alone. host: congresswoman. guest: it sounds like someone with a simple response that could blow at as a simple question -- that could be looked at as a simple question. this text that was provided to the wealthiest americans -- this tax cut was provided to the wealthiest americans. that tax cut is costing us close to 1 trillion dollars every 10 years. that would be a huge savings in our efforts to try and bring down the deficit. if we discover that tax holiday.

it was offered up as a gift. host: ann on our republican line. are you there? caller: bush has been out of office. leave him alone. i did not understand. you guys play such political games. get a grip. stop the blame game. guest: i am not trying to blame president bush. the bush tax cuts went into effect. they cost $700 billion over 10 years. that is the reality. we learn from history. caller: my comments --

republicans talking about medicare. i think they are foolish to go after that. the real problem is the cost. the reason older people are scared is that you go in the hospitalou-- you go in the for four days and costs $5 00,000. these republicans want to make money. people don't mind them making money. there has to be a point -- ceo's make $20 million, $30 million a

year. we have to get this under control. guest: it does come down to costs. a famous surgeon did a study in texas and looked at the medicare costs for patients. in one city, it was twice as much for patients. democrats --t the the demographics were different. it was because the physicians in one city owned everything. they the hospital, because as the silly, -- they own the hospice facility. if you are trying to bring in medicare costs, you do it by restricting physician-owned

facilities. you do it by making sure that we bring in the cost hospital care. part of the accountability in the affordable health care act is all about making sure that hospitals are prudent in how the provide services and if a patient comes back to a hostile within 90 days, there will be penalties imposed. we're creating greater accountability in the system. host: that doctor was a guest in this -- on this program, "washington journal." go to the video library and plugging his name -- and plug in his name and you can listen to that. caller: can you tell me what the

unfunded liability for medicare and social security are today? guest: as you know, for social security, the money that comes in is then put into t-bills and we're held accountable for that money. social security is good until the year 2037. 06,000. is now $1 if we lift that cap, social security would be good until year 2070. the problem with medicare is that it has a short life, probably five to seven years.

we have to putting controls or that system will be bankrupt. the baby boomers, the number of people coming in are huge. as we all live longer and technology improves, the number of employees putting money into the medicare system has shrunk. the number of people of the medicare system is a growing. the cost and liability -- the liability will be great enough that within five years, medicare will be out of money if we do not make changes, so we do have to make changes. the health care reform measure was a step in that direction. there are other things we have to moving forward. instance.i's, for

i carried legislation -- we thought we fixed it. we created a loophole that allowed them to ido in-office exams. now the machines have become smaller and they are self- referring to themselves. how $14 billion a year in mri- type services and advanced imaging, most of it being done in office by physicians. a lot of churning going on. these are the types of restrictions we have to put in place to make sure medicare will be there in 10 or 20 or 30 years. host: ray lahood came to your district which was the sight of that explosion, the gas

explosion at the killedeigh eigt people and promised tougher regulations. guest: i was so delighted by the visit. he knows how long it takes to get legislation through the process. pipeline safety is an issue for the entire country. would probably have -- we probably have 180,000 miles of pipeline. he has regulations that will be released in august that would incorporate many of the elements of my legislation. it would require that people be notified and they have automatic or remote shut off valves. it took an hour and a half for

the local utility to turn off the gas. many of the homes that were lost could have been avoided -- many of those homes could have been saved. automatic shutoff valves and trading for first responders -- those will be all but he will be considering in this legislation. host: these pipelines are used for natural gas. guest: yes. host: are you reporting for natural gas -- are you a proponent for natural gas? guest: yes. the problem is we grandfathered in all the old pipes. now we need to go back and test them to make sure they are in fact still stable and not

fatigued. host: what are the gas station telling you? guest: the transportation secretary has met with most of the utilities. in my case, they have embraced the legislation and moving forward. host: kansas city, missouri. thank you for waiting. caller: we lost a huge amount of tax dollars because we don't have taxpayers because of outsourcing. we should be finding out ways to get new taxpayers and to get more money for the american people. we're going to have to end up raising taxes, as you can say.

i wish if they do do this, they will come up with a temporary tax to be capped at 2% to take the burden of the people and we use this tax to make up for the budget that you need and to put america in the black. i want to hear your comments. guest: i am looking for ways to bring manufacturing back to the united states. will take to bring jobs back to the united states -- what will back in to bring shjobs the united states? that is something i felt strongly about. we have to find ways to try to bring these jobs back. i will be introducing an amendment later this week about

the outsourcing of uniforms. uniforms for u.s. government employees. we outsourced the manufacturing of those uniforms select companies that have been viable uniform manufacturing companies in this country have closed, four of them. 600 jobs have been lost. i'm going to try this week to make sure that we can revive that particular industry. host: illinois. caller: i have been a lifelong democrat. i pay taxes every year. with thed of fed up democratic party champion the loewen pauper's people and republicans are against them.

we have 50% of the population not paying any population at all. we have 33% to 40% of people on welfare. it is ridiculous. make people pay some sort of taxes so that they understand the meaning of a dollar, so they understand what government is. guest: there is a lot of myths associated with whether poor people pay taxes. those people on the lowest rung pay a minimum of 4% on taxes. those to make up to $40,000 a year are paying 10%. everybody working is paying payroll taxes.

people pay sales taxes and local taxes as well. that line at that 50% of people don't pay taxes is not true. i urge you to look of the congressional budget host: independent caller, you are next. caller: good morning, c-span. guest: good morning. caller: you made a couple good points. one, you said republicans do not understand democrats. democrats do not understand the american people, the common- sense people who do not choose ideology over truth. it is so hilarious. we're in debt. you are in favor of us going more in debt as a country. our dollar is affected every day by that decision. if we had a strong dollar, we would have less inflation against all the things that we spend every day.

the dollar would go farther. you would save money. you cannot do the simplest thing, which is to protect the border. we're in danger every day. host: before you go off on the border security issue, let's have the congresswoman response to your point on the weak dollar. guest: i would first want to point out to you that we're spending money we do not have. i agree with you. we are spending $10 billion per month in afghanistan that we do not have. we are borrowing that money. i think that many of us, both democrats and republicans, are now saying that we need to get out of afghanistan. there's a huge amount of savings that occurs when we are no longer spending $1 million per military soldier in afghanistan, not to mention the equal number of contractors. we have 100,000 men and women on

the ground in afghanistan right now. we have another 100,000 contractors, defense contractors, on the ground, who are costing more than $1 million per year. that's a huge cost to this country. we're at a point where we do not need to be in afghanistan in the manner we are there. host: sacramento, california, erik, a republican caller. caller: that was an interesting answer you gave to the last caller. unfortunately, you did not answer his question. he was talking about the dollar and the fact that poor people are getting hurt because gas prices have gone up. you do not look poor. you look like to get a lot of sun. you look like you are well off. i imagine --

host: we will get a response from the congresswoman. guest: i'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking. the dollar will be stronger, yes, if we pay our debt and do not have to increase the debt ceiling. i want to be in a position where we do not have to do that. we need to start cutting where we spend our money. one of the areas we can save a lot of money is in afghanistan and that's why i went in that direction. host: you were named to a leadership position last week by congressman steny hoyer -- senior whip. what does that mean and what is your role? guest: i am one of many. basically, they are members that help making sure we have the numbers for boats that are taking place when people have a difficult time deciding if they will vote for or against. we will meet with them and

discuss the issues. we will also discuss policy and the message. host: you voted yes on increasing the debt ceiling. why did you vote yes? guest: everyone felt that this was an exercise last night and people chose to vote one way or another based on their districts, based on how they felt it was best going to be conveyed to their constituents. i voted yes because, naturally, we have to pay our debts. i want to protect medicare. i'm fearful that what will be part of this debt limit increase will be trying to cut medicare. this was a game last night and i cannot underscore enough why it was a waste of time. it was an effort to shift away

from the medicare issue, which we have got to come to grips with. it will not be by cutting the benefits and creating a premium benefit, as republicans are suggesting. host: jackie speier represents the 12th district in chicago. as we pointed to, eight senior democratic whip by leadership last week. jerry, a democrat caller. you have got to turn the television down. dale, you are next. caller: i have the answer to everybody's problems. i am an inventor. my dad died when i was 93 my mother died when i was 16 -- my dad died when i was 9. my mother died when i was 16. i could have gone either way. i got into construction and i

invented a tool that everybody uses. if i can get my product out there, that's the only true way to get out of the hole. host: -- guest: is your invention processed through the patent office? host: we do not have him on the line anymore. host: we will go back to jerry in kansas city. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: i was just calling to let them know they need to leave the medicare alone. i have medicare and i have medicaid. i pay a spend down every month. medicare only pays for my prescriptions. medicaid does not pay for anything after your over the age of 21. i just have all my teeth done.

i cannot get dentures. i had to pay over $2,000 in order to get this process down. host: you are referring to medicate? caller: medicaid and medicare. the republicans need to leave it alone. foreally doesn't help a lot people like me. host: we will go on to north carolina. bob, a republican. hello, bob. caller: two things. one, why don't we have a complete overhaul of the irs, a flat rate of 22% or 25% across- the-board -- everybody. no loopholes for nothing. also, start at the very top echelon and start blowinlowerine wages of politicians on both sides.

there are some of them that need to be taking a look at their own pocketbooks. thank you. host: do you have a response for the caller? guest: i think his point about members of congress being millionaires -- it's actually a small group that would fall into that category. most people are like people like everybody else in this country. they really reflect the districts. i think that is a misnomer. host: last week during the hearing, the consumer protection board -- testifying before the subcommittee. henry had ann mck exchange with her.

>> ms. warren, it was a simple request. we will update you out of here in 10 minutes. >> we had an agreement. >> we had an agreement for the time this hearing would occur. >> you are making that up. this is simply not the case. this is not the case. >> mr. chairman, you just did something. i'm trying to be cordial here, but you just accused the lady of .ighying i think you need to clear this up with your staff. host: you called on him to apologize. has he done so? why should he apologize? guest: he crossed the line when he said you made that up.

that's one of the very few committees. i do not know how you respond to something like that. that violates the concept that we as members of congress should be operating under. in all my years in public life, i've never seen anything that poorly handled. host: have you heard a witness refused to stay and continue testifying? guest: yes, actually, and typically they are cabinet officers who have other meetings that have to go to. they say, "i can only be here for this period of time." typically, that is understood. in this case, mr. mchenry was

attempting to bully her and then he crossed the line when he basically said that she made that up. host: would you like to see the president do a recess appointment of her and give her a permanent position heading the consumer protection bureau? guest: elizabeth warren should be the head of that bureau. if she cannot, having her as part of the administration is really part -- is really important for middle-class americans, so they do not get ripped off. she really has her pulse on the american people. host: have you heard from the administration that she might be given another post? guest: no, i have not heard. host: what if she were to challenge scott brown in massachusetts?

guest: i do not know if she is interested in doing that. i would support her for any thing. host: suzie in washington, d.c. good morning. caller: i have a comment and then a question. maybe the question will come first. i believe congress lives in a bubble that confined to three or four blocks around the capital, where we have several congressional members living in their offices. congress does not live among the people. they go home every weekend. therefore, they are isolated from the people, either in their home districts or in d.c. one of the things i would like to ask -- is there any way we can get a break out of all of the perks, including travel

expenses, of the representatives going home every weekend roundtrip? my question is -- host: let's talk about that. congresswoman, do we havyou have perks? guest: most of my constituents want to see me every weekend. they expect me to come home and meet with them and have town hall meetings. i will be going home this coming weekend. i will have a job-seekers boot camp. i do go home every weekend. i also do have a husband and one of my children still living at home. my air fare cost $150 one way to get a government rate. it cost $300 round trip. that is a cost, i think, would

be expected in order to be accessible to your constituents. we do have a salary. its $174,000 per year and that's about it. we have a staff. we have an office account. d.c., weare in th have to pay for rental of our apartments. we have to pay for every meal we have. when i was a state legislature in california, we had a per diem. we do not have that in congress. it's a pretty lean set of perks. it's a great privilege to be a member of congress. i value the opportunity to serve the people in my district and across the country. perks are somewhat overblown. host: an independent, go ahead. caller: i am calling about medicare. when they passed that, how big of a windfall was that for the

insurance industry as that time when they did not have to worry about covering the old and the infirm? as far as i'm concerned, medicare should cover everyone, not just the old. thank you. guest: single-payer system was a way of making it medicare-for- all. that was not favorably received in congress. the reform that we have does not provide that. the new affordable health care plan that we will have is one that's going to maximize the number of people that will be able to access -- that we have is going to maximize the number of people that will have access to health care.

medicare came into play in 1965 and was built on over a period of years. not everyone was eligible for medicare when it first became a program for seniors. it's very clear that if we did not have medicare today, a number of seniors in poverty in this country -- the number of seniors that would die unnecessarily because they did not have access to health care -- would be extraordinary. host: thank you. coming up, we will take a look at cyber combat as an act of war. the congresswoman will be meeting with the president tomorrow when he meets with all the democrats. the republicans will be meeting at 10:00 a.m. today at the white house. we will be back in a minute. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> job numbers just in showed the u.s. private sector added 38,000 jobs in may.

expectations were for a gain of 190,000. stocks are now poised for a lower opening on this news. the number of new jobs is lowest level since september of 2010. this is according to a report by adp. illinois has began giving out licenses to couples that want to form a single union. civil unions give couples many of the rights that a company traditional marriage, including the power to decide medical treatment for an ailing partner and the right to inherit a partner's property. the space shuttle endeavour is headed for a museum after more than 25 flights. it landed at cape canaveral early this morning. the nasa shuttle program will end after atlantis goes on its next mission on july 8. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> every weekend, american history tv on c-span3. starting saturday morning, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. what personal interviews on "oral histories." revisit key figures, battles, and events during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. go behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on "american artifacts." and the policies and legacies of past american presidents. >> sunday, the balance between security and liberty, the difficulties of a climate change treaty, and the limits of international law to your questions for author and

university of chicago law professor eric posner. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. >> "washington journal" continues. host: daniel gallington is our guest. he is former deputy assistant secretary of defense for territorial security and now a senior research fellow for the potomac institute. he's here to talk about the front page story in "the wall street journal" yesterday. what does the pentagon say here. guest: i think it is a preliminary document. i have mixed feelings about that. put a paper that tries to cyber in traditional law of armed conflict perspective.

whether it is necessary, whether it is a good idea to do that, i'm sure we will talk about that. basically, that's what it is. i'm happy they're doing it. i'm happy they have done it. i'm a little surprised we have not done it before. i'm a little bit surprised we have not done it long before. should we be thinking about this kind of things? absolutely. are there big issues that are not addressed in what was talked about in "the wall street journal"? absolutely. i'm sure we will talk about some of those today. host: i want to read one paragraph of "the wall street journal." "if a cyber attack -- host: can you explain that more?

guest: that kind of thinking is an attempt to -- this concept of proportionality, which is one of the principles of the law of armed conflict. that is, things need to be proportional. the question i have and the question i'm sure a lot of viewers and readers have is, what are we doing talking about proportionality when we are locked in a war on terror and the threats against us are, by definition, a disproportionate and irrational and attacking targets that are otherwise immune from attack. host: how would that be defined,

if you're talking about non state actors, alleged terrorist s? guest: that is another hard issue that is not addressed in this news release. you are raising an important question. attribution. how do you attribute a cyber attack? are you sure who is doing it? are you sure it is state- sponsored? are you sure that a state is sponsoring it and allowing somebody else to do it -- so as to keep their participation in the activity below view? these are really important questions that i hope are addressed in the document we are waiting to see. host: when will that come at? guest: i understand we will get an unclassified version in about a month or so. i understand that there's a longer classified version of this document that is in

preparation in the pentagon. i do not want to be unfair here. i spent a lot of time at the pentagon. these are smart, very thoughtful people there. they are trying to put this whole idea of cyber warfare in some kind of perspective to allow our force structure to be constructed to allow funding documents to be drawn, to allow a dialogue with congress, to put it into some kind of a priority. i mean, those missile system a have more priority than this or not? they have a lot on their plate. they're trying to take some beginning steps in a series of cyber war and get us thinking seriously about that. host: 1 report in the paper says that the discussion is based on

the 1950's effort in washington to come up with a plan for deterring nuclear attacks, but this is about deterring countries like china and russia from waging a cyber attack based on what we did in the 1950's. is that realistic? guest: it is a good place to start and it is a good thing to think about. dougherty used to say that to deter somebody, you need two things. you need capability to do it and you need the will to do it. when you are talking about a cyber things, however, you also need to know who is doing it. that is very difficult. in the cold war, there was never any doubt about who the bad guys were. we knew who they were and we

have forces. we made budget choices based on who the enemy was. today, we have this ubiquitous, and attributable, -- ubiquitous and unattributable enemy. my thinking is that maybe we should study attribution. we should spend a lot of time thinking about how we attribute things to state sponsorship, for example. host: explain that more. guest: attribution is a very simple concept. something happens and some terrorist organization wants you to know that they did it. as attribution is not a mystery. yes, we blew up the bus and we are proud of it. more sophisticated groups -- a

bus blows up and you're not sure who did it. terrorism dense not necessarily mean that you know who is doing it. the most insidious kinds of terrorism, the attribution is questionable. the attribution is always not clear. the state sponsorship is always not clear. the state sponsorship, by the way, is uniformly tonight -- is uniformly denied. with cyber and electronics, you have signatures. the important thing we should be thinking about is how we collect these signatures and how we determine who may be responsible. host: what kind of cyber attacks are we talking about that could trigger retaliation? what does the geneva convention rules say about this? do you have to have proof that

the attack came from this country or this group? guest: the assumption is that you do. in the geneva rules -- they were written for world war ii kind of wars, cold wars, traditional armed conflict. attribution in those circumstances is a genuinely -- circumstances is generally assumed. everyone wears a uniform, for example do you know who the forces on one side are. you know who the forces are on the other side. there is a whole school of thought -- a legitimate school of thought -- that says because terrorists do not adhere to any of the traditional rules of armed conflict, they attack civilians, they attack in

disproportionate measures. they attack the immune targets. the school of thought is that none of the rules that protect them should apply. we should not worry about the rules of armed conflict when we are talking about terrorists. there's some legitimacy in that argument. i do not believe that should apply all the way through. we have rules that have to apply to our armed forces. there are legitimate arguments for those principles. host: give me an example of the type of cyber attack we are talking about. guest: the kind of thing i'm sure was contemplated was a bit disabling cyber attack -- was a disabling cyber attack against our electronic power grid. in the united states, as opposed to most countries in the world, we have private ownership of

many of our critical infrastructure industries. most countries in the world -- there's no such thing as private ownership. that's owned by the government. the government owns the phone system. the government owes the infrastructure of the country. an attack like that in most countries, an attack on the electrical grid, for example, would be an attack against that state. there would not be any doubt about that. we have some infrastructure in this country. host: we're talking about cyber attacks. front-page story of "the wall street journal" yesterday and here is a quote by one official. that is our topic for the next half-hour of "washington journal."

host: first phone call, martin, a republican. you are on the air with daniel gallington. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to ask this question. host: we're still listening. what is your question? caller: century cities in america, -- sanctuary cities in america, like san francisco, would they be exempt from prosecution? host: i'm not sure what you are referring to. our topic this morning is possible cyber attacks against this country and retaliation. let me show you another article that was in "the washington post" today, following up on "the wall street journal"

article yesterday. how long has this been in the works? guest: the area of information warfare goes way back. we have all kinds of communications warfare abilities that go back many years. just a simple jamming of radios, for example, or interference with the enemy's ability to use radar systems and that kind of thing. we have a lot of very traditional kinds of electronic warfare systems. more sophisticated ones, yes. we are developing those. host: on the more sophisticated types of tools, here is what "the washington post" had to say.

host: one example, the stuxnet worm.

jason, ans go to independent in dallas, tx. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my name is jason. i'm with the u.s. marijuana party. i would be interested to hear this.he nra's stance on obviously, we can all have a nuclear weapon to keep our government in check. you mentioned at&t earlier. the phone network or electrical grids. even the anti-virus software --

the government can put cookies on your computer and the virus companies are not allowed to take them off. host: daniel gallington? guest: let me respond. first of all, the quote from " the post" sort of addresses this. we've always had a recognition of the difference between intelligence activities and operations in this country. those are activities and operations which are designed to find out things, as opposed to military operations and things, which are designed to address traditional -- more traditional military threats. i think the quote you read from "the washington post" says that in so many words.

in cyber warfare, we have both of those things. we have the need to find out. we have legitimate intelligence activities that we need to carry on to find out. we also have -- we will have or may have situations where we need to take action. essentially, that's what that quote said. i think that's really what the caller is talking about. i should assure the caller, however, that intelligence operations are not done simply because we want to do them or we like to do them. you have to have authority and you have to have a reason to conduct intelligence operations. we have always had those rules. host: here is the ap reporting out of london this morning that the chairman of one of the world's leading telecommunications companies says a new non-proliferation

treaty is needed. is that in the works from our secretary? guest: no, i do not think that is in the works, but i do think you'll hear more about the internationalization of cyber issues and the need for traditional arms control agreements. with those, we have the same problems we have with other kinds of arms control arrangements. that is the ability to monitor and to prove that the other side is in fact complying with those arrangements. yes, there will be more pressure for that. by the way, as i said, in european countries, much of the cyber infrastructure is government-owned.

most of our cyber infrastructure in this country is privately owned. host: chris, democratic caller. caller: good morning. my comment is in reference to the geneva convention applying to terrorists around the world. we should be sending them a message telling them that the geneva convention should not apply to them. they do not play by the rules of war. after 9/11, all bets are off. guest: i appreciate the insight. you are reflecting the views of a lot of people. we have been locked in this war on terrorism for a long time. whether or not it is politically correct to call it a war on terrorism or not is beside the point. we have people who are out to

kill us who are not following any rules whatsoever. they're not wearing uniforms. they are attacking children. they are attacking immune targets. there are attacking hospitals. they are attacking civilian facilities. as the caller said, many of us are saying -- what in the heck are we doing following rules of civility when we are dealing with people like this? we are trying our best free we have a professional military that is trained to follow rules. we're trying our best to keep our system of rules and regulations in tact, but it is extremely difficult. host: when it comes to al-qaeda, what capabilities do they have to wage cyber attacks? guest: at this stage, i would say a very limited, independent

ability to wage any kind of a cyber operation or worar. however, the states that sponsor al-qaeda certainly have much more authority and much more capability to do that. that is who we should be worried about. that gets us right back to the attribution question that we addressed before. host: what countries represent the most threat? guest: i would say you have to have a pretty deep state sponsorship and state infrastructure. certainly, advanced technological countries have developed cyber capabilities. russia for example -- china, for example, has the so-called blue army. we have always had a concept of electronic warfare. in the old wars, we had

airplanes flying around jamming the ability of the enemy to see us and communicate. it is those kind of concept which are applied in the -- in today's military. host: the pentagon says over 100 foreign intelligence groups have been trying to compromise u.s. networks. guest: i would not be surprised. again, those people are trying to find out how well or how badly are systems -- badly our systems are protected. they are trying to manipulate those systems. they're trying to hack it. again, sometimes it is very difficult to find the origination of those attempts.

we're getting better at that. host: houston, texas, republican line. caller: i have two brief comments. first, what thought has been given to making the internet less anonymous? when the internet for started, it was a convenience and a toy. it was something that was new, unique, and interesting. it has rapidly become integral to our economy and other nations' economies. no different than a highway, for example. why shouldn't we have a license to access the internet? it might be a free license. if you have a license, if your license is good, you can do anything you want. guest: you are not the first to suggest that. i would say that as we mature, as the internet becomes more

mature, and you and i hopefully have this conversation in 10 years or so, we may be talking about such a system. right now, the internet is sort of like people being able to write an anonymous message on a wall somewhere, likes ablations have done for thousands of years. -- like civilizations have done for thousands of year. should there be an ability for people to anonymously address a worldwide audience, provided the audience understands where the comments are coming from? maybe there should be. should there also be something like a more formal registration

so that people are more responsible? i think so and so do a lot of people. host: jimmy, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i'm a bit numb veteran and my two sons are in right vietnam veteran and my two sons are in right now to we've always communicated from facebook and skype. they are on the internet while in theater. also, i was a project manager for the navy and marine corps internet. there seemed to be a lot of loopholes in that, as well.

guest: i did not get the first part of his question very clearly. caller: my two sons are in the military now and they have been in afghanistan and iraq. we communicated through facebook and skype. there's never any talk about missions or locations, but it is quite active. everyone is on the internet. i was wondering if there's any threat of cyber attack on that. what about their safety? guest: thank you for your service and thank you for your sons' service. thank you very much. the safety of our troops overseas is of course paramount. we should take every measure we can to make sure that by inadvertently or innocently using the internet they're also

anyputting themselves anin additional harm's way. i suppose the best way to guarantee that is to allow those communications to go through some central d.o.d. hub in theater and i think that is the way it is done. i do not know for sure. i would assume the internet communications that come from a wartime theater are pretty carefully looked at so the kind of things you're talking about are not a threat. if they become a threat, we obviously have to come up with new ways to protect our deployed forces. host: daniel gallington serve as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for territorial security from 2001 to 2003.

front page of "the wall street journal" yesterday. illinois, ruth, you are next. caller: i ask you to consider this perspective. since 9/11, it seems like the obsession -- how contrary this is to what jesus teaches us. i wonder if making science fiction -- [inaudible] i wonder if we have to stop for a minute and think, are we celebrating the whole possibility of cyberspace war? in some way, are we too excited about the possibility of war? guest: thank you for your question. i wish everybody in the world the way you do. unfortunately, they do not.

as people involved in the national security business and those of us who have spent our lives doing that, what we do is to try to protect your rights and abilities to express those views and have those opinions. as i say, personally, i wish everybody felt the way you did. we would not have any conflict anywhere and everything would be wonderful. unfortunately, that is not reality and never has been. we have to deal with those who wish us harm. there are plenty of those people in the world who wish us harm. it does not matter to them. they hate us all. we just have to take measures to defend ourselves. a very good question. host: all of our infrastructure privately owned -- guest: most of it is.

host: the white house recently put out its cyber security plan to protect infrastructure. the industry has pushed back against this. what is the white house talking about here. guest: they're talking about the frustration of basically dealing with a private infrastructure. let me give you an example. in 1994, after the break up of at&t and all these communication companies springing up, we realize that we no longer could get them to comply with the law. there was a law passed that require them to comply with search warrants and warrants given by state and federal courts. there was a law that required them to do that. the response was, "we cannot

afford it." there was money appropriated to carriers to allow them to comply with the law and even allowed them to surcharge for it. you pointed out that our ability to control our pride infrastructure -- our infrastructure comes down to two things. it comes down to passing laws. and, we're going to give you money so you can comply with these requirements. the industry spokesmen is more concerned about the latter part, getting the funds from the government. host: the republicans, according to "bill" newspaper aired doubts about the white house plan. it would need the approval of congress. when we talk about are subject

for today, what the pentagon is putting out, does congress need to weigh in on that? does that any congressional approval? guest: it certainly should. they certainly have an equity here. the armed services committees, both in the house in the senate, should summon seniors from the pentagon and say, "tell us about this. what do you mean?" they should have the same kind of conversation we are having this morning with the callers and asked the same kind of questions of the people at the pentagon. i think that would be a very responsible thing to have happened. yes, congress has a big equity in this. host: maryland, democratic line. caller: with a large

concentration of our military in places like afghanistan and iraq, -- how are we to more effective cyber attacks? guest: the danger grows every day. for the reasons we've been talking about, we have been essentially unregulated, private cyber infrastructure that controls much of our -- the things we count on three our electrical system, our phone system, our pipelines. you name it. those are all computer controlled with access to the internet. they have tremendous motor abilities -- they have

tremendous vulnerabilities. e view cyber attacks as an attack on our homeland? certainly, if you were in a foreign country that owned those key facilities, you would conclude that. we're seeing a compression of thinking in the united states with the thinking in europe. host: here is a tweet. host: dan gallington? guest: yes, all that is true. it is costly. things like that to protect our systems are costly pre .egistration -- are costly pr

registrations are costly. that's nothing new for any kind of threat. it will cost us money. for every two steps we take forward, we take one back. eventually, we get it right. i think that is what the new pentagon study is trying to do. host: virginia, independent line. go ahead. caller: hello. i have a three-part question. guest: i will have to write this down. caller: can you talk about the virus? guest: i do not know anything about that. caller: blue screen of death virus. that is what is called. guest: i do not know anything

about that virus. caller: it causes it not to start. guest: i wish i was the apple or pc rep who knew what to do. caller: microsoft windows allowed these viruses. what is the thinking behind under gradual -- behind undergraduate courses in europe for ethical hacking? guest: as for the first question, i'm not a computer guy. i wish my wife was here to answer that. i do not know about the owner-ability of our boehn occupied systems. of course, many of those are owned and occupied by our pride infrastructure, -- by our

private infrastructure, as well. i will tell you are computer companies are scared to death of these viruses and they're working on these issues as hard as anybody else. in fact, we may see some of the more advanced thinking coming out of our private computer. as far as the undergraduate courses in ethical hacking, i'm not sure the idea of that sentence really fits together. i don't think you can do what is called hacking ethically. i do not even think you can do it legally in most countries. most countries have prohibitions against attacking -- against hacking of any kind. sometimes there are civil penalties and sometimes there are criminal penalties associated.

i do not know if a course like that would have a lot of content that would be in accordance with that nation's laws. host: here is a tweet. pittsburgh, independent, go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. i just have a quick question. it is a possible cyber attack with another country being in active were nothing more than a diversion to take away from our american liberties? guest: i like the first part of your question. i'm not sure i agree with it. could a cyber attack be a ruse and a cover for some more insidious or traditional kind of attack against our country?

oh, absolutely. in the cold war, in fact, we used to talk about how a nuclear attack might begin with a so- called emp blast, which would be a nuclear device set off in the space that would essentially black out every electronic capability within a radius of several thousand miles. it was an extremely draconian way to begin a nuclear conflict and we used to worry about that. yes, a cyber attack -- a less dramatic one than that -- could certainly serve as a ruse for an attack that is to be conducted somewhere else. there are people who think about these things every day. as far as whether or not the

ruse is part of a government plot to invade our privacies -- i know people worry about this. i have to tell you that we're so busy doing so many things in government that we really do not have time to snoop into the private affairs of americans without a reason. if you are a criminal, if you are a spy, a terrorist, a kidnapper or something like that -- yes. if you are a private citizen who has news on political things -- who has views on political things, we do not care. host: what about wikileaks? guest: good question. a part of cyber warfare that worries me the most is the

counter-intelligence part of it. we have the disproportionate ability for a pfc, for example, to take all these diplomatic cables and take them out in a microsecond and allow them to go out to god knows where. they went to wikileaks and published them all. the insidious counter- intelligence problems we have just with the access people have to the systems scarcely more than anything else. i think that's the most immediate cyber problem we have, the traditional counter- intelligence one. host: we'll go to kansas city. go ahead, doug. caller: i was wondering why we cannot have a simple system. when they attack cyberspace, it automatically shuts down to protect us and refers back to an emergency