[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama plans to nominate the current vice chairman of the fdic to take over for the former chair sheila bear. the "new york times" saying that a thank you letter has made its way to congress, criticism of president obama's and u.s. involvement in libya along with other nato countries. and speaking of nato, defense secretary gates takes oshtse other countries to task for not meeting their financial obligations and other

obligations according to and for nato efforts. the deaches secretary spoke yesterday. we will show you bits of video from that speech. but in light of that we want to ask you for our first 40 minutes or so about nato and the u.s. involvement and if it's time to reconsider our commitment. the defense secretary talking about financial obligations and others. we'll take a look as well. but here's how you can chime in this morning as far as if it's time to reconsider u.s. commitment in nato. here's the "washington journal" writeup of yesterday's speech by the defense secretary.

we'll read more about that. but the defense secretary did speak yesterday in brussels. here's a bit of what he had to say especially when it comes to other nato countries stepping

up their involvement. >> to avoid the real possibility of collective military irrel vance, must examine. in procurement, in training, and logistics, in sustainment. while it is clear nato members should do more to pool military assets, such smart defense initiatives are not a panacea. in the final analysis there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense. host: again, as far as the defense secretary goes, we're asking you if it's time for the u.s. to reconsider its efforts to the nato mission. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.

twitter and e-mail as well. there's a graph this morning that shows sfars the financial commitments that nato countries make, according to the treaty's nato countries are supposed to contribute at least 2% of their gdp on defense efforts. this chart showing that bell swrum, spain, denmark, germany, italy, the netherlandses and poland are under that 2% mark. france meets its obligation of 2%, the u.k. weighing a little less as 3%. as far as the u.s. involvement when it comes to spending on nato, we reach almost 5%. as a country as far as our efforts. so again, the efforts of nato and time to reconsider the reconsider the commitments that we make. the numbers will be on your

screen. and so if you want to weigh in and pick the number that best represents you, the "new york times" story this morning has another version of the story. it's their lead story this morning. here's a bit of what they had to say from the white house perspective that they offered.

first call on this is from our democrat's line. tennessee. what do you think about our commitments to nato and reconsidering them? caller: yes. this is dean from kings sport. i really think that the era of us carrying nato on our shoulders is over and the other countries need to step up and i think there's what 20-some countries in nato. we should be spending 1/20 of nato's budget. we need to reduce our size. we cannot be the savior of the world. >> host: why do you think this ear ra is different as far as our commitments to nato? caller: well, in the past, we were the other countries were recovering from the second

world war, korean war, and so forth. and now, they have economic engines in europe and everything that, the europe economy is good as or better than ours. and we just need to -- they're more equal partners, i think. host: raleigh, north carolina are next on our republican line. aj. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a 20-year veteran of the united states navy. i retired three years ago. and i served overseas, i had a tour in greece and in italy. so i was very much involved in the nato role over there. and i do believe it is time for us to reconsider. a lot of people sit around and they talk about how wonderful europe is and how they're able to provide so much more for their citizens and all of that. they have been able to do that because of what we have done for them in terms of taking up

the slack for their defense. they're able to provide health care for their citizens because we cover them in their defense. so i do believe that it is time since we don't have the money any more, we can't pretend that we have the largesse and the wherewithal to be everything to everybody any more. and that it's time. host: reconsidering, is it just the financial reconversation or are there other areas as well that we should reconsider? caller: i think it's a combination. it is the financial and it is also in terms of every time there's an incident or an action needs to be taken across the world american blood is what is put on the line. i think it's about time for our allies to start getting some skin in the game so to speak. it is time for them to have to be on the front lines, too, instead of thinking that america will always be there and american blood will always

be shed. i mean, we're getting to the point where it's ridiculous, it is absolutely ridiculous in libya, in afghanistan, we're still in iran. i heard a statistic the other day where it is now over 4,549 americans that have been killed in iraq so far. in enough is enough. they need to pay their fair share. host: next call, michigan. jerry, independent line. caller: yes. i echo the same thing that the lady was saying here. nato -- we could opt out of nato. or at least partially, because of belgian and polden. they did. we don't have to go into stuff like that. i don't think we have any business being there. if everybody is in it then that's fine. if everybody is not in it then we shouldn't. [inaudible] host: would you see a total

pullout or a partial? caller: i would like to see a total, really, because the rest of aren't stepping up to the plate and they should. and i think we should get out of the united nations while we're at it . host: this is from tom williams this morning. again, we're looking at secretary gates and his comments about nato calling for ow other nato countries to step up. we're using his speech for our question this morning asking if it's time to reconsider our u.s. commitments to nato. new jersey, democrat's line. caller: yes. being prior military, i spent 30 years in the military and

the commitments from when i was in until now are significantly higher on our military members. this 600 billion dollars, if i recall, that secretary gates had said we spent on nato could be much better spent defending our country along our borders. the very people who are defending this country are now at risk of the budget cuts affecting their way, the budget cuts that are affecting their quality of life, their health care benefits. we need to be spending that money at home rather than a broad, especially in these times. we are at a point where we can no longer spend money outside of our country when our own country is now suffering. host: the "wall street journal" adds this.

from north carolina we go to the republican line. rob, good morning. caller: yes. host: you're going to have to stop listening to the tv and go ahead with your statement. caller: i do agree with the republican that was before her. she had a good point there. and i just wanted to say i

agree with that. host: houston, texas is next. good morning. caller: first time caller. pretty much everybody got it right on the head. it's time for us to start bringing our people home. host: why do you think that's the case? caller: as long as we stay in nato we will always have to go police whatever happens around the world. it's time we stopped doing that all the time and just come home and focus on ourselves, really, thank you for taking my call. and pretty much everybody got it hit on the head. if you don't pay your dues you get kicked out of the organization. it's time for us maybe to step out of the organization. host: again, almost 5% of the gross domestic product spent on nato missions when it comes to our efforts when it comes 20 to a chart provided by the "washington journal" this morning compiled by the center

for european reform. as you take a look at that, we'll go to atlanta on our democrat's line. good morning. caller: what i would like to say, please let me finish. number one we should not be there because the fact is that if you look at the money -- host: go ahead. [inaudible] caller: look at the amount of gas and oil and stuff that's used overseas. the amount of oil and gas that is used overseas. you can see that it's too much. count the million barrels of gas used on this military. this is number one what's making us use our oil and energy from these overseas. also, if you think we have actually no business being over there. we have aircraft carriers which we could surround the united states with on both sides of

the oceans the east coast and the west coast. we combine all these military. this is what's costing all the money. it costs over $1 million just to keep one soldier overseas in germany. basically, you bring these people home what you would do, it would save us on the gas alone, the oil and stuff that we're buying to run this military complex with. thank you. host: off of twitter. rhode island, richard, republican line. caller: good morning. i think we should really get out of nato. i'm a ron paul supporter. i think everybody has the same sentiment and we need to pull out. we've overexhausted ourselves over there.

we're bankrupt. look at the debt ceiling. nobody can agree on anything. democrats and republicans are a joke. i mean, i consider myself an independent but i'm a ron paul supporter. host: what do you think is the message then if the u.s. reconsidered it commitsment to nato or as you call pull out of it? ? guest: we're no longer policing the world and everybody else has to protect their own sovereignty. we're going to is be a nation, we'll be a little branch. host: if you want to answer that question as well, you can add those thoughts as well. here's a little more from secretary gates yesterday this timing adding the influence and effect of the u.s. congress on funding these nato efforts and also adding the perception of the american public as well. >> there will be dwindling appetite and in the american body politic at large to expend

increasingly precious funds on nations unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the changes to be serious necessary partners in their own defense. nations eager for american taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in european defense budgets. indeed, if current trends in the decline of european defense capeabilities are not halted and reversed, future u.s. political leaders, those for whom the cold war was not a formtive experience that it was for me, may not consider the return on america's investment in nato worth the cost. what i have sketched out is the real possibility for a dim if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. such a future is possible but it is not inevitable. the good news is that members of nato individually and

collectively have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends and instead produce a very different future. host: continue on the topic. this is off of twitter this morning. we'll continue on on our topic of time to reconsider our commitment to nato in some other stories as well. training agents going to afghanistan to stem infiltration of local forces.

dayton, oy. caller: yes. i just wanted to say that i think that the moneys that we spend over there should be directed to creating new jobs and new -- for health care. and all the things that the american people need. we cannot continue to police the world. host: is that the message we

send if we reconsider our commitments or pull out? caller: yes. i feel like that's part of the message. host: if that's a big part of the message, what are other parts of the message then that we send by such actions? caller: well, i feel like the other big part of the message is that the president is saying he's going to pull out in july. and let's start pulling them all out in july. host: grand rapids, michigan. go ahead, democrat's line. caller: i have two comments. one, i think we've gt government to admit we're a dying empire and every empire has died by spending themselves into poverty. and number two, we keep spending all these troops over to fight these terrorists that are told we're so powerful that we have to fear them and yet at the same time we stay there years trying to build up their armed forces so they can be stronger and fight us against

the next time around. all we do is spend money on weapons for them so we have to have more weapons and all we do is war, war, war. we're the ones that start most of these wars. and maybe these people in nato don't want to be there. it's about time we take care of our own infrastructure, our own natural disasters, which is taking us to the brink. host: in the "new york times" this morning.

denver, colorado. we're talking about nato and if it's time for the u.s. to reconsider its commitments to nato. go ahead. i think david has left us.

let's go to blue ridge, georgia. independent line. good morning. st. petersburg, florida. tony, go ahead. caller: yes. i'd like to point out that all those nato countries have a universal health care for their citizens and b have infrastructures as anybody who has been to europe recently knows, public transportation and roads that are far better than ours are. i don't know why we owe them anything. they should pay their fair share. host: in the financial fronts there's a story about the next president obama's nominee to the fdic. this is martin groomberg. he voice as the vice chairman for the fdic and says akron,

ohio, you are up next. independent's line. caller: i think that secretary

gates didn't quite go far enough. we also need to examine our commitment to other countries like south korea. i mean, we have troops stationed there. we're spending a for tune over there. and yet, south korea has five times the population of north korea and an economy that's like a thousand times greater than north korea. it seems that they should be able to defend themselves by now and we should be able to bring our troops home. they should make their own commitment to save themselves and not have the united states act as their police officer. host: off of twitter. north dakota, good morning. republican line. jim. caller: i've got an uncle who has been in germany since world

war ii. host: ok. caller: and i just, i know that if we're taking this stuff, we're going to be there for a long time . host: springfield, massachusetts. democrat's line. caller: i believe in everything that what mr. gates said and everything. we need to pull out. for years and years, we say we're going to go over thrnd there and take care of saddam hussein. we got him. but we keep sending our troops over there to die. for what? we got saddam hussein, we got osama bin laden. bring our troops home. the reverberation of not having anything and everything against you is insane as an american. we need to pull our troops out

and worry about building the infrastructure of our country, take care of our homeless, our medical needs, educational needs, and everything, as well as jobs. you've got guys 85 that are still working. those guys should be sitting on a rocking chair enjoying their retirement instead of having to worry about their kids and grand kids working for a country. and i take my hat off to mr. gates. pull our troops home. let's worry about america and stand up for what america stands for. host: just to be clear, secretary gates was calling for more of a commitment at least the meeting of commitments of other nato countries rather than pulling out. caller: they need to step up and pay their part. we're the only country paying what? 80%? why should the u.s. foot the bill. there are super structures part of snateo. host: off of twitter.

ohio is next. independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to say i did agree with mr. gates and i also do think that we should just cut our spending in nato down to our share which i believe is if there are 20 nations involved that would be 1/20 of that. the other thing i want to say something that does concern me a little bit, we do police the world. we've kind of always policed the world. and i think the thing that people should think about and i actually had a foreign person say this to me who is now a u.s. citizen, if we don't police the world, who will? and will we like how they

police the world if it's not the united states of america? that's really the only commement i have. host: how would you answer that question? caller: i'm not saying that we do everything 100% correctly. but because i am a united states citizen and i know what a great country we live in and how good the people of the united states of america are, and our value system, i don't want to judge inn else on our value system but our value system as far as human life goes, i believe is, we have a pretty high expectation and a pretty high regard for our humankind. so the way that we, i believe the way that we view humanity, we have a kinder heart is what i want to say. and i always sit back and ponder that statement because i wonder if someone who had a different point of view about the value of human life decided

to take that position, we as a world could be in trouble. host: another financial story this morning.

new orleans, republican line. caller: yes. my concern is i think the air bases the u.s. has abroad should evaluate, maybe shuth down some of them. here's my concern, pedro. my concern is that the u.s. as a super power should show leadership and do the right thing and not bail out. right now they basically they bailed out or started taking a leadership especially in the issue with libya. and the u.s. should really show that wars in iraq, iran, afghanistan, the u.s. should evaluate that. that's financially draining on

many other ways on our soldiers. the other question that i have is that for weeks, with whatever respect i have to mr. bob gates, somebody has to educate this gentlemen, he is mixing liberia with libya, lebanon, he wasn't sure what country had gaddafi. i think the u.s. should be heavily involved in this issue because he has killed americans as you know and he is now flooding europe with immigrants from africa and he ss following that to cause hey vock for europe. so the u.s. should be involved especially right now with the issue in libya. host: we're going to take a few more minutes to talk about the issue of the u.s. involvement in nato. but i want to show you this story about knut gingrich. you probably heard stories about the massive reg izz nations about his campaign is concern. he is set to give a speech sunday evening and the speech will go on as planned to make

foreign policy speech. one of the things that was brought up during the discussion with reporters is knut gingrich and his campaign. >> i don't know. newt is one of our most durable idea men in the republican party.

he's filled with vision and ideas. but presidential campaigns are difficult undertakings. there's often a lot of turmoil in the campaign. we'll just have to see. host: again that's our "newsmakers" program which you can see after this program tomorrow at 10:00. and 6:00 in the evening, i would refer you to our website and take a look at our video library which you can call up if you wanted to watch secretary gates' speech as well you can watch that. a lot of resources in our video library. you will find a link on the right hand side of the screen. manhattan is next on reconsidering commitments to nato. caller: my first thing i want to mention about going rich that he has a lot of baggage. and i don't understand why he would want to take a break on

going on vacation during the time of presidency. it's no wonder. he's just a cry baby. i don't know why he would even consider running for president. he has too much going on in his life. but the thing about -- and i want to say about nato, is that america is spending too much money in all of these different countries trying to police the world. and it's not working out. we're going to be in a lot of trouble. we're going to be in a lot of trouble. thank you. host: just as a reminder, if you would, please turn down your television as you wait and that will keep the feedback from getting in and keep the conversation going. chicago next. donald, good morning. go ahead, please. caller: first, i would just like to comment that i'm not policecal but i'm making a

comment here. it seems to me that maybe we as a country need to reevaluate our foreign policy. if we don't have the support that we expect from allies and nations of nato, in my opinion that would be a direct indication that, hey, obviously they are supportive in terms of infrastructure, and providing troops. now, they may provide moral support and then they may have -- we may have the support of these nations on the surface. but obviously they don't support u.s. foreign policy. so if we accept the responsibility of saying we want to be the captain america of the world and we want to enforce our beliefs and our vision and so forth and so on, hey, we have to accept responsibilities for that and we can't hold others accountable for not supporting our vision. and that's all that i have to say.

host: pen rose, colorado. republican line. walter. caller: yes. i was born and grew up in germany at a time when there was almost a million nato and war saw pact troops facing each other within 300 miles. that was the time of our involvement in nato and europe and now we're just way, way, way beyond that. it's really a nonissue. and i would like to go back even within the bush administration the missile defense system in poland. i don't know who advised him that that's something we need to do. who is going to attack poland? so we are way beyond our commitment in nato. nothing wrong with having staging areas there. but as much money as we're spending there, the little chart that you put up, the percent that we're paying versus other countries of gdp,

is absolutely appalling. host: there are stories starting in the paper this morning about the release of e-mails from the office of sara palin as she served as governor. you could see a picture here the box of information, 13,000 e-mails, about 24,000 pages in total. stories starting to leak out about its contents. the e-mail says palin e-mail shows governor fighting big and small foes as it describes. some of the thing that is she did it says according to the reporters that palin grappled frequently with the minutia and brissled at rules for paying for her children.

tulsa, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. the need for nato has exceeded the need. we are spending too much money on all of the military bases. as a matter of fact, every country that has been named so far has universal health care. the europeans are living better than what we are. their public transportation. you don't need a car in europe. and the money that we are spending all of these countries have universal health care. and we have been in germany since 1948. and we are still there. we're still in spain, we're still in portugal, we're still

in england, france, it goes on and on and on. but they don't side with us. and we are spending back here, the military industrial complex at its best. and the thing that i find frightening is that our infrastructure here in this country is falling apart. but in europe in germany, for an example, the money that we are spending there, they're developing their educational system, the whole thing. and when you look around, what is the need? the only thing that is profiting by that is the military industrial complex. thank you. host: sayinging off of twitter. the "new york times" has this story.

texas,. caller: good morning. first of all, nancy reagan ran the white house, everybody knows that, especially as ronald got a little older. so palin doipping her gig, using her husband is no big deal. every president has something they throw some stuff off of. so one thing or another. host: about nato? caller: well, more what you read about out of the paper there. host: sure. caller: that took me away from nato. what's funny about nato is that less than a month after the royal family of england threw

this god-awful party, they moth-balled their last aircraft carrier. they're broke. as far as this, everybody mentioning universal health care, i've been going to a place in arkansas for six years now fighting cancer. and everybody is from europe. why? because you stand in line and die. and that's what they tell me. you don't want to go to europe to try to get a cure for cancer or anything like that. but nato, the united states is just like the united nations. everything needs to start spending their part in it or we need to get out and go back to isolationists like we were in the 30's and 40's. and just take care of ourselves. we've got so many young kits

coming home -- kids coming home worse off than we ever had brought back from vietnam and we are going to have a lifetime of taking care of those young boys and girls. host: seven of the presidential candidates are in debate on monday. and as well as stories stemming from the presidential race as well. this is about the future of iowa as a political force when it comes to the nomination of a president.

again, that debate will take place this coming monday. seaport, new jersey, on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say i don't think we should pull out of nato but i think it's time for the u.s. commitment to nato to be no more than half. any -- that's nato budget. we should contribute no more than half. the rest of these countries, i think their gdp is equivalent

if not greater. and in future military commitments we should be no more than half. any time anybody wants america in, they should come up with matching material, people, funds. host: new hampshire is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe that nato can't get along without us, really. we just have all of the things that we need to get the jobs done and libya just shows that. i mean, nato definitely has to step it up. the nato members. we don't have any better friends than what we have in nato and it was designed to where we wouldn't have to go it alone or they wouldn't have to go it alone. but it seems as though we're picking tup lion's share of taking care of business. and it's just got to change. that's about all i have to say.

host: the "wall street journal" has a story about the issue going on in california when it comes to cars that don't run on oil.

state college, pennsylvania on our independent line. travis. caller: that's me. i wanted to say i think one of the biggest issues concerning all these things is that the reason people aren't buying smart cars or whatever is because they're way overpriced especially coming out of gm. host: inso as far as our commitment to nato is concerned? caller: as far as nato is concerned, i think that it's completely irrelevant. the reason there's such an issue is because nato wants to govern the world. and we have no say in that.

especially when you consider the fact that -- host: let's go to kentucky. our our republican line, paul, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment about your nato. served in the air force in greece for back in the 70s and that's when we were probably on the best terms with nato and the strongest. and our witnessed how things changed overnight. it's no matter how much money or friends our allies are there, that when things get difficult like they did at that time between turkey and greece when i was stationed in greece, there was cars burned and we were treated like the ugly americans. we were almost booted out of the country overnight.

and i guess you see the value of what money you put in. no amount of money is going to change the way the people feel about us. our best friends will turn on you overnight. money is needed in but i think we pay far too much for what we get over there. we saw the same thing when we tried to go into iraq in 2001 or 2002 and when we went back there turkey refused to let us cross their borders. they're part of nato. they pulled that stunt. we don't have the cooperation or the leverage when we need it. and why are we paying money for something if we don't have it? i'm not real real sure right now is the best time to look at that but we have to look at it because our finances overseas are killing us right now. host: el paso, texas. you are next on our democrat's line. tiffany. caller: yes. i just had a comment about how to recoup some of the losses

from our overcontribution to nato. i don't see why at some point there can't be a gathering of people who say, ok, well, if you're not going to give the equality amount of commitment to nato that the u.s. is giving we're going to make some adjustments to the export or import taxes to your country. host: republican line. caller: yes. look, i think we ought to get out of nato. we should have from a long time ago. here's the problem here. the banks run the countries. and the government's got to do what the banks say to do. and my idea with c-span is they ought to call berry corp out of

florida and let them on and let the people hear what they're going to do to the people soon. host: the "new york times" started publishing stories when it came to the war in vietnam that highlighted and chronicled the war from that administration it was known as the pentagon papers you remember. that publishing led to a supreme court case on the issue. and you can hear the oral arguments of that case, the "new york times" versus the united states, over the pentagon papers. you can find it on our c-span radio program. today at 6:00. and we will play you as far as the audio version of that is concerned, we'll play you those arguments. again, you can listen for it on c-span radio at 6:00. you may know that on monday there will be releasing of the full papers by various sources.

this will fake place monday on the 40th anniversary of the publicication date of the papers. our guest will be historian robblet dollic to talk about the release of the papers and give some historical context as well. coming up next, we're going to talk about a new proposal by federal regulators when it comes to buying a house. it would require you to have at least 20% down. it would also limit you if you have a certain amount of debt that you hold. our guest from the "washington post." we'll have that discussion when we come right back.

>> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a panel reflects obronald reagan andgoer bachove from lectures and history. nathan connelly on the civil rights movement and the promise of suburbia. and american art facts on restoring photographs from charleston, south carolina. get the complete weekend schedule. >> this weekend on book tv, talk about the role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the 2008 financial collapse. henry kissinger on whether it's possible to form a true

economic partnership with china. interviewed by fox news contributor monica crowley. also paul allen talked about his mem war idea man. look for the complete book tv schedule. get our schedules in your inbox. sign up. >> on this nomination the yeas are 72 the nays are 16 and the nomination is confirmed. host: on monday the senate confirmed white house donald verli as u.s. solicitor general. listen to them argue before the supreme court or discussing the rehnquist court in 1994. he is one of the more 10 than 100,000 people you can watch on line at our c-span video library. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is our guest from "washington post" covers real estate. thanks for coming on.

as far as home buyers who are looking to buy a home, what kind of things do they have to put down as far as money up front currently? caller: right now there are some low downpayment options, there's the fha. 5%. and private lenders 10-20%. and the so-called jumbo loans you can put up as much as 30. host: as far as the amount that you put down, that equates to what kind of loan you get? caller: well, yes. i mean definitely the more money you put down, the better the interest rate. host: so as far as federal regulators are concerned, there's a couple of efforts going on that changes debt as well. could you tell us what's going on? caller: sure. it's a little complicated but i'll try my best. basically, i have to step back a little bit. during the boom days the idea was that lenders would just sell off their loans immediately and so they would

be off the hook if that loan went bad. and that contributed to the foreclosure crisis that we have now because sort of nobody was held accountable. so what the regulators are trying to do now is to hold the linders and investors accountable. so what they're asking for is that the firms that securitized loans, the firms that pool loans together and sell them to investors have to keep some skin in the game. they have to keep a stake so if the loans go bad they are held accountable. now, the bankers and investors say if that's what they end up doing, that's going to be costly to them and they're going to pass these costs on to the consumers through fees and through higher interest rates. host: go ahead. guest: they have carved out some exceptions and that's where the down payment issues come in. for those who put down 20% or more, those loans would be exempt. for those who have very low

debt, those people would be exempt. so the debts that they've carved out they said it should not exceed 28% -- your mortgage shouldn't exceed 28% of your monthly income and your total debt meaning everything, your mortgage, credit cards, et cetera, can't exceed 36%. and if you meet that criteria, then you passed the test that they have set out there and you don't have to do the 20% down and so on. host: so stepping back, who is behind the effort on this new tact that they're take sng guest: there's six different regulators. there's the fdic, federal deposit insurance corporation, the occ, office of the comptroller of the currency, the federal reserve, the department of housing and urban development, fha, that oversees fannie and freddie. right now they're taking

comments from the public, they're taking comments from the industry in order to decide whether this plan is a good one. host: so working through the specifics o of what you laid out just for a bit of clarification. as far as the total debt is concerned, you said there's a 36% limit on what you have debt wise if you're trying to buy into one of these bhorges. what debts are they looking for? what's the gamut? >> host: guest: they're looking at total debt. credit cards, students loans, aut of loans, just the total picture. and that's what they're calling the total debt. and then they're also requiring at the same time that whatever you pay on your interest each month -- whatever you pay on your mortgage each month can't exceed 28% . host: who could qualify for these kind of things? caller: at this point, very few people. there are some figures out there saying that it would shut out i think they said something like 60% when we did our

calculations with -- would not have been able to meet these restrictions. now, they've carved out some exceptions as i said before. so if you have an fha loan, a loan that's guaranteed by the federal housing administration, those, that wouldn't apply there. they're exempted from this rule. if you have a loan that's fannie or freddie, they would be exempted from this rule. in today's marketplace, that's just about everybody that would be exempted because 90% of the loans out there are guaranteed by one of these government entities. but in the future marketplace that's probably not going to be the place. right now the government has an oversized role in the mortgage market and the idea is that role is going to shrink. that's what the obama administration and congress is aiming for. this is not sustainable in the market. so the fear is not what would happen if this rule were in place today or tomorrow. the fear is what would it look like many years down the road.

host: so as far as enacting in it goes that far, what's the target date that we might see these kind of rules actually go into place? caller: well, they're looking at collecting comments through august 1, and then it would probably be enacted a year later. then a lot depends on what the mortgage market looks at going forward. will they get rid of fannie and freddie? will it be totally different entities? will there be only one of them? right now, they're about 30% of the mortgage market and they need to shrink back to something like 10% so the administration has said that the goal is to shrink the role of these entities. and so the uncertainty that it's creating is really the problem right now. host: as far as reactions are concerned, what has been the reaction for those who represent consumers, those who are trying to buy? those who are looking to buy homes and might come under

these restrictions? . . host: we're looking at issues in the housing industry. if you want to ask our guest

questions, here's how you can do so. for republicans, it's 202-624-1115. for democrats, it's 202-624-1111. and for independents, 202-624-0760. email is journal@c-span.org. you can also send us a tweet, if you want @c-span scpanwj. our next caller is louis. caller: i think they really do need to tighten up on all this homeownership, especially people who don't have jobs and don't have good credit to start with. but the question i'd like to ask is, because that's what started all this problem to start with, with the crash of the building market and the homes. do you know if it's trure or not -- i think it was in "newsweek" a while back --

about a group that is suing now in the northeast somewhere on the same principle that got us in all this trouble by -- what i'm saying is they're suing this bank over not letting someone have a mortgage that does not really need to have a mortgage. in other words, they got bad credit or they don't have enough income or something to that effect. host: caller, we'll leave it there. guest: i am not particular with that particular lawsuit, but there are lawsuits flying all over the place right now regarding the banks and whether, you know, the banks even have a right to the loans that they claim to have a right to. because as you know, these loans were sold off.

the title has been chopped up and sold all over the place. so i think we've got a lot of lawsuits in that regard. i've not heard about this particular lawsuit at all. you are right about what you mentioned. there were no more standards in place, and all these people end ed up getting loans with zero down payments or nothing at all and they didn't have the income they claimed to have. host: st. louis, missouri, good morning. republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. actually i'm more of an independent, but my comment was this -- you folks are coming up with new lending standards, 28%, 36%. these are not new. they have been in place for many, many years. as a matter of fact, i work in the mortgage business for commercial banks, and i made hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of loans with those standards, and we were always taught that if you use good, sound judgment and

underwriting, you had the good chance of success. you had a great chance of making payments and living in their homes when the political class got added to the business of underwriting and passing laws, coming up with some of these wild and crazy products, and then having fannie and freddie support these by buying them, you made it easier for people to go bankrupt, and today we have the problems we have. so i would saying returning to these tried and true ratios is good for the home buyer. it helps with success. host: can home buyers meet these kind of standards, do you think? caller: yes, i believe that. i just retired, and even through the period of a loose standard, many people have ample assets and income to make these payments. i have to tell you, my first loan was back in the early 1970's, and i paid 8%, and

later i went on to buy a house and i paid 13.5%. so people who want to live in a home, raise a family can come up with this money. it takes a little bit longer, but once they have that down payment, they have skin in the game, and they are accountable, they're responsible. the underwriting helps them make sure that they have a great chance of success. and when the lending standards were lowered, it made more people got in the business of buying homes, but the foreclosures went up. these adjustable rate mortgages, you haven't really seen any of the adjustments happen yet. there are three or five or five-year adjustments. many people have adjustable rate mortgages at the moment, haven't seen the rates go up yet. but when the rates do go up, you're going to have continued defaults and delinquencies and bankruptcies. host: a lot out there. guest: there is a lot out there. let me address the first thing that the caller mentioned, the 28% to 36% standard has been around for a very long time, but it was just a guideline.

it wasn't a mandate. and what they're trying to do now is to mandate it. and what a lot the of mortgage brokers will tell you -- you know, people in the administration i've spoken to as well is that this mandate, even now they make a lot, a lot of exceptions for people who don't, you know, do the 28 or 36. a lot depends on your cash reserves, how much you put down. they don't look at just one thing in isolation. they look at the debt load. they look at how much money you've got. they look at how much down payment you're getting into. that's really been the standard for a long time. and what the industry fears is that by putting just a very hard and fast rule, that's what's going shut people out of the market. they're saying you've got to meet the 28-36 standard, plus have the 20% down payment, plus, plus, plus. there are a few other things that i won't get into here. so you'd have to meet many different restrictions in order

to be able to be considered, you know, a safe loan. so that's what this rule really changes. it takes a guideline and makes it a mandate. host: can you talk about adjustable rate mortgages? guest: those were the problem at the beginning of this whole financial crisis. that's definitely for sure. people were getting, you know, they were -- once their loans would adjust, their mortgage payment would practically double. that was why a lot of people started falling into foreclosure, and they just couldn't keep up. i think that the a.r.m.'s have become less of a problem now in the foreclosure crisis. it's now rooted in the unemployment problem, which is that people simply don't have jobs and they don't have the money to pay their mortgages, and they're scrambling to find new jobs and scrambling to modify their loans while they get their mortgages. i don't get the sense that the a.r.m.'s are as big a problem as they used to be, and sadly enough, i think that's because a lot of people that had the really toxic a.r.m.'s already,

you know, they're already out of their homes. host: so anybody who is applying for loans under new standards, would that be your standard 30-year loan or would they have the option of looking at other packages? guest: they have the options. it's not that -- it's not that these people won't be able to get a loan. they just won't be able to get the best terms on their loans. if they meet all the down payment requirements, the debt requirements, that improves their chances of getting the best rates and so on. so there's nothing in this rule that says these people cannot get a mortgage. it's just they're not going to get the best terms. host: fayetteville, north carolina, i understand pen line, laura. caller: i was wanting to know about short sales and what a potential homeowner might need to look for if they are looking at buying with a short sale. guest: well, you're looking for a lot of patience. i mean, basically the short sale, from everything i hear,

it's a very long, long process. and so what happens is, you put in an offer, the bank may or may not accept it, you may not know why, you've got to wait a long, long time to hear back. those types of sales seem to be the most cumbersome right now. host: back to the idea of the rates that people get on mortgages, what's the current 30-year loan standing at rate-wise now? guest: it's at a low -- i can't remember, it's like 4.7%, 4.8%. it's still pretty good right now. each time the job numbers are bad, you'll see the rates go down a little bit. host: my question was, we see low rates now, but what's the trend as far as people being able to buy homes because they can enjoy low rates now? guest: well, i mean, it should be, if you've got everything lined up right now and you're ready to go, it is a good time to buy. rates are good, prices are good. prices have been falling. they hit a low, as you can see,

since 2002. they've gone into what economists, you know, will refer to as a double dip in terms of they've gone lower than the previous low during this housing down turn. and so prices are good. interest rates are good. that's alarming the industry right now. they don't understand why people aren't buying with all of this in place. and i think the reason people aren't buying is they can't -- the lending rules right now are pretty strict, or they don't want to because they feel that the prices are going to fall further or because they're worried about their jobs and the economy in general. host: as far as lending is concerned, a tweet said, i would really like to know how this affects the predator lending that banks were using on people. guest: these rules? i think everyone's trying to crack down now on the predatory lending aspect of this. it's a very tough thing to do. the justice department has a task force that's devoted to this. they've had some luck, you know, getting some mom and pop

operations here. but people are pretty ingenious. they come up with new ways. and so it's something that buyers should be very aware of and they should surround themselves with smart people, smart agents. they should see housing counselors when they're getting ready to buy. they should know what they're getting into. they should read all the fine print, and they shouldn't sign anything they don't completely understand. even if somebody, a friend tells them, oh, we got the same kind of thing, they shouldn't sign until they understand all the terms. host: one of the efforts that were being made on the hill when this was a large issue was about clarity as far as the paperwork is concerned and making sure that people understand what they're getting. is it becoming clearer as far as someone who's going through the process about what they're signing and the information that they're given? guest: not clear enough. when the consumer protection bureau comes up with rules that's going to start july 21, they are going to look at new sheets. they want to just have two or three pieces of paper that

people can read and understand everything that they're getting into. that's wurt first efforts they've undertaken. they already put out some of the samples. they want feedback from the public. that's going to be one of the first things that's going to be tackled here is the clarity issue. host: atlanta, georgia, democrats line. go ahead. caller: hi. i think we're a little bit confused as to how this took place. if we go back, we can look at countrywide, for instance, what happened was they had a lot of money come in from china. they needed to sell these bad loans. they were incentivized to sell these bad loans to people so they could take those loans, bundle them up and sell them in the securities market. now, banks had standards simply

so they could protect themselves from risk on their balance sheet. once they're allowed to sell these loans that they were issuing now, countrywide would issue, a bad loan and sell that same loan in the market, now, once they sold that loan, they got it off of their balance sheet, it's no longer a risk, which means that any loan that they issue, they couldn't care less whether the people paid it back, because they were going to sell it to somebody else. >> that's right. that's why these rules are aiming to get industries to have some skin in the game, meaning they have to retain some kind of stake in these loans, and the idea being if they retain a list, they're apt to make sure. you're right. the problem is getting the details right. i think even some of the regulators would concede that right now they are sort of grasping with the details to make sure that they're making

things better and not worse. host: the federal reserve's vice chairman had this to say about that, the housing industry as a whole. they said that, janet yellen, "looking forward, i can envision no quick or easy solutions to the problems still affecting the housing market. even once it begins to take hold, recovery in the housing market likely will be a long, drawn-out process. ." any perspective you can add as far as her statement is concerned? guest: i don't think there's any -- i think that's absolutely right, no quick and easy solution. and everyone's trying to find a way to get at it, because in the past, when the economy's been bad, the housing market is usually what pulled us out of a recession, but this time the housing market has really lagged behind and has not pulled us out. host: you say bumping along the bottom. is there any estimation we would actually hit the bottom

and work our way up? guest: in terms of prices, there are all sorts of estimations and they've all proven wrong. but for now, people are saying -- a lot of economists are saying maybe another 5% drop in home prices, and they used to say things would improve by the beginning of this year and now some are saying by the ending of next year. host: tulsa, oklahoma. good morning, susan on the republican line. caller: yes. i'm a realtor here in tulsa, oklahoma, and i would like cement on the fact that a lot of these restrictive regulations have really cut the first-time home buyer totally out of the market. and it's really a shame, because that is what our nation is all about is the american dream. you cannot qualify for a loan. most of these people cannot unless you have a really good job or put money in the bank, which, of course, is what we all want, but the kind of buyer

, as a real estate agent, you want. but unfortunately, the regulations are too strict, and they've cut the people out of the market that are first-time home buyers. it's made our business really, really bad. i don't know what you're going to do with all the realtors going out of business because they don't have anybody to buy. so i think you really need to study what you're proposing because a lot of these 100% loans were not bad for most of these first-time home buyers. i think it really gave them a foot in the door. host: can i add this? this is from to wit they are morning saying it wasn't adjustable rate mortgages, it was easing rates, 1% and 6% after two years. guest: that's exactly right. tears rates, you could get as low as 1%, 2% in the first three years, and then it would just jump. people didn't read the fine print, didn't realize, many of them, that it would jump, or some of them realized it would

jump and thought they could refinance before it jumped, and then they couldn't. and so that was definitely the problem. just to address what the caller was saying about first-time buyers, you know, that is the big concern. first-time buyers right now make up a huge chunk of the population that's actually purchasing homes right now, and the center for lending -- center for responsible lending, which is a very respectable group, had put out some numbers basically looking at the median home price, which is $170,000. so if you want to put a 20% down payment, that's coming up with $34,000, and it would take about 14 years for the average family to raise, you know, that much money. host: wilmington, delaware, independent line, ron. good morning. caller: thanks for c-span. i'd like to make two quick points. the first one is the young lady said earlier that this is a good time to buy a house. well, i got to disagree with that. they're saying in the

investment world, don't try to catch a falling knife, and that's what's happening right now. the reason prices are dropping is years and years of dumb golf policies. first thing is that low interest rates and easy lending standards do not encourage ownership. the definition of an owner with a person with a clear title. what low interest rates and easy lending standards do is they encourage debt, and that's the problem. towing back to the same and do the same thing again that we did over the past 10 or 20 years is insanity. thanks a lot, and i'll take your answer offline. guest: the first point i want to make is i am just trying to present the industry point of view, the consumer point of view, and i'm not taking any position on this because i cover this issue. but, yeah, don't try to catch a falling knife is obviously the reason that a lot of buyers right now are sitting it out. they do feel like the economy's going get worse, that prices

are going to fall further, and they don't to want take part in this market. that's a legitimate point of view. but for people who are not looking at their home as an investment, as something they want to turn around or flip in another year or two, and they feel that the terms are right, the conditions are right, they have the money, they're secure in their jobs, prices are low. i mean, the affordability index at the national association of realtors tells us that prices are at the best affordability rate that they've been in a long, long time. host: stanton, michigan, good morning. democrats line, becky. caller: hi. i have been -- all my children have been through this in different ways. i am so frustrated. i first want to tell the lady that was thinking about getting one of those fast track, i think they're called, don't do

it. and my other -- my other -- i have complaints. now, i heard not too long ago that the banks owned half of the houses in the country. is that true? and if it is true, another thing they're not doing is taking care of these houses. you go in, and there's a hole in the roof, and it's been there ever since the people moved out, and the place is junk. why don't banks take care of things? guest: well, that's a loaded question. i mean, it's a very tough thing. i think what you're seeing out there is that the banks are completely overwhelmed by the volume of foreclosures that they have to handle. and these banks are usually sitting far, far from the homes that they actually own. and so what they do is they hire people locally to take

care of the homes, and it's up to those people to do, you know, their job, but they also have to get paid for it, and a lot complain they don't get paid in a timely manner and things get out of control. so, in terms of these homes particularly the vacant ones, the foreclosures, it is a buyer beware situations. you go in, you're going buy as is in most cases, and you really do need to do your homework as a buyer and see exactly what you're getting into. host: stories about the home affordable modification program that was started by the government, there's a story saying more than $29,000 modifications and nearly as many as new permanent modifications occurred in april, according to the administration. the program, which the administration originally stated, would help between three and four million distressed borrowers has resulted in 608,000 active permanent modifications. guest: well, that program, there was a lot of hope for it at the beginning, like you mentioned, the administration

thought they would be able to help three million to four million people, have fallen far, far short of its goals. host: in essence, they happened to get it from bad mortgages? guest: basically the whole idea of the program was to help people who were on the brink of foreclosure avoid foreclosure by lowering their monthly payments to an affordable level. and it just hasn't worked. the program has been -- well, it's worked for some people, so for 700,000, but it hasn't worked as efficiently as many consumer advocates had hoped. and so, right now, they keep tweaking the program, trying to improve upon it, but it's clear by the time it expires it's not going to have reached anywhere close to that three million to four million number, and a lot of people saying the program is strorle, the services don't have to actually participate in it, and that they're really not held accountable when they say they're participating but don't follow the rules. and so recently, treasury did crack down, and it said it's

going to withhold some of the incentive payments they give these mortgage servicers who take part in it. these incentive payments are basically to entice services who do it properly, and they pay them at least $1,000 for each loan that's permanently modified. and they said that they will withhold those payments from june onward for bank of america, wells fargo, and j.p. morgan. the banks say this is unfair, that the treasury department looked at old loans back from the early 2010, and that there have been huge strides made since then, and they're fighting back and saying it's unfair. host: massachusetts, republican line. john, you're on. go ahead, sir. caller: hi. good morning. how are you this morning? thank you for c-span. host: go ahead. you're on. caller: yes, you know, i'm going to say something that's not political or anything like

this, but just -- i punched in my calculator of what $100,000 mortgage would be on a 30-year rate, ok? so what you run is a payment of like $500, and you go to the amortization table, and at the end of the 30 years, you would pay back on that $100,000, $254,000. now, if do you the amortization table, the first year interest is like $4,000. the principal you paid off toward the house is like $1,600. so the problem is the systematic risk with the user receptor. you can't run a society where 41% of the profits come from interest payments on things. for anybody that's paying attention in the housing market, and not listening to the realtors or the government that has a stake in taxes for these things, what you have to

do is make an assessment on where those moneys go or what it does for society. host: let me leave it there and get to the answer. guest: well, there is a huge debate right now about the value of homeownership. you'll hear in the department of housing and urban development that, you know, some people should be renting and maybe homeownership isn't right for everybody. there was a big push during the clinton and bush administration toss get more people into homes, and now they talk just about getting people into sustainable homeownership and sustainable has become the bus word right now. again, it's an assessment everyone has to make for themselves, looking at their finances and what's right for their families. host: we have a question from brian saying, are people who walk away from mortgages a larger growing problem? guest: that number is very difficult to get. everyone's trying to figure out what the number is. but die warn people all the

time, because i get a lot of calls on this at work, that walking away isn't really walking away in some states, that the banks can still come after new some states, like right here in the washington region. and so be very careful before you do that. host: one more call is from houston, texas, our independent line. percy, good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. first of all, thanks for taking my call. and second of all, thank god for c-span. but i think it's a simple question. it will probably be simple for your guest. i'd like her to explain about reverse mortgages for people that are getting close to retirement age, and i'll take my answer off air. thank you very much. guest: reverse mortgages are a very complicated transaction, and i wish i could simplify it for you, but i don't dare do that. i really would advise that you go under the department of housing and urban development website, look up counselors to

do a search on housing coupslors. there are some that specialize in reverse mortgages, and you can ask all of your questions and just make sure that they have proof. host: as far as areas of the country where housing occurs, what is good, bad, ugly as far as the housing situations are within the country? guest: right now, more than half the foreclosures are concentrated in five states. some of them are the ones that you would, you know -- california, places that just grew, grew, grew, prices went up and then dropped precipitously. those are still the same places. they're still hurting. it's just going to take a long time for them to recover. the supply of foreclosures out there, the supply of homes for sale in general is just way, way above where healthy levels are. host: any bright spots in that? guest: there are some places in the country that are recovering well. the washington area, for instance, prices have actually

been going up, and they have been for several months now. it's one of the only places in the country, according to the index which tracks these things, where prices have been rising. host: if you want to see, washingtonpost.com, if you want to read this writing, you have a story this morning about brokers? what's it about? guest: it's just a news you can use about commissions and negotiating commissions for when you're buying a home. host: our guest with us, thank you for your time. coming up, we're going to look at the relation between what's been going on as far as along the border of mexico when it droms to the drug cartel there and u.s. guns that are being found in mexico. our guest is going to be from "the wall street journal," a couple of stories this week about that, and we'll 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, and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a new york historical society panel reflects on ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev. a johns hopkins professor also on the civil rights movement and the promise of suburbia. and photographer rick rhodes on restoring civil war photographs from post-war charleston, south carolina. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history, or press the c-span alert

button to get our schedules emailed directly to you. the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfunction books and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites. and find our content any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. bringing our resources to your community, it's washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> connect with c-span online with the latest schedule updates and video on twitter. continuing conversations on facebook, political places in washington and beyond with four square, and programming highlights on our youtube channel. c-span and social media, connect today. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: evan paris from "wall street journal" joins us, who covers the justice department. thanks for coming in. guest: thank you. host: this week we heard something called fast and furious when it comes from the government. what is that? guest: well, it's an operation that was run by the bureau of bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms in phoenix, and it was intended to try to track down big-time gun traffickers to mexico. as you know, mexico is going through a terrible drug war. the cartels are buying weapons and using them and they're killing 40,000 people who have died since 2006 in this war. so the a.t.f. is trying to stop it, and this operation was intended to essentially follow guns and try to find big-name traffickers to try to stem the flow. however, something went wrong, and apparently some of the weapons were not tracked. they lost track of them, at least that's what the allegation is right now in

congress. and so now there are multiple investigations, trying to find out what exactly happened. host: you probably list some of the questions. what else are they trying to find out? guest: well, they're trying to find out whether or not people here in washington, the justice department, which is the agency that oversees the a.t.f., what they knew, what did they approve. this seems to have been definitely an operation that didn't go well. there were mistakes made. you know, who stind a plan whereby you would allow, at least right now it appears 2,500 guns were sold to these suspected traffickers. newer arizona, and you know these guns are going to wind up in mexico. some of the guns are now turning up in mexico in crime scenes. host: there's a picture in one of the stories you wrote this week, this is members of the mexican navy.

this was last year after a rape. is this zrip active of this picture as far as what you're finding as far as the guns is concerned? guest: right. i read an article this past week in which there was an arsenal found in juarez, just across the border from el paso, and there were anti-aircraft guns and all this kind of stuff found there. there were five ak-47 style weapons found there, and those were traced back to this operation. that shouldn't have happened. you know, the a.t.f. was supposed to keep an eye on where these weapons went. and so members of congress are asking questions, trying to figure out what happened. host: where are the sources of the weapons? where are they coming from? guest: well, right now, from what a.t.f. has been able to figure out, is the weapons, the weapons in this operation were mostly from a gun store in arizona. in general, this is an area of

major controversy. pro gun rights groups dispute whether or not the u.s. is a major source of guns used in the cartel wars in mexico. host: you have a quote here that says, this is wayne laperriere, quoted in one of the stories saying to the national rifle association, saying he doubted the a.t.f. figures he'd given the ample resources, easily can import guns rather than risk trying to smuggle firearms from the u.s. what would you add to that? guest: there's also the problem of corruption in mexico, which is a huge problem. the u.s. sells firearms to the mexican military and there are instances that have been documented of definitely some of those weapons ending in the hands of the cartels. so it's definitely an area where there's a lot of shades of gray and not a lot of answers. host: u.s. guns and mexican drug cartels, our topic with our guest.

202-624-1115 for republicans. 202-624-12111 for democrats. 202-624-0760 for independents. and for email, you can send us. has mexico's president calderon weighed in on this issue, the idea of u.s. guns involved? guest: this is a huge issue for our relations with mexico, and the mexicans point out, we point out to mexico, can you stop the flow of drugs north and the flow of illegal immigrants? the mexicans say, well, can you stop the flow of weapons that are coming from north america, from north of the border? the u.s. says it's trying to do its best to stop that flow. host: is there an indication of how physically they get across the border and how that's done? guest: well, they use straw

buyers, people who essentially are paid to go into gun shops and buy guns. sometimes they buy them two, three at a time, five at a time. they go back and forth. you know, some of the trafficking has changed as the law enforcement efforts have improved. some of the traffickers basically sit on weapons for months at a time before they try to take them across the border. again, some of the people come across the border with a list of weapons that they want to buy. then they take them across. if you're from mexico or not a resident, you cannot buy weapons, so you have to go to someone else who can pass a background check to buy firearms. host: because it was targeted in arizona, is there something there as far as the laws that govern gun buying that factors into this? >> there's definitely a difference between states on the purchasing of firearms. texas and arizona have some, you know, because of the culture there, have more loose

laws that allow people to buy weapons or firearms more easily. california has tougher restrictions. so what you tend to find is fewer firearms from california are going over there, more from texas and arizona. host: questions for you, first one is from cody, wyoming, republicans line. randy, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. mr. perez, let me ask you, over the years, a.t.f. has made several blunders, in my opinion , and others, whether it was waco, the debacle, randy weaver and now this, maybe the fact is that we don't need an t.t.f., maybe the f.b.i. could do all this sort of work. do you hear that much in your circles? guest: yeah, this is definitely -- the a.t.f. is definitely a very beleaguered agency here in the u.s., here in washington. they haven't been able to goat

an a.t.f. director confirmed since 2006. it's a very troubled agency right now. you know, there is some -- there are many people who suggest that, you know, perhaps 9 agency should go to the f.b.i. or chase somehow to make sure that it's better managed. host: newark, new jersey, go ahead. wayne, democrats line. caller: this is wayne. i understand that y'all have a problem over mexico, right, with drugs and guns. but i feel that we have a problem over here in the united states in the inner cities. we need to do something about that first. this is what i think about. i know you think about your own country and i'm thinking about mine. this is a war. and something need to be done. guest: well, there is a problem

with the firearms that are usually found in big stizz especially where there was high crime rates. you know, the problem within the u.s. obviously, as far as trying stop the flow of firearms is that you have a secondment here in this country, and so, you know, the laws that are being put in place to try to stop the purchasing and the movement of those firearms is very difficult to do when u essentially a constitutional right to bear arms in this country. you see a lot of operations, especially in the cities, to try to stop that, but it's a very difficult thing to do. host: as far as you talk about leadership at the a.t.f., what about manpower? is there enough manpower to satisfy, such as investigations like we saw, and what really needs to happen as far as numbers of people to make some inroads?

guest: well, definitely they're undermanned. i think since 9/11, there hasn't been -- almost every other law enforcement agencies has got much more resources. the a.t.f. has kind of been stuck, and that's by design. i think there's a lot of people who don't believe the agency to get more power. more manpower, more resources, because they believe that the a.t.f. simply hars legal gun owners, hars legal gun sellers. there's a lot of restrictions on what the a.t.f. can do, and that's because there's a big division on whether or not you have an agency that's essentially there to regulate a constitutional freedom in the view of many people. you always have a clash. host: does the clash on capitol hill come from one party or both? guest: in the past it used to

be mostly republicans, but beginning in recent years, you have a lot of pro-gun democrats from states, especially in the south, which, you know, they basically believe the same way as republicans. so you don't have that split that you used to have. host: cape corksd independent line. rick, thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning, and thank you again for c-span. several points that i'd like to make out. one, with all these supposed straw purchases, why have we heard of no arrests of people either making the straw purchases or selling the guns through a straw purchaser? another point is how are you going to track a weapon purchased in the united states by a supposed straw purchaser? when it goes into the hands of an individual and it crosses the border, it's impossible to

trace. i believe it's all political and trying to get rid of the second amendment. why can't we just enforce the gun laws that are on the books? oh, and one point that your guest made, it is a federal law that is the requirement as to purchasing a weapon. guest: right. the caller wanted to know about straw purchasing arrests. there have been many arrests related to straw purchasing over the years. in this particular operation, there were 20 arrests made earlier this year related to this operation n. that case, essentially what was happening is that the a.t.f. would work with mexican law enforcement, and essentially what they would do is they would follow the guns, and when they were recovered across the border, the mexicans would bring them back and essentially that's the way that case was built. the problem is that the a.t.f.

lost track of other weapons, of other firearms. i believe there were about 700 that were involved in this particular case, and 20 people were arrested, indicted, rather, in january related to this case. but there are many others that made it through. i don't recall what the other question was. host: one thing i wanted to point out is there's a hearing on these issues. guest: right, exactly. there are two hearings set for next week. one is monday and the other is wednesday. the first one is basically related to the justice department's answering of subpoenas issued by the chairman of the house oversight committee. and then on wednesday, you have what is going to be a very powerful day of testimony from the family of a border patrol agent who was killed in december. this is how the controversy began essentially. there was a border patrol agent who was killed, and at the

scene of the fire fight, it occurred near the border in arizona. host: brian terry, correct? guest: brian terry. at the scene, them found two ak-47 style firearms, which essentially came from this operation. they were from this gunshot that was being monitored by the a.t.f., and suspects that were being monitored by the a.t.f., and they lost track of them. host: east hartford, connecticut, on our republican line. ray, go ahead, good morning. caller: good morning. my question, obvious am it's a manous time to solve narcotics or drugs through the u.s. it's got to be stopped. i'm thinking that from the remarks earlier that the mexican officials are having a problem with the arms they're facing, and i'm wondering if any effort has been made to improve the quality of the

equipment that the mexican officials are using to deal with this problem, such as body armor or ar nored vehicles. i'm thinking that might be money well spent. guest: well, the u.s. has actually, because of the problem that you point out, the u.s. has increased the amount of assistance it provided. it provided a lot more -- better technology, better equipment, including helicopters and so on, and that's part of an aid package that was -- the gun actually under the bush administration and continued under the other administration. caller: you got a killing about two weeks ago. i don't see we don't stop that. why can't we stop it right here in the united states? we losing too many young people

because of this guns, being acceptable to their kids. there's something wrong with it. guest: it's a problem many are struggling with. people right nearby, they can just cross the border into another state, and there's really, again, you have constitutional -- the supreme court has ruled that this is a constitutional right, it's something that's very difficult to stop. what they do is they tend to go after firearms dealers who they believe are skirting the law. there's also some controversy over gun sales that are done at gun shows, which don't have the same type of background check requirements that are required if you buy from a licensed dealer. host: as far as looking into the fast and furious program, was this just a u.s. program or was this done jointly with the

mexican government as well on some level? guest: the a.t.f. has this larger program called gun runner, chess essentially a program that helps the mexicans -- when the mexicans recover a firearm at the scene down there and they suspect it from the u.s., they submit the information for it to be traced by the a.t.f. that effort began under the bush administration. it's continued under obama. essentially it's intended to have the two agencies work together. host: as far as their quota, how is it as far as what you were talking about with fast and furious? guest: from the beginning of this, they have said they didn't know anything about it. he didn't know until it became a controversy earlier this year. and so he has ordered an investigation by the inspector general at the justice department, and that's ongoing right now. until then, he's not really answering any questions.

host: independent line, des moines, iowa. go ahead. caller: hi. i'm just curious about all of this. i know earlier you talked about nato. and how we're protecting other countries and all of that. but here we're not protecting the people of mexico. nobody can blame them for wanting to come to the united states. it's so awful down there, people's heads being decapitated, the crime, the corruption. what's mexico doing as far as their responsibility in protecting their citizens? guest: that's a good question. the mexicans in recent years have essentially doubled down on security efforts. they've deployed the military. they've essentially sent the military into cities, which is something that, in the u.s., would be a very strange thing. but in mexico, they're taking

it so seriously. you have entire police departments that are either being corrupted by the cartels. there are a lot of police officers that are getting killed. and so now they're sending them to the army, which is, you know, viewed very highly by the mexican public, and they're sending in the soldiers to patrol the streets. and there's definitely some improved results from that. the violence, when they send them in, the problem is that, you know, you go after them in one city, and they show up in another one. that is a problem that continues. host: our next call from sarasota, florida, republican line, lynn. caller: hell sexow thank you. the -- hello and thank you. the thing that bothers me, you immediately go to the second amendment, and you go taking away rights of the american people in order to calm the situation down. and i never hear the border

addressed as really fundamental to this problem. american people do not need to lose rights. we need to enforce our laws. why is this not, you know, upfront here? guest: to be clear, i'm not suggesting -- i bring up the second amendment, because that is an issue that arises whenever the government says we need to have new laws, new restrictions on people on how many firearms you can buy, for example. there are restrictions on handguns, and you have a reporting requirement, but there's not the same requirement if you go into a gun store and buy, you know, five or six or seven long arms, rifles. so that's what i'm talking about. it's the dispute that goes on between people who say, you know, we don't need new laws, and the government saying we need better laws to be able to attack this problem. as far as the border is

concerned, you're on to something there. this is a problem obviously that's been going on for a long time. this is not a new issue. it's the issue of mexico. mexico has very strict gun laws and gun ownership laws. they have essentially one gun store in mexico city, which sells firearms, and it's a very difficult thing to do. so that's what's happening. you have a very porous border with the united states, and it's very easy to buy firearms here and not so easy down there to do it legally. so that's where you have it. host: from el paso, texas, george on our democrats line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i'm a retired police officer, and i live here in el paso, texas. as i know, we've had over 36,000 people killed across the border just within a couple of miles from where i live. i've followed this for years and years, and i have a little bit of a different perspective.

years ago, this started when johnson, president johnson came down, to sign the treaty. the mexican army went through mexico door-to-door and took guns from every single household. that has affected the citizens of juarez without any weapons. i know i have friends who live over there. today the problem is the cartels have the guns. they go into restaurants, they shoot people on the street. the citizens have no protection against these cartels. what i'm about to say is unbelievable, but if we want to help the citizens of mexico, they have got to be armed. if these cartel cowards who do this knew that they were facing an armed citizen, they would not be able to do this.

they recently slaughtered, i think it was 18 people in a restaurant, the cartels did. they just walked in, shot every person, man, woman, and child. this has gone on numerous times, as you can imagine, with 36,000 people being killed. instead of taking the guns away from the mexican citizens, they should be armed. guest: that's one perspective. i mean, i don't think that there's much of a serious discussion in mexico about changing their laws. they believe that we should do more to stop the firearms trafficking that goes from the north, obviously, you know, there's 100,000 people that cross the border in el paso every day. it's one of the places where it's so easy to hide one or two or three firearms you're trafficking, and just as easy to hide, you know, drugs that you're hiding in cars and so on to move north. so it's a very difficult issue,

especially when you have essentially on our side of the border, very little move to change our lives, or the mexicans to change theirs. this is not something that's going to be solved just like that. host: just a story hitting the wires as of yesterday, american law enforcement officials exchange nearly 300 rounds of gunfire with drug runners in the latest battle against smugglers. that's according to "the washington post." according to reports, the smugglers were attempting to bring marijuana across the rio grande into the u.s. the drug runners now keep wraps on the american side nearby so that they can flee back to mexico but they can bring their load with them instead of losing it to american officials. the 300 round number strikes me, i don't know if that's a standard kind of -- standard story you hear as far as rounds are concerned. guest: yeah, it goes in waves. you definitely have heated up periods where you have more of

these confrontations. the u.s. has increased under the last administrations, it has increased its presence on the border, which makes it more likely that you'll have confrontations like that. host: atlanta, georgia, good morning, independent line, steve. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. question for you now. a few weeks ago, cbs ran a story on what they dubbed operation gun walker. apparently some people were attempting to destroy purchases from a gun dealer in the south, i think it was arizona or new mexico, and they contacted the authorities, and batf allowed the guns to go over the border to the tune of like over 1,000 semiautomatic, combat-style weapons. with the purr reported rationale of being able to trace those guns in country and, you know, track the movement of these weapons in mexico when they turned up the scene at the crime, and i've

seen very, very little followup in the media on this story. there's sort of an alleged ulterior motive to that from the internet media sources that they were allowing the guns to go into mexico to sort of fulfill the allegation that there were -- there was a prepared of u.s. firearms involved in the cartel activity. guest: that's the operation wee been talking about, called fast and furious. i think on the internet, the controversy over this is that there's a new moniker that's been kind, and that's gun walker, chess essentially allowing guns to walk. look, the a.t.f. agents i talked to, you know, they say that obviously there were mistakes made here, and nothing like this should have happened. but they weren't intendly to get guns into the hands of

cartels. they were trying to figure out a way to get the top traffickers. was this designed fully? it appears that it was. but there was no intention to try to essentially, you know, fuel the gun trafficking and back them up. i mean, it's something that law enforcement tries to stop. on the other hand, you do have a lot of questions here that are being asked about exactly how this operation was designed. host: there's a chart in one of your stories that says this is the firearms recovered by u.s. authorities in mechanics deprow 2009 to 2010, manufactured in the u.s., 15,132. imported to the u.s. from third country, 5,373. and then origin undetermined, 8,780. give some context to those numbers. guest: well, those are firearms that the mexican government has recovered in 2009-2010, and then turned over information for the u.s. to track.

there is an incomplete picture there, and that is we don't know whether or not -- we don't know how many weapons the mexican government recovered and didn't turn over the information for tracing by the a.t.f. that is something that gun rights groups point out, that, you know, this is a number whereby essentially you arrive at 70% for those two years. 70% are submitted to the u.s. for tracing, originated in the u.s. or were -- were either manufactured or sold at some point in the united states. again, it's an incomplete picture because we don't know how many firearms mexicans recovered and didn't submit for tracing. host: "the wall street journal," justice department reporter. florida, eric, republican line. caller: gentlemen, good morning. i was

caller: this tbs plan seems to be brilliant or awful depending on how it came out. unfortunately, it ended badly. i understand the concept of gps to track weapons. my question is, do we not have enough intelligence in mexico to know where these guys are and what they are up to? it seems like it is having such a big effect on that country and our border. it seems like almost an elementary step. i would like to hear your comments. guest: there is a lot of intelligence work being done. there are multiple agencies that work closely with the mexicans. a lot of resources are in place. homeland security, ice has a lot of people on the side of the

border who do intelligence work. the monitoring was supposed to be done to make sure the weapons did not go across the border. in the wake of the controversy, the justice department has issued guidelines to atf and other agencies to make it clear you cannot let firearms go across the border. you have to stop it even if it hurts an ongoing investigation. that was the case here. they were worried about interrupting some of the flow in order to build the case. you have to stop it before it gets across the border. host: springfield, missouri, thank you for holding on. caller: it is an honor to speak to you. it seems if we could take a big chunk out of the profits of the job cartels -- drug cartels, it could have an effect on this. i believe the legalization of

marijuana would make a huge dent in the profits of the drug cartels. it would also free of law enforcement to concentrate on the nasty drugs like heroin and so forth. there is no easy solution to the problem, but i do believe the if wecartels would suffer took a huge chunk out of their profits. guest: that is a discussion being had in a lot of places, including washington at high levels. i do not think there's a chance we will have legalization of soft drugs like marijuana anytime soon. it is the biggest source of revenue and profits for the cartels.

however, it is not something either government is willing to do. there is too much fear. you have the cartels ininvolved in human trafficking and drugs. meth is also being trafficked. host: vancouver, washington, independent line. stuart? caller: i spent a lot of time camping in mexico growing up. the mexican people are probably some of the most beautiful people you would ever want to meet. it a very kind and friendly. at the same time, is a third world country. it has been a travesty for all of these years that the american

government would allow the third world dictatorship to sit on our southern border. the problem in mexico is the great poverty. this is why this is going on. talking about problems with law-enforcement. what is going on down there is more like a piece of work. i am looking forward to your comments on the. guest: i would not say mexico is a dictatorship. it is a democracy. the democracy has improved in recent years. the party changed power peacefully. that is not a dictatorship. obviously, there is a poverty problem in mexico and with an equitable distribution. you have a lot of very poor people and a lot of very rich

people that own a lot of assets in the country. that is a problem in many countries. some of that has improved in recent years with the economy down there, but it is definitely a problem. you can compare it to columbia that has also gone through some of the issues and has made great strides against violence. columbia has done it. mexico can do it. it is just a matter of doing it. the country is awash in weapons. it is not hard to get firearms in mexico it is a black market that thrives while there. host: tampa, florida. caller: it was a no-brainer that

bush did not secure the borders immediately after 9/11. the nra is totally irrational. they are against trucking the guns of probable terrorists after 9/11. -- tracking the guns of public terrorists after 9/11. they did nothing. they dumped it on president obama. i am not sure i would put it that way. administration initiated some of the projects to help the mexican government track the weapons with the agencies. to counteract some of the violence. it has been going on. a lot of strides have been made. it is obviously a difficult problem to resolve. host: kittyhawk, n.c., gloria is

on the republican line. caller: my question is about the spillover from the drug cartels in mexico to our cities and the gangs. everyone knows the game members -- de- members -- gang members have these illicit arms and nobody does anything about it. we have pictures of them holding these things. the cops in the cities know who they are and do nothing. i would like to have someone tell me why that is true. guest: the spillover has been talked about, especially in border states. there is a lot of fear about it. if you look at the crime statistics, you are talking about a reduction of crime in phoenix and tucson.

the statistics do not seem to bear it out. we used to hear people say phoenix with the kidnapping capital of the country and perhaps one of the highest in the world. it seems like some of that was a misnomer. based on the fbi statistics, spillover does happen. there are incidents where americans get killed. you have incidents where ranchers or law enforcement people run in to the traffickers and are killed. the spillover to the extent people fear has not happened. host: virginia, independent line, steve. there is a simple solution to this. isnever a cartel's money seized, you put it into a pot

and divided among the officers who arrested them. you put it into an account to take care of the families of the police officers slain. those who know who the people are would arrest them and get their money and put them out of business. this is a money thing. use free-market solutions to solve this. do not worry about piddling around with guns. they do not have crime in switzerland because everybody has a gun. to fund this, you would pay the drugs on the retail market level so there is a bit sized pot of money. the retired -- corrupt police will retire and go away. it will bring this to an immediate halt. the people will go to jail who are supposed to go to jail. the corrupt police will leave.

you would save 50% of the south -- supervisors not doing their jobs. that is the problem. the supervisors are not doing their job. guest: money is the issue here. police officers, especially in mexico, are poorly paid. that is where you have the corruption. there have been efforts to improve the pay. there is just so much money. there is no way the government can match the funds that the cartels have. host: someone from twitter asks about the mexican military. guest: they are being deployed. you do have the military been deployed to some of the higher crime cities to stem the flow. it does work when it is done. host: dallas, texas, democrats

line. jay, go ahead. caller: as a friend of mine used to say, what else is new? the question with the drug cartels, the same statements could be applied to this country. we do not have as much of a supply problem but a demand problem. the president of mexico and the foreign minister said the drug problem will start to go down when people stop buying the drugs most of the border. this has been an ongoing problem. we have corrupt police in this country who feed off of the drug problem. one of the solutions have got to be comprehensive. you have to cut down on the demand.

when dukakis was running, he said you could have all of the police forces in the world but until you cut down on the demand problem, you are born to accomplish nothing. the people in this country have to look in this region the mirror and say we're part of the problem. guest: that is true. you go down there and attend functions were the issues on the table, and you will hear exactly that. the countries that consume, the richer countries, this is what happens when countries get more wealthy. they get a drug habit. the u.s. has had this problem for many years. until we do something about it, you are right. the money flow will continue to

feed the problem. host: the police in mexican towns know if they turn someone in, they're signing their own death once. warrants. guest: it does happen. there are some brave people who sent their families to live in a paso so they can continue doing their jobs who'. you do the people standing up to do the right thing. caller: i took offense to what that man just said. i do not understand why they're blaming the u.s. for this. they have left our borders open so long. they have allowed these gangs in all the wit to new your city

-- new york city. and you are going to blame us? caller: i have a couple of remarks. the gentleman made the comment about the wealth being in the hands of the few. in the united states, you talk about how our wealth of the region has become distorted in the hands of the few. why is there not a comparison story between what is going on overseas in iraq and afghanistan and compare that to the united states foreign all of the money we do in to those countries?

they were talking but all the money going over there to these contractors that they cannot account for. i have seen mexican children digging through garbage for food to eat. there ands leave it go back to the topic at hand. where do we go from here? guest: you will see a lot of information coming out. there are hearings going on, including whistle-blowers who have raised concerns about the operation. according to the information we have, they were told it had been approved from up high and a return to make a big case. you will see the family of brian terry show of for testimony. that will probably be very emotional.

host: wsj is the website. thank you for your time. there are stories in the papers about yemen. there are concerns about the politics and the concerns about credit -- presence of al qaeda. my next guest will talk to us about what is going on in yemen. we will have that discussion when we come right back. >> this weekend, more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a new your historical panel reflects on ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev. then the civil rights movement and the promise of suburbia. then, restoring civil war photographs from post-war charleston, south carolina.

you can have our schedules emailed directly to you. >> this weekend, they talk about the role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the 2008 financial collapse. henry kissinger on whether it is possible to form a true economic partnership with china. also, the microsoft co-founder and talks about his memoir. look for the complete book tv schedule online. it can also sign up for the alerts. >> the nomination is confirmed. >> on monday, the senate confirmed the white house deputy counsel to succeed elena kagan as u.s. solicitor general. he is just one of more than the

100,000 people you can search and watch for free anytime online at our c-span video library. it is washington, your way. c-span brings you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is our live call-in program about the news of the day connecting you with newsmakers, policymakers, and journalists. what coverage of the house and policy forms. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturdays, "the communicators." on sundays, "prime minister's questions" from the house of commons. you can watch our program and online anytime at c-span.org. c-span is a public service created by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: christopher boucek from the carnegie endowment joins us to talk about what is going on in yemen. what is the u.s. role in yemen these days? guest: unfortunately, it is limited. we do not have a lot of influence or leverage over this government or the one that will likely take shape soon. host: where does the president's stand as far as ruling in his country? guest: last friday, he was injured in a bombing attack. he was evacuated to saudi arabia. he has been recuperating in the country. it seems unlikely he will be returning to the country as president. we do not know what his role is now. power has temporarily been transferred to the vice president. he does not have full power to act as the president. host: what led up to this?

guest: it started with protests like the arab spring. protesters went out to the streets calling for greater transparency and improvement in the government. this was joined by the official opposition. the protests were getting some traction. the joint meeting parties signed on to this. it was further signed on to buy some of the leaks outside of the government in competition with the president and his family. there are several different layers of opposition. host: how did the president get those injuries? last guest: friday, there was an attack on his palace. at first, it was thought to the incoming mortar fire. now it is thought it may have been a bomb placed inside the mosque. he was badly injured. a number of other issues --

officials were transferred to saudi arabia for medical attention. the injuries were probably more severe than being reported. host: as far as the people are concerned, there are pictures talking a rights going on in the streets. this has pictures of soldiers sympathetic to the protesters chanting against the president. can you give us some context? guest: the protest movement has been going on since january. the military services have started to fracture. the strongest military officer in the country defected from the regime to support the protesters. this happened after a massacre in march. the government's most powerful military officers took his forces and promised to protect the protestors. these are some of the soldiers

uc in the paper. these protesters are asking for the things president obama was speaking about, is shared values, greater accountability, and end of corruption and the regime in power over 32 years, and greater economic and social opportunities. the regime promised a host of economic concessions for which there is no money to pay for. since protests started, they've been joined by the other groups we talked about. the initial groups are probably only 10% of those in the street. billy thing that unites them is the opposition to the current regime. -- the only thing that unites them is the opposition to the current regime. yemen is suffering from grinding poverty. it is the poorest country in the arab world. most people get by on about $1 today.

the untold story is how the human economy is collapsing as a result of the star. they're no longer exporting oil in significant quantities. the real has been devalued against the dollar. food prices have skyrocketed. this affects the most vulnerable community in the middle east to have no room to budge. the scary thing is that whatever government comes next will most likely go to the central bank and realize there is no more money left. this is the story we need to be focused on. the collapsing economy is at the heart of every other problem going on in the country. host: if they go into a bank for help, who does the bank turned to? guest: it will probably beat saudi arabia and the gulf states. they are the only country that provides budgetary assistance.

saudi arabia will have a serious role to play in the future of yemen. with the country with the most resources to bring to bear, they will definitely be involved. host: web is reading this, it said the u.s. was calling for these changes as well as saudi arabia. guest: we have seen a lot of discussion about how the u.s. and saudi arabia are at odds and the relationship is in trouble. one area where our interests overlap is in yemen. we both want to see a human that is stable and not a threat to itself or its neighbors. with saudi arabia would like to see in yemen is probably different from what the united states would like to see on issues like corruption, minority rights, and democracy. the united states would be eager to advance those. saudi arabia would not be so eager.

saudi arabia is interested in security and stability. the two of us need to be side by side working on yemen with the western allies and the gulf states. we need to all work on this issue. the problems do not stay in yemen. host: does it affect the course of the arab spring? guest: another big difference about human compared to other arab states is that in yemen you have the most dangerous of all al qaeda franchises. you cannot say that about the other countries. the stakes are much higher in yemen. this organization has the intention to strike at western domestic targets. it has the capacity. the space is getting better for them to operate. as this goes on, a yemeni government is not focus on terrorism. host: our guest is here to

discuss the issues in yemen. you can call and ask him questions. the numbers are on your screen. you can also send us e-mail. if you want to send us something via twitter, you can also do that. jim asked about water shortages and a solution to that. guest: that is a great question. yemen is facing an acute water shortage. yemen will likely be the first country to run out of water if things continue the way they are going. over 80% of the violence in yemen is people fighting over access to water. thousands of people are killed

every year fighting over water. it is actually people fighting over the most basic resource they need, watch your reporter -- water. yemen has always been a water in secure place. there are things they can do to manage how they use it. there are some potential solutions that are low cost and high impact in terms of rain collection and things of that. it receives a lot of rain in the northern highlands. to be gone to such a severe shortage is awful. -- to be going through such a severe shortage is awful. there is little public connection about how to use water as a scarce resource. there are no laws to govern how

you share underground water. it is completely unregulated for the most part. you drill a well and pull out as much water as you can. the government inadvertently it subsidizes water consumption and wasteful water consumption by subsidizing the diesel people use to extract it. part of it is the use of western agricultural methods. this is something we need to focus on in the future. it is a big driver of conflict and violence. host: do they import and export various goods? is equal to what is going on in the economy? guest: one of the biggest income earners is the sale of hydrocarbons. the oil reserves are falling. the pipelines were damaged

several years -- months ago in trouble attacks. they are exporting no oil. there have been labor disputes with the uprising and protest movement. this cuts into the government's primary source of income after foreign assistance. that has been a major problem. host: leon panetta mentioned the connections of the yemeni president with al qaeda. >> our approach has been that because of these notes that have developed. our approach has been to develop operations in each of the areas that will contain a private and go after them so that they have no place to escape. we are doing that in yemen. it is obviously a dangerous and uncertain situation. we continue to work with the

elements. to try to develop counter- terrorism. guest: since the uprising began, we have seen the yemeni government shift resources away from terrorism towards regime production. we have seen al qaeda have more operating space. the group based in yemen is the most dangerous and we felt of all of the organizations. if you think of the christmas day attack in 2009, it was the first time a product successfully hit a domestic target. there were the cartridge bombs. there are a number of other plots and plants that were foiled. we need to be vigilant about this. i think people want to think of it as a smaller threat than it is. yemen is not come to a large american community of foreign

businesses and things like that. -- home to a large american community of foreign businesses and things like that. it seems smaller than it is. as the cia director said, we cannot afford not to pay attention to it. all that said, terrorism is not yemen's biggest problem. those are the things we've been talking about, the economy, and employment, water. these are the things that will lead to state failure as the collapse. it is not al qaeda. host: what is that relationship between their presence in the current unrest? is there a connection? as one play off of the other? guest: there has been some comments from al qaeda in support of this. it is not as if al qaeda will takeover in yemen. that is not in the cards. as the government focuses on other issues and engages in

chaos, the operating space for al qaeda and other organizations is getting bigger. as the state authority recedes, we see these things come through. host: springfield, ill., independent line. you are on with christopher boucek. caller: i was wondering how information is being released to the public out of yemen and how the proliferation of information might affect public knowledge and opinion. guest: one thing we've seen in yemen is that there are very few foreign reporters in the country. a number of them were expelled months ago. the foreign reporters that are there for a long time are

confined to the capital. since the fighting began in the capital, the ability to get out and around is smaller than many would like. a lot of what we know about what is going on does not come from the western press. there is a vibrant new mini press. social media is getting the story out from protesters and others. one thing that is very difficult is to tell who is responsible for some of the violence that takes place far away from the capital. it may be al qaeda, tribal militants. trying to figure out the details of who is responsible is very difficult in a place like yemen. host: tampa, fla., on the democrats' line. caller: first a comment. one thing i do not like about the way analysts penalize

countries is they do without connecting it to anything -- analyze countries is they do it without connecting it to anything else. a few weeks ago, bbc did a documentary on the number of fifties refugees -- on the number of refugees that wash up on the shores of human. there is some treaty were they have to take the men. -- they have to take them in. here are two collapsed countries not considered to be in the same region, but they are very close to each other. they both harbor powerful parts of al qaeda. do you know anything about the twonections between these 1 countries? what about piracy? guest: we want to look at yemen as being part of the arabian peninsula. it has more in common with the

states on the horn of africa. we need to look yemen and somalia as part of greater complex of instability in the horn of africa. the caller is right about the number of refugees that come from somalia. yemen is the only place where somalis get instant refugee status. it is because yemen receives a paycheck for every somali they let in. is an income earner. there's smuggling, organized crime, movements that go back and forth. there are yemenis have gone to fight in somalia. there are somalis who have gone to fight in yemen. we have not seen the emergence of an organized or cohesive relationship between the groups in the different countries. early on, there were some aspirational remarks. we have bought seen that

developed the same way. the caller is right. it took us 20 years to get where we are in somalia. it will take much less for similar things to happen in yemen if we do not do something as an international community to act and avoid what we know will come. host: andrew is on the republican line. caller: i am a student at princeton university, a graduate student studying the conflict. i really appreciate this discussion. could we deep in the analysis slightly? i appreciate your analysis of leaving the forces to themselves could lead to terrorism deepening their operations. this is a question posed in the form of a statement. what happens if the

revolutionary forces succeed and establish their own form of government? is there reason to believe that emerging form of government will tolerate significant terrorist activity within their borders customer is there a reason to think it will be anti- democratic and country to their movement for freedom? to the extent we assume the emerging regime will be intolerant to terrorism, should we be doing anything to support the regime? host: let me follow up with a tweet. they are asking who is likely to follow president saleh. guest: i think the caller brought up some great points.

there is a difference between an governed and under-governed space. we need to differentiate between the two. it is not the complete collapse of yemen. it is not yet a failed state. we know if we do not do something, things will get worse. there is potential for human to become a field or collapsing state. -- there is potential for yemen to become a failed or collapsing state. the opposition downplayed the severity of aqap. it is seen as something the president used to generate revenue instead of a real threat. washington views aqap as a threat to their own security. the opposition needs to shift its position.

the opposition needs to learn to talk about the concerns of the international community, especially the united states and saudi arabia in ways they understand because they will need to be involved in helping yemen. it is not assured the opposition -- who will come on top when this shakes out. we do not know yet. it is still very early. the president is in the hospital. i think he is not likely to return. the vice president has not stepped up to lead. we do not know if the president's son and nephews who run the security apparatus is have accepted that the regime has to change. there is potential for them to see this is the last chance to dig in.

we do not know how this will play out. the opposition severely wounded their father and uncle. there will likely be a negotiated settlement with the power elites coming together to figure something out. if that happens, the youth protesters will lose out. they do not have a big constituency behind them unfortunately. it is incumbent on the united states to make sure that the values of the movement are not lost on whatever comes to be in yemen. we need to help enshrine the values of the revolution to make sure that accountability, transparency, democracy, all of these values are in whatever comes next. in terms of the question about who comes after president saleh, we do not know yet. there are a number of candidates people talk about.

it may be someone from the opposition. it may be the general. it may be another regime figure. we do not know yet. there is not a system to figure out who that will be. president saleh is done amazing job of preventing the emergence of rivals throughout his rule. caller: i see yemen as another result of the knowledge revolution. people are realizing their government is not representative of themselves. i would not be surprised to see this keeps rolling on. it is amazing one man and his little website, wikileaks, has been able to unfiled revolution after revolution. there is a large documentary on sunday about him. i am wondering where it will all end.

i find it amusing for the united states to be lecturing anyone else about anything at all after we know what really happened on 9/11. guest: interesting data has come out in the wikileaks documents in the detainee assessments on yemeni politics. there were things going on in yemen before this. this has been a long time coming. as the economy has gotten worse, corruption has increased. the intentions of in between a major family and the president's family. a lot of this is a league competition that has been simmering for some time. it came out in the open after tunisia and egypt and everything else. host: louisiana, frank is on the

democrats' line. go ahead. caller: i know one of the top generals and someone from one of the tribes defective awhile back. i believe the united states with the help of saudi arabia and possibly abu dabi would help them form a new kind of government. they could build desalination plants to bring fresh water. they could give them back order and the things they need. in return, all we want is for his group. we may be able to cut some kind of feel along those lines. while we're working that out, we ought to use b-52's so that they

will remember the guns of the b- 52's. guest: there are two things that come out of this call. one is the defection of the general we were talking about earlier. it has been called the defection, but he did not quit the military. he did not quit the government. it is useful to think about him as trying to position the military in yemen as a state institution, which is not. i think they're watching what happened in egypt and trying to do something similar. he is trying to demonstrate the military will act in the interests of the republic of yemen and not the regime. he has not gotten involved and his soldiers have not gone involved. the other point is about desalinization. that is talked about as an answer for the water shortage.

unless someone else is going to pay for it, it will not happen. most of the population lives in the northern highlands. you have to park the water up 8,000 feet. -- pip the water of 8,000 feet. pipelines are a major target. they have fuel stocks to export to other places in the gulf. unless a donor wants to do this and negotiate access for the pipelines, it is not really in the cards. host: the think long-term reform will happen in yemen, especially -- women'srights and huma rights in particular? guest: a thing some of the major actors do not want to see wholesale change. they want to see management of the problem. they look at yemen as a security

problem and nothing else. we can do some things to make improvements across the sector of their challenges. political reform issues, gender reform issues health care. we can do things to help improve the situation. it is really depressing if you are aiming for is not to fix the problem but just make it better. we need to be realistic about what we can achieve in yemen. we cannot fix it. we can make it less bad for the yemeni people and the international community. i think in the region, yemen is viewed as a security issue first and foremost. it is not about how we prevent yemenis children from buying -- dying from childhood illnesses.

these are not what people are focusing on. they're focusing on al qaeda at, terrorism, and security. yemen only its attention when things go wrong. they do not detention for the great things that happen or the things we can do to make it a better place for the yemeni people. host: christopher boucek is with us to talk about yemen for another 15 minutes. caller: i want to talk about the u.s. role with the yemeni people. i think it comes down to being able to get the people who live havebject poverty to something more positive and give them more opportunity without changing the society that is trouble. what is the notice is going to do to use the yemeni people who have immigrated here -- what is

the u.s. going to do to use the many people who have immigrated here to go back in and help? guest: the big challenge is how we build -- improve the relationship between the yemeni government and the people. how do we have it be more responsive and deliver more services? how we build the belief in the yemeni people that the government is active in their interests? that is a long-term problem. it is a problem we will find emerging throughout that part of the world. i think the first step for the united states is to use our aid, which is very small. it is about $300 million in combined military and

humanitarian aid. that excludes all of the covert black monday that also goes to yemen -- black money but also goes to yemen. one thing we're probably moving towards is not focusing a only on places where we are secured about security and al qaeda. we could do projects in parts of the country not suffering from security or instability problems. it will show that the united states is not only interested in those issues. part of the problem is if we predicate our aid on combating violence and extremism, there is something wrong with that equation. if that is why we're doing development aid, something is wrong with that equation. host: dallas, texas, is up next.

caller: your organization does so much good work. i appreciate you being on the show today. i learned last week that the cia was conducting drone attacks in yemen. i think it may be doing more harm than good. if that were to be done to us, we would consider an act of war. i would like to comment on the objective of those attacks and your opinion on that. my second question is, this is only my understanding. i would appreciate your help. it seems to me saudi arabia has very close ties with bahrain and yemen. i am not clear about syria. i think both of those countries are majority shia. it seemed the united states is supporting more dictatorial type governments because it supposedly is in american

interests, particularly in saudi arabia. that is a country where women cannot even drive. are there really close ties with iran and yemen? -- bahrain and yemen? united states should stop being hypocritical and start supporting democracy. guest: the first issue is about the drone strikes. this story came out recently. the first one took place in 2002. it killed the head of a credit in yemen -- had al qaeda in yemen. we have been doing this for a long time. as the yemeni government has not been going after a private -- al qaeda, the operation space has

gotten bigger. there are certain targets the americans are focused on. there is not a military solution to dealing with this. we cannot kill our way out of this problem. there is the potential for real unintended consequences that follow from doing this by remote control. the last big drums strike was last year. it killed in tribal leader and government official. viable option for an overt foreign military presence in yemen. you cannot do this and not expect unintended civilian cavil choose -- casualties. bahrain and yemen are both domestic policy issues. these are things they look at as

very close to home. they're both viewed as priorities as opposed to other things. saudi arabia got involved in bahrain because they could not tolerate the idea of losing the market there. they're getting involved in yemen because they cannot tolerate the terrorism threat they see coming over the border. a number of attacks have come from saudis hiding out in yemen. host: mike from maryland is on the independents' line. caller: with the economy and deficit, will help in yemen make the deficit grow even larger? why is it when they have international affairs, why do we

attempt to jump in those issues first with sending our soldiers and stuff like that? you have issues here that have not been resolved. guest: i think these are two key issues, especially in the economic climate. the amount of money we give to yemen is very small based on the total amount of money the government spends on foreign assistance or the entire budget. the administration and government talks about yemen as a priority, but we do not resources the same way. the $300 million we give to yemen is about one day's worth of operations in afghanistan, for perspective. this is not just a far of foreign policy issue. yemen is a domestic security issue in this country, like it or not. there are a number of plans linked to a private on the

peninsula. i hope i am wrong. -- link to al qaeda on the peninsula. i hope i am wrong. i think the next time americans are attacked, it will have a return address in yemen, unfortunately. if we do not do anything, we know what will happen. a senior official said that we have been here before and know how it ends. this is the time to offset how bad things will be. it is harder and harder to justify spending money, but i think yemen is one thing most people see as needing it. host: california is on the democrats' line. caller: i am really much against any bombing, in trading, having bases in the middle east. to me, this is the cause of terror. this is what they're blowing back against. i am confused about yemen.

there is a civil war in yemen right now. by our bombing al qaeda or whoever, are we not bombing the very people trying to overthrow the dictators? guest: the al qaeda threat in yemen is separate from the opposition. the fighting in the last couple of weeks has been the regime against the opposition and tribes. this has nothing to do with terrorism or al qaeda. the root causes of what is going on in yemen, if it is the civil war in the south, if it is al qaeda, the protest movement -- all of these are symptomatic of the breakdown of the yemeni state. central to that is the economy. people are upset about why the government is teaching them

retreating -- people are upset about why the government is cheating them. i think this is what is driving it. it is not american bombs. we're only doing very small drone strikes. host: 4 wayne, indiana, you are next on the independent line. caller: why do you not talk about bahrain? there is a difference between yemen and bahrain. guest: we could spend several hours talking about what is going on in bahrain. the saudis are involved. several thousand soldiers are there helping to support the monarchy. i do not know is the saudis attacking the bahraini

protesters. having the assistance has enabled them to go out and do that. they do not need to do regarding and civil order. the amadis are there as well. there's growing tension between the united states and saudi arabia about how to handle what is going on in the region. this situation needs better management. the u.s. and saudi arabia have interests that will overlap. we need one another. there is no one can do for each other what we do. we need to work better on this relationship. if we do not, we will have more attention in the relationship -- tension in the relationship. we need to work together on our common interests. host: 20 think long term of the arab spring? -- what do you think long term

of the end of spring? guest: i think it is important to say we're still very early in to this. this is only four or five months. this will take years before we see what is really going on. it is probably the most important event for this generation that is one to happen. there are going to be a lot of changes from what we see right now. there was a lot of early enthusiasm talking of the end of political violence. i am not sure i would agree with that. if the egyptians do not have more jobs, there will be disillusionment that sets in. we need to be prepared for that. is not just in egypt but throughout the region. from an american policy point of view, we spend more time focusing on the day today focusing on the day today triage