we'll take your questions about the said committee. we will be joined by the christian science muster's defense correspondent anna mulrine who recently returned from afghanistan. ♪ host: president obama proposes a $3.60 trillion deficit cutting plan, putting down a marker, including entitlements without tax increases. "the baltimore sun," calling it a new tone from the president, moving away from any talks of a grand budget. we want to hear your reaction to the president's new strategy.

here is the president from the rose garden yesterday. >> i will not support any plan that puts the burden for closing the deficit of ordinary americans. i will veto any bill that changes benefits for those that rely on medicare and does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest americans pay their fair share. >> "the baltimore sun," says this --

host: we want to get your reaction to that. democrats only this morning. obama altering his tone and his tactics. if you live in the eastern central part of the country, 202-pacific to 7-1111. even this, last week, they said that the degree to which the white house --

inst: let's hear from dee columbus, ohio. caller: in a big time democrat, obama supporter. i have obama fatigue. the country is bigger than republican, democrat, and all of these fights. the president just as not be

leaving our country. i was hearing about that book where he gave timothy geithner orders and timothy geithner did not listen to him. you still have a war in afghanistan and you are spending billions a month on that. there are so many shootings in new york every weekend. people getting killed. you go through these neighborhoods, housing is boarding up. these are african-american neighborhoods. >> in your opinion, is yesterday's tome too little, too late? >> i do not know. i am a democrat, but it seems like he is trying to create a class war. you are going to tax people.

what is your vision for the future of our country? host: are you going to vote for him in 2012? caller: i wish that i had a democratic primary choice to show my displeasure. i do not know. god bless c-span. host: annie, martha's vineyard. caller: i do support the president and i do support this plan. i wonder if the people that signed the plan never to raise taxes, if we were bombed and had to go to congress and say that we would never raise revenues, and these people had pledged never to raise taxes, it seems to me that they are not -- that this appeases their ability to represent the country.

host: do you think that the president's tactics yesterday helped? caller: republicans are the party of no. and the president could introduce a miracle and they would say no. host: are you personally willing to pay more if taxes are raised? caller: yes. caller: -- host: what would it mean -- caller: it would not affect me. i am not in that tax bracket. host: good morning. caller: personally, i think that this is long overdue. i have been waiting for obama to do this for the longest time. obama has been giving me steve merkel and i have been wanting john shaft.

john shaft is a movie character from the '70s and he was a bad dude. we need john shaft in the white house. urkel.not need steve mccork host: here is what it says about the new plan -- host: let me show you some of the other headlines yesterday about the president's. here is "the globe and mail." host: here is the front page of "the chicago tribune."

"change of tactics, obama switches gears." if you go to the internet this morning and go to the huffington post website, here is what they have to say. "change they can believe in." tomorrow, ariz., good morning. caller: barack obama is clearly finessing this situation like no one before him. he could not come across as the angry black man, it would turn off the civil minded white people in office. he will take off all but loves and, at them in a way with a

wish that they had worked with him. once he is a lame-duck, he will not care. it is inherent to the tribal at one time or another. host: your argument earlier, will he be able to attract independent voters in 2012 with this message? caller: i do not think that he ever lost the independent voters. unlike the tea party, i believe that they are simple-minded. obama will become the president that we all -- i do not know what they want to be aggressive for, but he will become the president that we all know he can be. host: politico, saying that the white house deficit plan is aimed at the base.

upper marlboro, maryland. we are talking to democrats this morning. what do you think of the president's new tactics? caller: back in january, when i was fortunate to get through, i made the point that there was a reason why the republicans had not had power for over 40 years until the new gingrich revolution. america is beginning to see the ugly, right wing side of the republican party, when they make statements about a young kid. host: let's stay on track and focus on what the president said yesterday. caller: i am behind him 100%.

but i do not think they will get this passed, because of these republicans. but i will say this. there is another election coming up and i am predicting that the democrats are going to clean house and it is going to take the republicans another 30 years to 40 years to come into power. i predict that he will be elected in 2012. host: the analysis from yesterday's speech, from one viewer -- -- from one -- from "the washington post." host: inside of "the new york

times," this morning, they have this. host: russell, south carolina. help me with the the name of your town. what do you think of the president's tactics? caller: i think that the president is way overdue. for a few years all the he got was no. after the republican majority,

he tried to bend over backwards to work with republicans. everything that he did, they shot him down. it is time that he changes his tone. i am tired of him telling down to everything that they want. the crisis was created by the republicans just to drag the president into it. host: how are you feeling about voting for the president again before yesterday's speech? caller: i feel better about voting for him in 2012. i hope that he sticks to democratic ideas. i hope that he stopped listening to republicans. it is like he creates a crisis. host: were you going to vote for

him anyways? caller: i was very hesitant about boarding for him. it seems like he is leaning too far to the right. host: all right, linda, mississippi. caller: i agree with president obama. what he said yesterday, it is about time. you cannot make a bargain with a group of people that do not want the country to improve under president obama's leadership. what he said yesterday, he laid down the gauntlet they cared nothing about fitting -- they cared about nothing else except getting elected.

the republicans put us in two wars and do not have a solution. host: let me show you and others "the new york post." this is what they put together the presidents reduction plan. the trillions year in savings that the president proposes. let me read from "the new york times, closed but they get into specifics. -- "the new york times," they get into specifics. "a large share of the medicare

savings would be used to pay doctors who otherwise said these cuts would be for treating medicare patients. mr. obama would also allow the postal service to cut its losses by ending saturday mail delivery, and reduce farm subsidies over 10 years. retirees would have to pay more for prescription drugs. higher fees would be charged to air travellers for aviation security. medicare and medicaid accounts for nearly one-fourth of all spending. it represents less than 3% of what the government expects to spend on the program over the next 10 years. tom, columbus, ohio, what did

you make of the president's tone? caller: i think and he was forced to do it. i am from ohio and embarrassed that john boehner represents us. he has done nothing but destroy every hope of compromise. that product -- bothers me. i think that obama has to really come out with what he believes in. it is sad that people over 18 years old, elected to congress, cannot work something out on behalf of our country on -- as opposed to on behalf of their own ideas or political parties. it is sad that we have come to that. it bothers me, but i think that obama was good.

host: i want to get your reaction from some of the newspapers. this is from "the washington post." host: what do you think? caller: the republicans are counting on that money in what ever plan that they had. host: what do you think about the article and that point, the congressional republicans are resisting the move, but

congressional democrats are planning a major push on capitol hill? caller: there are good arguments on both sides, but we need to get out of that war. i like the idea of what obama is doing and we should count that. a lot of people are just looking for reasons to disagree. there are smart people on both sides. host: let me read you the reaction from capitol hill yesterday. speaker boehner had this to say on the fox business network.

host: kate, phoenix, arizona. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: good morning. i listened to what the president had to say yesterday. all of this republican criticism, it sounds like, i do not know, a way to criticize what the president has been trying to do for his entire term in office, which is compromise

with republicans. trying to get a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes raising revenues, debt reduction, spending. he is giving medicare and medicaid cuts, suddenly willing to raise revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthiest among us? that is the approach that makes the most sense to me. yesterday he did a fantastic. i loved that speech. host: we have this twitter message from one viewer -- host: if you would like to send us a tweet, go to twitter.com/c- spanwj. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org.

here is one. faugh host: jim, lakeland, florida. caller: i am coming from a different viewpoint from most of the callers. most of the people are calling from the progressive rate -- progressive wing. quite a few of us, you would call them conservative or moderate in the democratic party. this seems to me that we are confusing means with ends. most people calling in seem to be thrilled with the tax increases. i have no problem with that, but that does mean that the end is to reduce the deficit. there is a lot of waste in

military and social programs. i really would like for us to applaud the tax increases, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there is a goal in mind other than punishing the wealthy. >> what do you make of these entitlements? comments that he barely touched medicare and medicaid? >> i do not have much to say there. i will be on medicaid next year. those of us who are on medicare are not going to be affected too much. i do have significant concerns over the long-term solvency, but i am glad that he is proposing to do a little bit. this is tough, coming from a democrat like me, but there is

waste in the government bureaucracy. just do not take it all from medicare and the few other things that he did. i kind of like his tone, but the tactics, but it's not just applaud the fact that we are slamming it to the wealthy. let's say that we are doing it for a reason, which is long term deficit reduction. host: we have more on the president's plan. >> structural reforms to reduce the cost of health care. keep in mind we have already included a number of reforms in the health care law, which will go a long way to controlling these costs. but we will have to do a little bit more. this changes some of the incentives that often lead to

deficit health care costs. it makes prescriptions more affordable. we will work with donors to make medicare more efficient. we will change the way that we pay for health care. instead of paying for procedures, providers will be paying more when they produce results. host: more details on it from "the new york times."

host: roger, and seville, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i really just wanted to let people know that there is a lot more to talking about raising taxes on the rich. when they say rich, they have got to understand that the rich are really people that are able to live anywhere in the world. other people that people would consider rich are the people

that are struggling with businesses here. and pretty soon, i think that people will become aware that raising taxes is going to happen to everybody. but raising taxes on the very wealthy will probably never happen, because they do not really live here anymore. people just need to be responsible, take care of their families, think about the better way of living their lives, and quit worrying so much about politics. the media just sucks in everyone. host: antony, ohio. caller: i wanted to comment on the president's speech from yesterday. it was very good. he needed to change the tone. he is the only reasonable guy in washington these days.

everyone else seems to want their tea party. i do agree with the president. i always agree with the president. i will continue to support this president. thank you. host: california, jennifer. caller: i am in california. this is not just going to be millionaires and billionaires being taxed, it will be the people that make $250,000 more. in montana that might make to the richest man on the block. but in california, $250,000 is not a rich tax -- rich person, not with state taxes. my husband and i, these have been the worst years of our lives under obama. unfortunately, people voted for him.

i think that people at this point, saying that they really liked him, my impression is that if he was so concerned about jobs, why did he not do this two years ago. when he came into office, even i was offended that one party acted like children and just went running around in a candy store, doing whatever they wanted. there was no compromise. it is only now that we have a republican congress that we are talking about compromise. but biggest complaint is that this will affect people like me, like my husband and people that we know. we are not rich, but this will affect people like us. it will destroy us. host: you are not voting for him in 2012? caller: absolutely not. i have been a democrat my whole

life, coming from a very big group of like-minded people, i can tell you that none of us are voting for and. host: orange county, california, tends to be a large conservative area? caller: we are, but we do have democrats. but not so much of the hair on fire democrats. host: what did you want to hear from the president? caller: he just said the same thing over and over. i do not want to hear from him anymore. i want him to sit at his desk and do some work. host: let me show you this from "usa today."

this is the breakdown. host: it goes on from there, you can see, the president's plan for increasing revenue, to go after the nation's debt and deficit. we will keep taking your phone calls this morning. first, and economic reporter from "the wall street journal, close " to and us on the phone this morning. what is on the agenda?

caller: this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the fed, extended to two days to discuss options for boosting the economy. the biggest challenge being that they have few options left right now. the key interest rate has been at its lowest point for three years. last month the fed told us that it will stay near zero until the middle of 2013. now the fed is considering other options to offer support for the economy, given that those remain so weak. the first important option is to consider changing the securities that the fed holds off buying and its -- that the fed holds in its securities in the interest-

rate spectrum. now they will consider focusing on longer-term interest rates to invest in equipment or expand payrolls, leading consumers with a likely high change on the agenda, for the fed, with the amount of interest that they pay, some banks are finding that is just one quarter of a percentage point. they are finding that it is more money that they're getting in their home operations. the thinking goes that the fed can push the banks out of the central bank and banks might be more likely to lend it elsewhere. host: are all of the members of the federal reserve likely to agree on an option? caller: we are likely to see

some dissent in the ranks. the federal open market committee is a mixture of governors in washington, appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate. those officials tend to be likely to support the fed chairman. they tend to support more action to do something to boost the economy. also, there are regional officials who work for the 12 regional federal reserve banks, appointed by private citizens, private bankers in those districts. there is a mixture of those that tend to be split across the spectrum. a handful of them do not want any additional action. some of them actually want a lot more action. you have a pretty broad

spectrum of views among policy- makers. host: when will we hear something from ben bernanke? what will you be watching for? caller: this is a two day meeting. one of the reasons it was extended was because they were discussing a lot of traditional options. they want to spend time considering how to carry out those options. on wednesday, wednesday afternoon, that is what we're looking for, a statement from the fed. we will not hear directly from the fed chairman. we will look for signs of the fed changing their view on the economy over the year. fe downgraded assessment has weighed on policy makers to

produce more growth and unemployment. we will be looking for signs that they have changed that view any further. it will take more action, whether it starts now or in future meetings. the fed often signals it's changed a few months in advance by insisting they are moving toward an option, moving toward the idea of shifting bonds in the portfolio. they might start doing that now, completing it at the next meeting in early november. or they could announce that now. the one option that will likely be discussed but not executed, bond buying. last fall, they engaged in quantitative easing. $600 billion in treasury debt to push down interest rates.

it was controversial, working after some measures, pushing the stock market to go what substantially -- to go up substantially. it turns out that underlying growth was not strong enough to sustain that kind of a boost. we have fallen back a bit. the fed is probably not going to jump into a third round just yet. one of their other concerns, inflation, shows that it is moving a bit higher than they would like. of course, there is the weakness of the economy and the fact that oil prices have come back. host: thank you. getting your reaction to the headline this morning from "the baltimore sun," "obama alters

tone and tactics." here is one twitter message -- host: doreen, clinton township, michigan. caller: first off, i will vote for president obama. i think he is the most connected president we have ever had. second of all, i am sick and tired of people blaming him for this mess. he did not create this mess, congress created this mess. those people, spending our money, which they should not have been, i think that he needs to get tougher. mr. boehner is nothing but a pompous idiot. he did nothing to help our

president. i am sick and tired of what is happening in congress. host: we are running out of time. i will jump in ike -- i will jump in here so that we can get more viewpoints in. you can leave a comment on our c-span page on facebook. here is one -- host: pat, for the duck, california. caller: i believe that he is trying to do everything that he can for the country. mitch mcconnell and all of the rest of the republicans, they

need to sit down and try to work together. which president obama has tried to do for some time. it is to the point now where he is a little frustrated. people are hurting. people are homeless. they have no food, no jobs, it is ridiculous. $147,000? it is terrible. i am so happy that obama has changed his tune. he has tried to work with congress. it does not make any kind of sense. host: we will be looking at jobs and the economy today. the senate budget hearing on job creation, that is live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern time on c-

span 3. max, iowa, good morning. caller: i want to show my support for the president's change in tone. there has been a high correlation between worker raises and the increase in executive salaries. it is about time that that changes around. host: do you think that there should be rivals? someone challenging him in the primary, keeping him on this track? caller: there is no one else right now that could really stand on the issue that the president has not already covered. host: this is from "the washington times."

host: that is "the washington times." also in an "the washington times," a story about the trade agreement. host: front page of "the washington times," this morning --

"after putting troops to months of indoctrination, there are no special plans to repeal the policy known as don't ask, don't tell." you have probably been hearing about a new book out on the obama white house. "female staffers, felt frozen out." the story goes on to say --

host: so, and a bit more about the story of that book -- so, a little bit more about the story of that book coming out. the united nations, get the ring and in new york this week. host: we have a couple of minutes left. frank, you are actually going to be our last phone call. what do you think of the obama new tone?

caller: it is a known fact that the republicans do not want to agree to nothing. they are a bunch of spoiled babies up there. i like his plan. the only thing that he left out was money so that the republicans can go to the candy store. the reason that i called was social security. when are they going to wise up and no that the government basically steals money out of social security, then claims it is going broke. what happened to social security is the government pulled out more money from their to use it of other things. and host: we have to leave it there. thank you for calling in. next we will be talking to two

members of congress for 45 minutes. rob andrews, new jersey, and darrel issa, iowa. those of you familiar with studentcam will be happy to know that it is under way for 2012. videos must be five minutes to 8 minutes in length, must include c-span programming, and the topic is your view on the constitution. for more information, go to studentcam.org. we will be right back. ♪

>> william jennings bryant, one of the best known speakers of his time, the first politician to campaign from the backs of railroad cars and automobiles. he ran for president three times and lost, but he changed american history. friday, 8:00 earth -- 8:00 eastern, learn more. >> this past weekend marked the passing of another former senator. 1967 through 1985, charles percy served three terms as the republican senator from illinois. a moderate, he unsuccessfully proposed the legislation for homeownership low income and cost housing.

he was also an independent prosecutor following the watergate break-in. watches c-span appearances online at at the c-span library. >> we cover politics, nonfiction, government affairs. look for congress to continue funding for recent natural disasters and a plan to lower the debt. follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it is all available to you on radio, online, and social media sites. search and watch at any time. and we are on the road, bringing resources to local communities, showing events from around the country. the c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are back with congressman rob andrews, joining us from philadelphia this morning. let me begin with where we left off with our viewers, asking them about the article from open quote the baltimore sun," and the headline. what do you think? guest: is accurate and welcome. senator mitch mcconnell said it on election night of 2008. that every day his agenda would be to defeat the president by and hit the next election. i was disappointed in seeing that. i think that politicians should work toward improving the country. challenging republicans to get moving, joining amongst new plans, i welcome it. i think that the american people do as well.

host: are you concerned that the president did not go big, as some have said, on entitlement programs? this is "the new york times," on medicare -- f. guest: then your only telling half of the story. the president signed into law $500 billion in spending restraint on medicare. if you add these savings, he will achieve $1 trillion in savings, which, by the way, his critics in the republicans added to that.

if you want to keep score, this administration, if this program is enacted, will have achieved $4 trillion in spending restraint. the other side that criticizes, they have added $400 billion. host: why not include social security? caller: -- guest: because it is part of the solution to the deficit, not the problem. social security is not in surplus. but it has been used to reduce the overall budget surplus. to hold those recipients accountable for fixing the deficit problem is on what is. the president made a choice. he could reduce the social security benefits for people, many of whom have only social

security. or he could ask for more to reduce the deficit. they argue that the right choice is to reduce social security, but we reject that. we do not think that it is fair or right. host: some people have said that the president should go big. this is from "the washington post." "the decision to -- guest: i disagree with the premise that it never would have been spent. there is a long tradition in defense spending to assume that there is a peace dividend and

some kind of reduction to never have it materialize. with all due respect to the critics of that decision, we are spending $10 billion per month in iraq and afghanistan. the president has chosen to stop doing that as soon as we can. i agree with that decision. listen, i think that there could have been a bit more of a robust quality to the plan, but the reality is that the president has proposed a $4 trillion reduction in our deficit if you count the $4 trillion that he already signed into law in august. those that are criticizing him have to vote for what they would do instead. there option, the republican medicare proposal, approved by the republicans, putting an end to medicare for people 55 and under, it is a terrible option

in my opinion, and not what i think people should do. the president, for every $1 in revenue increases, there are $2 in spending reduction, which is the right formula. for those that would criticize it, i would say -- tell me what you would do. host: tax increases. the president and the white house says that they want to tax and go after people with capital gains, etc.. this is from "the wall street journal," yesterday --

guest: i think that the numbers are really indisputable, they come from the [unintelligible] here. the changes the president proposed on people making more than $1 million per year are substantial one thing that people need to understand and remember, 90% of the income growth in america has gone to 5% of the people in america. five people got $93.

the other people got -- the other 93 people about $7. that group that got the income gain is being asked to pay a moderate amount more to stop are running from the chinese to pay our government. i think that that is a smart, logical way to go about this. host: let's show the viewers what the speaker had to say yesterday. host: congressman, what happens next, if both sides have laid down buffers? president obama saying that he will veto anything that does not

include taxes, and republicans not voting for anything with a tax increase? guest: there will be a compromise. remember the august law that was passed? housing a provision that said if there was no agreement from the new committee, there were automatic cuts to the new defense budget? frankly, i am troubled that these cuts are too large. certainly, many republicans feel the same way. i feel that the disincentive in the law, to say that if nothing happens, these major defense cuts happen, it will drive a lot of republicans toward some kind of reasonable compromise. the other thing that will drive them for this compromise is --

how can they explain to their constituents back home that the economy is really hurting? when people are looking for work and we are filing 40% of every dollar that we spend towards creditors, how can they explain to their constituents that they do not favor a jobs plan to put people back to work, and that they do not favor a plan with the wealthiest americans, where the wealthiest americans do not pay more out of their income to reduce the deficit. i think that there is significant public support for both of these ideas. i think that any house member or senator the judge rejects those ideas is going to face a lot of criticism, justifiably. host: rob andrews, joining us from philadelphia this morning.

rick, republican line. caller: the national taxpayers union takes into account these amounts. how do you explain the rating of f that you gave? guest: i do not vote for tax breaks for wealthy people, or dramatic cuts in health care research. i do not follow a trickle-down economic theory that has not worked well for the country. host: bees, the democratic column, chicago. -- democratic caller, chicago. caller: there has never been a time in history like this, where we are fighting two wars. they are hoarding money, these

kinds of people. they talk about jobs, especially in ohio, they talk about jobs only for ohio. when it won in the auto industry to fail, the same thing could happen all long time ago with the green and energy jobs at that president try. that put solyndra out there. if the president had done what the republicans wanted to do, the auto industry would have failed. and then they want to help us pay for that two wars that the republicans have put on us when obama came into the office. do the right thing. host: here is the fact check peace from the associated press.

the wealthiest pay a lot more. congressman? guest: let me say this. i think that wealthy people pay more than their fair share in many places. i am not really happy about seeing any constituent pay more taxes. i wish everyone could pay lower. here's the stark reality that we have. we are borrowing 40% of the money that we spend. we have already passed into law

$1 trillion in spending cuts that cuts just about every program by 5% over the next number of years. the president has proposed reducing in restraining medicare and medicaid outlays, not benefits, by another $400 billion. we're cutting the defense budget. defense and health care is being cut, other programs being cut -- you not think it is fair and reasonable that in addition to these cuts, there is a modest increase in the taxes paid by people earning more than $1 million a year? if there is going to be shared sacrifice, then they share -- and the sharing has to be done more broadly, that is the president's point. i do understand how anyone can take a position that a special class of americans making more than $1 million a year are exempted from that extra sacrifice. i do not think anyone is exempted.

caller: i thank you this morning. i want to say that i really enjoyed hearing congressman and comments.ndrews' anytime the president speaks and says what he plans to do, he lays out a comprehensive, realistic plan and immediately we get this drum beat of republican and right-wing criticism and commentary. i do not think it is fair to the public. i think the man should be allowed to air his views and to let people know what his plans are. and i will say this and i will shut up. how cannot count the savings of the withdrawal of troops toward the debt reduction? it does not make sense. every time the "wall street journal" and these other rags' come out with their commentary,

it does not make sense. it lets me know that people have their own vested interest and they are going to proceed their motives. host: congressman? guest: the president is really rocking the boat with this proposal. every lobbyist in washington has something to complain about. the defense companies do not like the getting out of iraq and afghanistan in many ways. many do not like the program cuts. certainly the supporters of the multi millionaires and american do not like his plan. i think the american people are really ready for the boat to be rocked. their understanding that just plodding along with the status quo is something that they do not want. i am sure the president stepped on a lot of toes with this plan, but it is long since time some toes got stepped on. that is why you going to see -- you're going to see growing

public support for the president's plan. host: from pennsylvania, is that right? caller: yes, good morning. i have a question. how much of our tax dollars remain in our own country, even for military purchasing of arms and materials and things like that? guest: not nearly enough. the estimate i would give you is about 90%. most of what the government buys must be manufactured and made in the united states, but i would like to see at 100%. 10% of what we spend is, my goodness, it is almost good -- $350 billion of foreign governments and -- goods and services that we are purchasing. host: we will go to the republican line.

up? comment for the congressman. caller: do you not feel that the -- and i'm speaking of that democrat, the republican party is -- is running the country for profit? they are running away and they do not want to pay the bills. not for profit is for everybody. it is a business that provides [unintelligible] running it like the business is like screw you, the customer, and screw you, the employee myriad i do not understand why people do not get it. what obama is trying to do is denied both the republican party and the democrats, because right

now, america is hurting. guest: i think the republican party is tone death to the middle class. i think they are pursuing an agenda is -- that says if you are very well-off, you're going to do better. if you're in the bottom, you're going to get scraps. if if you are in the middle class, you're going to pay the bills. the middle class has been paying the bills for a long time and it is eroding. i am afraid we are heading toward a day where we have very wealthy americans and very poor americans and nobody in between. if you cannot keep borrowing 40% of what you spend. the president has laid out a plan to reduce debt and with spending cuts, to require that wealthiest americans, those getting more than $1 million a year, the fate -- to pay their share share. the republicans are uncomfortable with idea because they have been pursuing a plan that benefits that the people to the detriment of the middle-

class. host: congressman, here is an e- mail from seattle. what do you think? up until yesterday, i guess, was the president losing confidence among voters? guest: i think anyone will lose confidence when you have 50 percent effective unemployment. but i will say this to the e- mailer. when you stand for something and you are willing to not compromise and your principles, i think you generate more support, not less. and the president has tried in good faith to compromise on a

lot of things with the republican leadership. but he had senator mcconnell saying our goal is to defeat the president. he had speaker boehner out of hand rejecting any kind of revenue increase. and i think the time has come for the president to exert strength, to draw a line, which he has done, and say that he will not sign a plan that does not include more contributions from the wealthiest americans making more than $1 million a year. i think that shows strength and will bolster his standing among the american people and i welcome it. host: lee, a republican from louisiana. what do you think? caller: all like this representative to say point by point how this bill is going to generate any jobs. i do not want him to go skirting around and all this about something else. i want him to explain to the

people how this bill is going to generate jobs. host: let's get a response from the congressman. guest: that is really the question of the day. it would generate jobs by putting people back to work by building schools and dams and roads and bridges that we really need. it will say to small business, if you hire someone who is bent out of work for more than six months, we will cut your taxes. it will pit people back to work by saying that middle-class families, people making $50,000 a year is, your taxes will be $1,500 lower than next year so you can buy more goods and services. it will give states and cities money to bring back teachers in the classroom that they would have to have to lay off because of the economic conditions. and the bill will put people back to work are reducing our

deficit, and i think holding mortgage rates and car loan rates and other rates lower, so it is easier for americans to buy cars and houses and remodel their kitchens and do the things that they do when they borrow money. if you put all those things together, you get economic growth and jobs. i think we need to support it. host: couple hundred $47 billion jobs proposal that the president put out last week, that you were just talking about, is that a stimulus package? guest: i think that is a phrase that people do not like any more. technically, yes, it helps demand which is the major problem of the economy right now. but it is an investment plan for jobs in the private sector right now and that is what i hear people say that they want. and i will say again to the president's critics, what would they do instead? the easiest thing to do in politics is to criticize

someone else is planned. leadership means stepping forward with year-round plan. the president has done that and i think the republicans need to put his plan up for a vote. if they are for it, they should vote for it. if they are against it, say why they are against it and amended in traffic said. but what they should not do is what they are going to do this friday, go on vacation. we're going back to washington this afternoon, tuesday afternoon, and we are going to do one hour of work today and a little bit on wednesday, a little on thursday and friday, and then we will leave on friday. i don't think the american people can stand that. i think we should stay and obviously paid deference to the jewish holidays that are coming out, not work on those days, and let people have a chance to see their families. but i think we should stay in session in get to work.

host: san bernardino, california, a democratic caller, you're next. guest: you are up early. host: yes, she is. i'm going to put you on hold to put the television down. in york, katrina. caller: nto get right to the point, every time i hear that social security should be saved, i do not to understand why on the health care plan the president passed, he took $500 billion out of it. how're you going to save it if you took money away from that already? that is a lie right there. guest: what we did in the health care bill was to reduce money that was paid to some insurance companies they were overcharging

medicare, about $250 billion worth. we took some money from medical equipment suppliers and others in that field, who i think for charging too much. we took $495 million of that and did not produce any benefits to in the medicare beneficiaries anywhere in the country. we took most of that money and put it in the closing the so- called doh not hold in that prescription drugs. -- doughnut houle in prescription jdrugs. yes, we took medicare money, but we took it away from health insurance companies that were overcharging the public and took away from some of these wheelchair vendors selling will chairs a people who do not really need them. and the result was no customer benefits to beneficiaries. there are ways to take money out

of medicare without reducing benefits to beneficiaries. the president is proposing more of that in this plan and i think it is reasonable. host: from twitter. is there going to have to be another stimulus and a year, and other words? guest: i hope there is not. you would hope that the tax cuts for small businesses and families, the construction workers going back to work, you would start to spend more money in the economy that generates more tax revenue for states and school districts, and the revenue would be there to keep those teachers and firefighters and police employed. i hope that in a year it would not be necessary to go back to the well again. host: we will go back to san bernadine of, california and the democratic collar. caller: how are you?

host: question or comment for the congressman? caller: i don't understand what they will not give the president time to implement his plan so that things can work out. he has only been in office a few years. you have to give him time. we just need to give him that opportunity to show us that he can do what he is saying that he is going to do for us. guest: i agree with that. i also think we need to give the american people a chance to go back to work and that is what this is really about. host: congressman, with unemployment above 9% and people with long-term unemployment that have been looking for a job more than a year, how much more time can voters give the president to solve this? that caller said give him time. many folks out there are saying

he has had enough time. guest: he needs more than time. he needs votes from both sides of the gal to pass his plan. i've heard from republicans and democrats for years that we ought to cut taxes for small businesses that create jobs. that is in the plant. i have heard from republicans and democrats that we ought to put people back to work rebuilding dams and ports and roads and bridges. that is in the plan. i've heard from republicans and democrats for years that we should lower taxes on middle- class families of that taken by more. that is in the plan. -- so that they can buy more. that is in the plant. who simply wants to posture for the next election? at the very least, greta, at the very least the republicans should put the president's plan up for a vote. and if they are not for it, vote no. if they think they can improve it, try to amend it.

he made the proposal, i think it was two weeks ago, and we have not had a vote yet. we've not had a hearing yet. the republican plan for friday is to go home for 10 days. that is 10 more days of people looking at monster.com and sending off another resume. i fully respect the religious holidays coming up and we need to observe them and take time off for that, but that does not require 10 days. for republicans to leave town when that is happening is the wrong thing to do. host: from baltimore, what is your question or comment? caller: what is he doing personally to save money? is he going to trim some of his salary? everybody would be voted back and if they will go and work for free.

they are supposed to be working for us. guest: a survey was done of office budget spending and we were one of the lowest spending offices in the country. we return more money to the treasury last year than almost anybody else in the country. we are on track to do the same this year. we reduced our spending and office budget on an order of magnitude of 10% or 50% because we believe we should lead by example. host: here is another tweak, congressman. -- tweet. guest: well, if you do it recklessly, that is all true. there are ways to avoid doing this and let me give you an example. we continue to pay for motorized wheelchair is for people in the medicare program who may not

need them. one of the problem -- proposals would be more medical diagnoses, to require doctors to say that they need that care before they get one. that would not impair the quality of care for people who truly need that. another idea is to promote wellness among seniors, to try to get more diabetics and the programs were they check their blood sugar regularly, so they do not have a stroke. it saves money at the back end. the president has proposed meaningful but modest savings in medicare and medicaid that i think can be accomplished without the very real risk that the caller mentioned. host: we go to ron who is a democratic collar in michigan. caller: i really get upset when people say that the working people do not pay taxes. guest: how about that?

caller: if they could look at my paycheck, and those funds were used somewhere else, and social security is then cut back on our retirement, then they could only be construed as a tax. grover norquist should address that fact. guest: and let's get this straight, and the comment you are making is absolutely true, i have heard again and again and again at the bottom 50% pay no taxes in america. that is false. that is false. someone making $30,000 a year is paying out of their own share about $2,100 in medicare and social security taxes, and their employer is matching that, which comes out of their wages as well. someone making $30,000 a year is paying about $4,200 out of their

income to the federal government. people understand them. so when people say that modest income people are not paying taxes, they are not telling the truth. host: steve is next, a republican in florida. caller: i have a plan for congress. why don't they take 3% of all the social security paychecks that they send out, 3% of all military paychecks, 3% of all the federal and state employee paychecks out, and just cut it. 3%, knowing gets hurt. the comments -- are you listening to how angry that these people are every day that congress? everyday i watch c-span and i hear people that are very angry and hungry -- that congress. guest: i am listening not just to c-span but to my own

constituents. i have public taught the 1500 of my constituents this weekend personally. -- i have talked to 1500 of my constituents this week and personally. on your 3% idea, i do not agree with that. 83% cut in pay to a soldier or a social security recipient would hurt them a lot. -- a 3% cut in pay to a soldier or a social security recipient would hurt them a lot. we should get out of iraq and afghanistan and save that money. i think we should make modest reductions in federal programs like medicare and medicaid in a way that does not cut benefits. and i think that we should say to those making more than $1 million a year that they should pay a bit more as a contribution to reducing the deficit. i think that is a better way than reducing social security benefits or paying the troops.

host: ohio, you are on the air with congressman rob andrews. caller: first of all, why has the social security and disability -- and i'm on disability not due to my actions, but i have not had a raise in three years. i have only been on it quite sure years. when i live on $802 a month, and acting, with $16 a year to pay for my property tax -- $6,000 a year to pay my property taxes, and why are we being picked on when the money cannot go back into it? do you know what i'm saying? guest: i do not think that we should pick on you. the collared that just called in

said that we should reduce what you're getting by 3%. i do not agree with that. i think we should look at the cost of living formula -- i do not think that cost-of-living formula reflects your true cost of living. that is why you have not gotten an increase in the last two years. -- three years. we need to reflect the true price of gas and groceries and insurance. host: a democrat in canton, ill.. caller: i have been the financial consultant for my life. and i am a strong democrat and i am appalled at the democratic party thinks that by taxing the rich, people out there, where do you think that the rich people are going to make up the difference? if you think they are going to pay this and smile, they will pass it on to the consumers and businesses that they own. this is just a circumvented

democratic tax on the poor through a smokescreen by taxing the rich. the rich people are not going to sit still and hand over their money to the government and we are happy to do this. they are going to pass it on to the consumer. all your consumer goods that these people are behind, they will raise the prices. and i am appalled that people out there are stupid enough to start a class war thinking that this is the answer to solving the problems. the first emulous was a bust. according to the "wall street journal, plus " for every job created in california, a costa hundred and $86,000. -- $186,000. cut that deficit and start creating jobs. guest: the gentleman makes the

point that i've heard a lot and i take him seriously but i say this to him with all the due respect. that is the same argument we heard in 1993 when president clinton proposed a plan that restrain spending but also had a modest tax increase on the wealthiest americans at that time. this was exactly the argument made against that plan. what happened? the deficit fell, the economy roared back, the economy created 23 million new jobs because a lower deficit led to capital formation and economic growth. i do not relish the fact that anybody pays more in taxes. i am not for that if we can avoid it. but when we are borrowing 40% of what we spend and the choices keep borrowing it, which is not tenable choice, if close the deficit by massive cuts in medicare or social security,

health, education, transportation, which i do not think make sense, for a balanced spending cut and a small increase in contribution for the wealthiest, i am for the third option. it reflects what clinton did in 1993 and it worked. i think it can work again here. host: an independent in new york. good morning. caller: i have got an idea. i love -- i live up in st. lawrence county, new york. guest: it is called up there. really cold. caller: it is not that bad. i am a farm boy. i am on social security now and i'm used to that weather. in st. lawrence county, there are house taxes and all of that and now they are going for the sales tax. it is going up a penny or more.

and they put a lot of that on their pay raises. we have got a local public defender that makes $88,000 a year and a judge making almost $250,000 a year. how come they are getting the pay raises for the county, taking it off the federal, and white of the social security people get raises question marks guest: -- raises? guest: because the cost of living formula is broken. congress has not gotten a raise in four years and i think that that is appropriate. host: head is a republican in lawrenceville, georgia. caller: tell the middle class workers that the private insurance is going to go up 20%,

even though they are already paying for medicaid, and they will pay for medicaid. you're saying you're for the middle class but you're going to suck them dry, and obama and you are nothing but blood suckers. guest: i certainly disagree with that. passions are running high, i understand that, and frustrations are running high. i think the name calling ought to stop. he can call me in the name that he wants but he should not say that about the president of the united states. people who feel passionately about an issue have a responsibility to speak respectfully about the president of united states. we have a great country and it is great that people can call and express their views in that way. i hope we always live in a country where we can do that. host: thank you for joining us. we apologize for the name calling. we like have a civil discussion.

guest: it is part of what happens. we can call each other names are we can work together. host: thank you, sir. coming up in 45 minutes, we turn our attention to battling the insurgency in afghanistan. we will talk to our reporter who just returned from the country. but up next, california republican darrell issa is our next guest. we want to let you know about all three c-span network. if you want to know what is airing, go to twitter and follow us by going to @cspannow, and it followed to get all of the schedule of dates every hour you can also follow us here on the journal at @cspanwj.

>> an update on guantanamo bay. attorney general eric holder speaking earlier at the unitarian parliament says that the obama administration will do its utmost to close the u.s. prison at guantanamo bay ahead of next year's presidential election, despite political opposition. and if it fails to close ahead of the election, it will continue to press ahead if it continues to win the 2010 presidential vote. meanwhile, rick perry has said he was happy the u.s. presidents -- present in guantanamo bay has been kept open. more on a new book about the white house. austin nichols be in an appearance today on "the early show" is backing to deny all that says treasury secretary to tim geithner ignored president obama is ordered to consider dissolving citibank. goolsbee called it

factually wrong and ridiculous. mr. sestak and says that his book -- suskind says that he stands behind his book. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is our question in this year's studentcam competition during make a video documentary five-eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you and why. include more than one point of view and video of c-span programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there's $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> william jennings bryan, one of the best known speakers of this time in the first politician to campaign from the

back of trocars and automobiles. he ran for president three-time and lost but changed political history. is one of the 14 men featured in our new series to the contenders'." live from his home in lincoln, neb., learn more about the series and our upcoming programming at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back at our table this morning, congressman darrell issa, republican of california and chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee. we will begin with postal reform. as part of their deficit reduction plan, the white house included a proposal for the postal service ending the six- day delivery in going to five days. your quick reaction to that. guest: it doesn't belong

connected to the budget in any way, shape, or form. the $10 billion loss this year is because of a failure to make reform and right size their work force. host: they also outline a plan to return $6.9 billion in overpayments that have occurred in the federal employees retirement service back to the postal service. guest: the president's own accounting showed no overpayment. it was mandated in order to ensure that the postal system had all the reserves necessary for their own health care of retired health care and for their own national retirements. this agency that it did under pace now, and it will clearly continue to shrink, we will be on the hooks for hundreds of billions of dollars of payments

that they should be making today. host: the a tw you, the union for postal workers. guest: there are so many postal worker unions, we do not have enough time. host: then we will begin with this one. the president has said that no other federal agency -- guest: that is just disingenuous private firms all pre-fund. you would not be willing to be in a pension plan that was essentially paying later if we stay in business. more importantly, he is right, this is the only agency to do this because this agency gains its own revenue, said his own benefits, and current benefits are higher than the rest of the federal work force. this agency wants that independence and we want them to have it. the post office is in fact a business unit. it is a $65 billion business

unit that is not making a profit primarily because they have not made the changes that they need and how they do business and how many people work there. they cannot make a profit or that they are paid too much, but they're just too many postal workers and they know it. host: the administration would temporarily for give payments for the next two years, setting another $10 billion for the postal service. guest: they are not saving anything. that takes the can down the road. we should not sweep this problem under the rubric the postal service is making $65 billion and losing $10 billion because they are not able to make a profit, including paying into their own health care. simply having them not pay into their own health care would be like that passing medicare payments or social security payments and assuming that that takes care of the problem. host: you have your own bill to

solve this problem. guest: we expect the market up on the 22nd, and then in the full committee. it will be on the floor shortly after that. ours is a reform strategy. it is a business turnaround. it makes the assumption that we want to treat the employees of the employee system -- the postal service fairly, but not keep workers that are not needed. the five-day rule system, the post office used to be seven days a week and twice a day monday through friday. this is not the first time there has been a cutback because it is no longer as needed. and it only saves $3.1 billion or less. the postal workers themselves scored less than $2 billion. it is not the solution alone. even that, if you do not change the number of workers coming you save nothing. host: the ranking republican

from maine on the committee had this to say about cutting back. >> the postal service's plan to move to a five-day delivery is not without significant downside. it would harm many businesses unless the postal service can mitigate the impact. it would force industries ranging from home delivery medication companies, to weekly newspapers, to seriously consider other options. and once these private firms leave the postal service behind, they will not be coming back. and the postal service will suffer yet another blow to its financing. host: she disagrees with you. guest: no, she wants to maintain

the status quo. i call what she is doing as a bailout. she is not wrong that every single reduction in service will in fact affect someone. it will. she stretches the point beyond reasonable about medicine. if you need medicine delivered on saturday, you're going to use the special express mail and not hope that it arrives on a saturday in the normal two-three day delivery that normally happens. and are offered solutions are temporary. the president's solutions are temporary. they are designed to get three years of losing money but still in denial. quite frankly, we have to be the united states of america and reset this agency to make money the way it was supposed to end can, or we are greece and be in denial about too many workers. i do not mandate going from six days to five days. we have savings if they continue

to do to choose six-day delivery and they can make other changes. let me tell you something to your viewers. 109 million homes in america have a box that they walk out of their housing go down there street or to their curb and they get their mail. about 37 million have it delivered to their shoot. if you are delivered to the chute, you are part of the $5 billion cost. meaning, we could save more money by simply having people go to a common mailbox rather than someone walking all the way up to the door. that change alone saves more than all the other proposals people are talking about. that is the kind of thinking the post office has to have. host: here's what the post office says about your proposal.

the president pointed out that this hearing is costing more in tax dollars than the postal service is from tax dollars. guest: that is not true. the postal service is a few million dollars which i would like to win. and the postmaster general has said stop giving us the dollars. we will take care of those items. let us run on our post office and a profitable way. congress mandates six-day delivery or it would been done away with years ago. i had a few million dollar budget and i choose to use it to push the reforms i think are appropriate. nothing wrong with that. but if you go to our website for

the oversight committee, you will find a little tile activity where you can decide what you want to cut. based on independent cbo scoring, you will see how much you will say. people find that they go there and that figure of how to save $10 billion and that fairly quickly start looking at things that makes sense to them. we are scoring that, because quite frankly, we want to know what the priorities are of people that will go to that. i suggest that all the union workers for all the various unions can go there and figure out how to save $10 billion out of a whole group of options. host: another topic to talk about. guest: there is nothing more important in the post office this morning but i will let you drip off. -- draft off. host: solyndra is back in the

news today. and then we saw the story from the few wall street journal", michael turner of ohio asking your committee to look into light squared, another so our company. host: we agreed to look at this -- we are not the committee determining whether solar or hydro electric car when, but we're looking and realizing that starting in the bush administration, although was turned down and brought to life under the obama administration, there is and this attitude that government can weigh in with loan guarantees and pick specific winners or losers. we see that as a backdoor easy way to end up with corruption in government because people picking winners and losers in olyndra, includes

henry waxman, and large bond lawyers for the president. you look at that and say, hold it. this is another reason that crony capitalism, getting involved in government using its powers to pick winning companies in a capitalist system, is dangerous. they are going to pick winners that ideologically or because they support their candidacy, they want to see when. host: are you investigating it? guest: yes, but not to look at what are two companies. we're looking at the system and the possibility that this is an on fixable program, that you cannot have politicians, people who have quite frankly the need to raise money to win elections or the people that work for them, you cannot have them selecting winners and losers. in that place of the president's people and henry waxman, there were people who saw a link

between their ideological events and these companies. host: and news corp., rupert murdoch's company, calls for you to look into the phone hacking scandal. you were on fox and this is being looked at the justice department. this is being looked at by the senate. but the story is about another unit in another country. it is inappropriate for us to start picking on the media. response said that in never precluded -- guest: 10 left-wing bloc wants to make a ", that's fine. will take it on its merits. there is no credible allegation of any wrongdoing by any american unit. the justice department, no friend of rupert murdoch and what -- and fox news, is

investigating. the democratically-controlled senate is investigating are we staying aware of this? absolutely. but you mentioned tax payers resources. if they do not have any kind of smoking gun or on the record credible allegation, in fact i have a web to blame blog -- i have a left-wing blog that says i should listen to one of my not -- one of a minority members demanding that i do it. we have to look at the evidence that comes along. what i said and is extremely important to your listeners and to c-span and anyone involved in journalism, we take very seriously looking behind the door of journalistic practices. we have to be very, very careful. there is wrongdoing, we have to get to it, but we cannot simply say, were you getting links -- leaks from inside the

administration? that is illegal. you can see how they can do great investigation. if they employ wiretaps or practices the way that they did in europe, this will be investigated by the justice department. host: but that was brought up, the 9/11 victims was not as a foreign matter. guest: you can read the left- wing blog. this is one blog. criminal investigators are looking to see if there is any merit to it. we're happy for them to find out fairly quickly if there is. that is fine. but i am investigating the justice department to put deadly weapons in the hands of mexican cartels and they are turning their nose up and say they will not deliver our subpoenas. when the justice department wants to do something, let them do it. when they do not want to do something not -- like not even

prosecute the related murders of the people that led to brian terry being gunned down in arizona, then that is where our priority has to be. my job is to prioritize. this is perfectly good to monitor and see what happens. i intend to. but i am not going to go off faxing bashing -- bashin g fox because some left-wing blog wants us to. we're watching the justice department to make sure they do a full investigation. but i want to make sure that what the justice department did wrong that led to the death of a border patrol agent is properly investigated. i want to see that when the president and his cronies are picking winners and losers in the private market, in this case, in the solar panel matter, that it was not because there were large contributions given to them.

and this is not partisan. every chairman has to make this decision. over in the senate, they have made the choice to investigate one thing. senator leahy is a friend of mine but he has completely ignored brian terry's debt. he is left senators to twist in the win without any cooperation. we're referring to a fast and furious. they want to say that it is just an operation even though it led to 2500 deadly weapons and the hand of drug cartels. host: we want to talk about regulations as well. we will show our viewers what henry waxman had to say, who was our guest last week. areas on the house and the regulation efforts. >> the republicans do not have regulations of any sort. they call regulations job killers. they got it from their spin masters.

but these regulations are some much more beneficial than the cost. they had to go to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis at the epa and at the office of management and budget. when we stopped mercury pollution from the old power plants, it can cause people to die and could cause those who live learning disabilities. there is of tremendous public- health price that we pay. you would think from the republicans that the only cost of regulations are the cost to comply with them. but there are many more multiples of the cost of getting the job done. they want to repeal the regulations like the clean air act, they would like to repeal the protection of the environment. if the government does not insist that industry to what is necessary to protect the public from pollution from the sources that they control, no one is

going to do it. host: what did you hear there? guest: i heard henry waxman who live serve with second congress, he never found their regulation he did not like. he is out of step with the president. the president has found 500 regulations that they need to change. they made the decision to back off on the ozone standards. the president is beginning to realize that excess regulation, or the uncertainty of regulations coming out of nowhere quickly, are causing investors not to make investments in america. is henry waxman wrong? yes. do we need the safeguards to make sure we do not roll back the standards for clean air and clean water that have made our air and water better and safer? of course we have to protect those. but when you look, there are many shortcuts where there is a

requirement for more public comment for a waiting the costs and benefits and it has been bypassed. we agree with the president and not so much henry waxman. host: frank is a republican from new jersey. you are on the air with darrell issa. caller: of want to know something about the fast and furious program. guest: is there a specific question? caller: i know from watching you and the hearing that you are a no bs died. you will make sure that this investigation gets done completely and thoroughly. because of these bats and the road operators, i hear from them because i am a gun owner in this country.

when and if you find out how high and how far it went up, are you going to prosecute the people involved with this? guest: except for the word prosecute, i win with you. we will expose and see that they are prosecuted. we are following this to find that every place the system should have said stop, do not do this breaking down. when we get to the last and highest, we need to make sure that there are assurances and the system that this never happen again. i am a republican so i used the example of a iran-contras. there should have been people saying stop, do not do this long before falling north was able to launch this program and control of four months. this was the same thing. this was a dumb idea, ill- conceived, but the question is why. why did someone bypass the normal safeguards and let it continue?

i and senator grassley want to know and the mexican attorney general want to know -- he is dealing with the fact that he was never fully briefed. he does not understand why she -- she does not understand why we would do this to her country. she is dealing with crime scenes were many people were murdered as a result of these weapons. -- where many people were murdered as a result of these weapons. caller: while a member of congress, while in the majority, did you ever try to initiate in the investigation against the interest of dick cheney and george bush, against halliburton? any oil and energy interests that they have? guest: i am glad you asked that. when we were under the majority, when i was a subcommittee chairman, i began a investigation into mineral management service, a dysfunctional organization that included partying with

lobbyists, doing alcohol -- alcohol and illicit drugs, showing that they were not protecting us in the gulf and they could not even account for the money. we were pushing with these ig and against this administration strongly that they needed to fix this organization several years before the tragedy and the call. not only was i investigating and pushing, but i am as frustrated as many are that you cannot put the reforms you need to predict -- prevent disasters when you had that government. you're absolutely right. i led the push to deal with that the old leases in the gulf that led to a great many oil and natural gas companies paying little or no tax even as the price skyrocketed. when we were in the majority, well before the tragedy. host: cleveland, ohio. guest: alice the weather in my home town?

caller: a little ready. i am wondering why no one looks at tariffs for foreign countries. we have solar panels where the government is stacking the deck against american companies, but we stack them against all american companies when we allow them to bring in goods. jobs would go through the roof with a huge tariff on anything coming in. guest: you are absolutely right. i saw that all the steel and rubber working. those jobs to a great extent have been reduced or eliminated. in free trade, we tried to get a no barrier/no barrier. but when we do not have freed trade, and we have no barriers and they have a lot of barriers, we get no good reaction. i believe they getting into no- barrier/no-carrier is a good deal.

i think that is one of the factors that has missed in the whole discussion. those of us who want free trade should demand that if we are not getting it quickly, we need to raise our barriers to match countries that are in fact closed to fair import in the areas where we are productive and able to compete, and whether whether that is boeing aircraft or financial-services or things being produced in my home state of cleveland, ohio. host: a chance to respond to this headline from cbs news. guest: the association -- first

of all, it is not only frivolous. it is one of those things where a blog was set out to send -- and make allegations and try to get them implanted in newspapers. even after the "new york times costco had to correct false statements, they still do something to lead something to the outside counsel. this is just a summary. goldman sachs, apparel and our relationship was that i had a mutual fund. merrill lynch, my association is i have a brokerage account there. understand, i came to congress having done well in business, having sold holdings. my foundation on some stock in it. i had no monetary benefit at all. they made these allegations -- that s. feinberg i welcome the allegations. i'm considering to ask them to

go to the ethics committee to consider. have they done anything wrong? i am sure there is a typo on an injury somewhere, as far as rigid on and in trees somewhere, as far stockholdings. i do not own any individual corporations. i only hold mutual funds. if they are from goldman sachs are merrill lynch or black rocks or any of these others, that does not make me an investor in them. it additionally they had made allegations i have involvement with toyota. i of the connection is some of the products i made ended up being installed in the toyota. i was never a direct vendor to them and got any money from them. you make these allegations come and that does not make it true. i think this is a wonderful destruction. we have an ethics system.

i expect the ethics board to do their job, and i welcome it, but -- host: do you know if they are looking into it? guest: office of congressional ethics looks it to everyone. it is something that was created under nancy pelosi that i think she regrets because as the safeguards. the fact is i have done nothing ethically wrong. at-sphere? yes. they have had to correct it. they make allegations that are simply not true. host: have you talked to anyone of the ethics commission? guest: that would be none of anyone's business. i am considering to be asked to move -- the ethics committee is supposed to do the evaluation privately and fully, because we

have that for a good reason, and the reason is simply anyone can make an acquisition -- accusations. this left-wing group that did it is a known supporter of everything that i am on the other side of it. they're not making it with clean hands, and they're making a based on allegations that literally they were part of the organization that greeted the allegations. just as you create applications and did repeat them does not make them true. host: dan republican and tennessee. welcome to the conversation. caller: i think you should take that as a badge of courage that the left wing is trying to disparage you. i would like for you to look into the company that was invaded by the justice department, only because the republican owner was doing what of other good car makers are doing, but the democrats are not looking get to the democratic

voters. i hope you will look into the case where they show up the door and say i am a failed black farmer. there is so much chicago politics coming out of this white house. i hope you will find who tried to persuade the general to perjure himself. guest: i will go through certainly in reverse order. the pigford situation is one where we paid out more people that ever existed. that is concerning. when there is a bus accident in you get 75 claims out of 35 passengers, that is concerning. we are concerned there are too many people far beyond those that could have been properly impacted. that is a problem with the government starts handing out money. this is a situation where you do have to take the opportunity.

when my company that i sold 11 years ago was resold, this the car company was the other bidder. my foundation owned a little stock, i watched it come in two years later they were rated. i have to tell you that is one where i have looked and said we need to make sure it is properly investigated, and i need to humorously save the owners are republicans and made a bid on a company that i founded many years ago, and yes, i want to make sure no one questions whether i am doing this because they were a bitter in the company. of the other hand, i hope they did not have this raid because they did on my company. host: how do you balance that? you have been noted as one of the wealthiest members of congress. how do you balance what you did in the past with what you're trying to do now?

guest: first of all, what you do is you change. when i was a businessman i was hands-on, that was my style before i ever sold or gave to congress i made the decision to put the company up for sale. i was still running it until the day i was sworn in, but i made the disconnect of never being a operational manager. most board meetings i did over the phone, and when something else came up, i said goodbye. i left the board with the company was resold because i thought it got all the transfer of knowledge there court to get from me. i will miss it. i miss hearing directly will: -- what is going on directly in the company, company see in government does not. i made a decision. we did not own any individual stock.

the charitable giving is through the foundation. mutual funds are all widely held. i take the advice of a brokerage company. the only individual assets i arm are pieces of real estate. we by real-estate that has already been built, and we do not do any development. all the other hand, if i had a choice of being in parker's or having a couple hundred millions of dollars in the bank. i will do what i have to to stay clear of any regulatory questions. host: it is the way they are written, and not as many as there are. guest: we have about 4000 in the pipeline right now. if you are in almost any business, one or 10 or 100 of those could potentially be

affecting you. it is the reason there has been a growth and trade associations to lobby on the regulations. i think the question is very appropriate. it is a combination of volume, but it is also the loosely- written regulations. for example, we of one that is affecting livestock where congress had an amendment to deal with this regulation and voted it down, and now, because the law did not prohibit it, agencies are looking up crooked -- putting this regulation in. you say if we voted it down, we should be implicit that congress acted and active not to do it, rather that thought about it, failed to act it did not have the vote and now will not let the regulators to a later. this has to be more heavily scrutinized. >> bill is next in massachusetts. caller: good morning.

did he have a bossy took the fall for? -- have a boss he took the fall for? guest: that was a situation of the white house that tried to deal with real hostages and freedom fighters in south america. in my opinion it broke the law and a lot of things wrong and embarrassed as in front of the iranians. now we have a situation in which all the way up to the top areas of the justice department come as early as far as others who have had their fingers on this, they made a decision to let 2500 weapons walk, including 37 9 millimeter striker rifles, things that can kill at 4 miles, walk into the hands of the drug cartel. they have been found it 200

scenes. they killed brian carry. you look and say someone has to tell us what they really thought this was for, because this program would never work without killing people in order to get the evidence. that is a problem. all of these dumb things done by government are a little different, but i want to make dumb people understand the don things have been done under republican presidents and democratic presidents and our job is to figure out prevent them from happening again. >> we will go to ou caller: i admire you very much. before i ask my question, i want to make a comment about what henry waxman said when he talked about the mercury in the air. he basically admitted mercury does cause harm to our children

and disables them it causes learning disabilities, and i am a strong believer that the vaccines that have mercury and lead that they claim they took out is causing autism, which my child has. i will get to my question now. the back door way of them tried to get rid of the second amendment with the u.n. involvement and everyone tried to take away our second amendment rights and reading these gun shows and then shop owners, taking away their license, ability, don't you think there is a problem with that? >> it is one of those things where we cannot find a common sense reasons for doing it. our committee does not look into motives by elimination, but we're trying to ask each of the people involved, what did you think you're doing and why did you think it would work? pretty regularly they tell as we thought we were traced to the scene of a crime.

do we think the administration was trying to substantiate that american guns were ending up in mexico in using this technique to do it? yes. what was their reason? was it to try to have an assault weapon ban or other items? we will not make any kind of an assessment there. what we're saying is this is stupid enough that it should never be allowed to happen again, regardless of the motive. to your mercury question, the senior member of my committee has been working very hard to make sure heavy metals are out over vaccines. he too has been struck by autism in his family. i share the idea as coal is burned, heavy metal come out of it, and over time we have reduced that amount. the goal is to continue reducing it. i think where we have a

difference is i am looking and saying let's do it in a way in which we can clean up the cold, clean up the energy source, let's not do in order to move an agenda toward solar panel. that is where i think there is a balance. people of michigan enjoy fuel from almost every source, one of them being cold. we have to realize that is a part of how you successfully manage the things you do in michigan. host: there is this question for you -- guest: he is absolutely right. our committee has been investigating this. this is something we have been investigating under republicans when we were in majority of democrats throughout the four years they were the majority, and we are continuing on. we are really holding hearings and working hand-in-hand with

the commission that the committee was instrumental in making sure was created. you are absolutely right, we have that done a great job in afghanistan of keeping money from getting to the wrong people. we will stay on it. that is a rate cooler part of what our committee does. host: carmen is an independent and fall brook, california. you are on with the chairman. guest: that is in my district. caller: i appreciate your bipartisan view experience i know you have a big plate. this item regarding our giving away the california restaurant taxpayers. i have been one since 1993.

we are now giving away $1,000 for every legal child present in the united states under the age of 17. i did some quick math. i am not sure how many illegal children there are, how many illegal adult recipients they are, but we're giving away approximately $40 billion away for illegal children or parents, plus a second item. we are allowing dependent status for the residents of canada, at least 10 million in mexico. that is equal to $500 per person or more each. guest: hermann knows i also serve on judiciary. we can hold all of the hearings in discovery on oversight to find out in fact we are funding a lot of federal funds to families, parents, and children

that are here unlawfully, that are here as undocumented aliens. where we have the challenge is is to bring an end to this by having sensible reform that is sufficient and closes the back door. it has been one of the frustration in congresses -- in congress. i am not a lawyer. i came to this because i hope to work on reforming our failed system and making america a place that welcomes people through the closed door. i share the concern. this does not touch the border, but i have to border checkpoints were they will stop you in my district, because it is so rampant that they have put major checkpoints on interstate 5 and 15. the answer is not to have more investigations. the answer is for congress to act and act strongly, something we're not seeing right now.

i take the lead in the house, and the senate should take the blame and do more. one more question for you. guest: what is on your mind in milwaukee? caller: when you mentioned earlier in the conversation about the price rises with the murder of company. you said it is not a major concern right now because you have to put things in perspective. i understand that with the economy the way it is. guest: it was not a major concern because the allegation was one major left-wing blogger. if there is any truth to it at all, it would be a major concern. if it was going on in other news

organizations in america, it would be a major concern. we're very concerned to make sure people's privacy is maintained, but we work on the question of did it happen. host: let me get to the other question. caller: my thing is if you commit a crime in england, any type of crime, that means to come over here, does that change had you do business? guest: it is a valid question. british people may have broken the law and britain, and that has been investigated for a couple of years. we go back a couple of years in this investigation. in britain they went through the process. before parliament they had rupert murdoch and his son. they have them under oath. if there is a connection with u.s. personnel doing things,

controlling things, then justice will act. was at's understand, this separate corporation, a tabloid. the murdoch did not own it in the founding, they bought it. we could open an investigation today of every single news event where it is clear information was gotten that was not gone through the front door, and we would be investigating -- maybe not c-span, but all of the major news services, because they all have secret sources in weeks and so on. that is part of what we accept as the first amendment, that a whistle-blower comes in and tells the news agency something and they go on it. we have had highly private documents become public, so there is a line we draw, and the line is, is there a credible allegation, and what is the best way to invest it? right now we believe the justice

department is doing their job. host: they do assert this has something to do with you save your trust news corp. last year because you know robert murdoch. what you to respond to that. take a first of all, i do not believe i said that. i do not know rupert murdoch. i believe i met him on one occasion, and david murdock, was there and a lot of other people. i do not trust anybody. my job is not trust. and i had 16 presidents on my wall. when people come in, i point to them and say here is 16 people you cannot trust. by the way, you recognize every one of those presidents. my job is not to trust the administration. my job is to investigate it.

the g it might committee is government. in my committee is government. understand looking behind and try to pierce the first amendment, this liberal group would be furious if i were doing the same thing they want me to do with msnbc or huffington post and the like. confidential sources insist that every new source and television. i realize i'm may not like the way things leak like a sieve, but i realize it is very important. let's but the justice part of looking to one avocation and not like every other vaulter the allegation of one group not substantiated with any evidence and see where it goes.

let's but create a story rather is hot one. host: 84 coming back. coming up next, we will turn our attention to battling the afghan insurgency. first a news update from c-span radio. >> members in this hour show that new home starts were down in august. the commerce department says builders began work on a seasonally-adjusted 571,000 homes last month, piper said down from july. the national association of home builders says each time bill creates an average of three jobs per year the auto and $90,000 in taxes. -- three jobs per year and $90,000 in taxes. the imf expects the u.s. economy to grow 1.5% this year it 1.8 percent cited 2012. the group also lowered the

outlook for the 70 countries that use the euro, predicted a 1.6% growth of 1.1% next year. the forecast for europe is based on worries that greece will default on its debt and destabilize the huge -- the nation. nasa astronauts will soon get their space taxi to shuttle between the international space station in perth. -- and earth. president obama has requested $850 million for nasa's commercial crew development initiative beginning october 1. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this past weekend marks the passing of another former senator from 1967-1985, charles percy served three terms as a republican senator from illinois and briefly considered

a presidential run in 1986. he also called for the appointment of independent prosecutor following the watergate break-in. what a few of his appearances all archived in searchable on line at the c-span video library. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. this month look for congress to consider federal spending into november. keep tabs on the deficit committee coming of follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it is all available on television, radio, of light coming in social media websites. search and watch our programs in the time was used in video library. and we are on our road with our c-span us in a local content

vehicle. it is washington your way. the c-span networks. greeted by cable, provided as a public service. -- created by cable, provided as a public service. host: just returned from afghanistan. was there for about three weeks. he wrote a series -- she wrote a series of battling the afghanistan insurgency. i want to begin with what was operation hammer down? guest: it wanted to clear up a training center, training camp in this area of the jungle. it is this area of pine forest, a very mountainous area cover really tough terrain for the soldiers. that was the mission, to clear out this area. host: why doesn't matter?

why were these folks there? why did it matter? guest: they were concerned the training camp was a destination camp for fighters in the area. there were some that were coming far and wide to the camp, being trained possibly by al qaeda forces and perhaps treating al qaeda forces during training of their own because there's so familiar with the terrain. this is an area not too far from the afghanistan/pakistan border, so they thought this is something that needs clearing out. host: you write that this has been cleared out every year since 20006. guest: that is kind of the crux of the story. -- every year since 2006.

i think what we do not always realize is these are some really tough but bottles as well. it is hard to rain. these are groups that know the terrain really well. this is a camp that a been cleared out every year since 2006, and that is something the soldiers were well aware of. host: so they come up with operation hammer down. what do they do? guest: they are set to go into this area, one of the platoon's is set to go in a clear this out. the problem is, when they reach the threshold of this borderline camp area, they are ambushed. it is a fire fight that would last the better part of a week. what they encountered was some incredibly sophisticated

fighting by taliban forces. they were maneuvered upon. there were so close at some points that they could really hear these guys talking, it at one point there were soldiers who were marching through. generally the u.s. soldiers will often have a lot of superiority at night, because opposition forces do not have a night vision goggles the taliban is all like to fight at night for that reason. their overarching through and got radio communication that insurgents were talking to each insets hadthe read ins saved it glow of the night vision goggles.

in order to see that, you have to be mere feet away. they realized there were insurgents that were likely steps away as they were going through, and they were asking the commander for permission to issue these u.s. forces. now the taliban commander denied that position to shoot, because it would give the position away. host: why did it last week? guest: it lasted a week because they have to hold the line. essentially they call for reinforcements. in the first 36 hours of this battle they lost a platoon leader from a loss the company commander -- they lost the company leader. we were deemed combat ineffective for the time we were there. host: the u.s. soldiers were

losing more than the insurgents? guest: they were not sure of how the insurgents they had killed, but it was difficult for them to operate. they had a sense that they were possibly out the end. so they had called for another -- they were sending more troops to reinforce them. the problem was with the troops came in to reinforce them, the chinook crash landed. they were going to go to this mountaintop that was a couple thousand feet up above this battle going on and they were going to march down to support them, but once their helicopter crash landed, their forces had asbe a matter of famedivaced ot well. host: what does this say about the fact to clear out these an insurgent fighters with this

battle they thought would last 24 hours lasted a week? when the soldiers are surprised that the accuracy of these insurgents? they are shooting on purpose in the face come in the neck coming in doing it with accuracy. guest: you raise a great point, and it is a great question. the platoon leader was shot in the neck. very accurate fire. when this other platoons that was reinforcing them was left on a mountaintop to fight, they said it was like a bunch of guys coming to a street fight. again, accurate fire. they had to strip the helicopter for its lightning just to wrap themselves up for work. i think this speaks to the difficulty of the terrain. mountainous.about th

about thes talk insurgent focts. who makes them up? are the four leaders? what kind of tactics to the use of weapons to the have? guest: it is of mixed. it is of local fighters. a lot of these areas do not like outsiders period. they are rick is the outsider. if they were neighbors from two villages over, they do not like them in their village. these were local fighters, but they suspected some al qaeda traders that were in these camps. also, a province that is to the north, very remote. the military describes it as very xenophobic. they do not like outsiders.

the have a company crash landed and found themselves of this on top. that is what they found themselves right in the middle of, troops that were coming into reenforce fighters. host: what kind of weapons do they have? lot of ak47's and a grenades are very popular. mortars. host: what kind of tactics to the use verses what u.s. soldiers use? guest: u.s. soldiers have airpower, so they can call in airstrikes, but these fighters -- the fire was quite accurate. they have prop -- rocket- propelled grenades and mortars, and they had force member. they were able to keep the troops down. normally a big ball back is having to call on air support,

but they had so much getting it because the fighting was also close. at one. the soldiers said they wanted us to pot smoke so they knew our location. a ravinere up against caribbea in of one of the troops of lead over and see them, they could have shot at point-blank range. host: looking out one bottle of the afghan insurgency. you also write -- guest: they were doing these l- shaped ambushes. they were attacking one way, and

then going around and coming up on their rear. they also are well aware the rules of engagement. kit area,e training ki the job will area, it is very dense, and there are these madhouses -- mud houses better in the cliff side. they are fighting intensely in these areas. one of the soldiers said it was frustrating because you could see with it on the rooftops calling the men in what they saw airplanes that were flying over to scope out to see what kind of strikes they could do. the soldier said they know we cannot shoot at them when there are women and children nearby, or cannot strike. they said that was -- one soldier described it as heartbreaking. he called a felsaw a fellow

soldier killed and it was heartbreaking. host: who do to get these stories from? guest: some of them came from the soldiers themselves, it's in pieces. -- bits and pieces. there were talking about the crash landing and how they had to scrounge for food together. they would pack food in one pack and share the weight with a buddy soldier. a lot of the buddies got medivaced out and they didn't have food. they had a really tough battle holding the line between the insurgent fighters coming to reinforce their fellow taliban

fighters. but they said that is nothing compared to what first platoon has been coming you need to talk to them. some of them were pretty reluctant to talk about, and others were very open to the idea. as we saw more soldiers, we read ands very small outpost, we would sit around and talk during the day. host: we will get to phone calls. john is a democrat and fairfax. caller: good morning. it seems to me we cannot learn anything from history. she said the post tried to clear it year after year. how crazy can we be to try to pick winners and losers in a country that has always resisted any outside interference?

we need to pack up and go home and stop ruining our military, causing them to come home in commit suicide because they were told they were doing right in the realize they have done wrong. host: what about going in to clear out this camp year after year? guest: i think john echo the sentiment of a lot of the soldiers that were involved in this operation. they were saying they felt like they were fighting fighters, but there were not winning in the battles. it is the same question john was asking, to what end? it clear this give out once, well done by us. what we're doing it every year annually, is that worth the price we're paying? host: why do they say the insurgent fighters keep coming back to this case specifically? guest: exactly. it is hard to reach.

there was a wonderful documentary films about an outpost of u.s. military that fought incredibly hard and had incredible losses. it is tough to get to. you have to know the terrain. at one. was t the taliban fighting under blankets. they know the terrain that allow them to do that and not be identified. also, to the question why this area, it is a prestigious thing for local villagers to host capes. it brings prestige in cash to their family, and certainly a cause they believe in. host: anna malrine is joining

us. we will show you the photographs as we go to the next phone call. they republican in michigan. are republicans in michigan. caller: i think we need to change the tactics. these are the tactics used in japan. two nuclear weapons and the whole country surrendered unconditionally. the use of tactical weapons in this camp, if it had been a nuclear bomb six years ago, it would not be operating at all, ever. host: let's talk about the point of switching tactics. guest: u.s. forces are fighting a counter insurgency, whawhich

is very different from what the calller mentioned. this character insurgency warfare places a premium of the current population centers. women over the local population with the element projects. and with resources and showing them what the government can do to bring the resources. the problem with this area is the previous commander made the decision to pull out of some of these smaller outposts in the area. he said why don't we concentrate on the population centers? we've seen what has happened with the smaller outposts being overrun with taliban forces. so they did, and i think the soldiers have a feeling that now we're back in these areas and

not quite sure why that is necessary. host: bill an independent in new jersey. are you with us? caller: yes. thank you for c-span. my comment is this, is it true the soviets were in their in their boys and bloodstained the sandoval the mountains, isn't it true that we are in there now doing the same thing and they have made us broke? they made the soviets broke. the wall fell in 1989. this is really what the whole thing is. we get to stay there so they do not grow again. guest: i think the calller raises a good point. a lot of the fighters -- the no. alliance, we supported them in

the war against the soviets obviously, and a lot of them are fighting against u.s. forces right now. in some cases that were brought to the united states to meet with our u.s. officials and now they're fighting against us. this area where local fighters made the first big dramatic stand against soviet occupation. it resulted in a massacre. i think that is something that they do have in their mind. soldiers are well trained, but they are not willing to use the same overwhelming force that the soviets do, and many feel is a good thing. host: operation hammered down is

what the battle called about. in the week -- is what the bottle was called. and of the operations were interrupted. overall official said the battle made a considerable difference. we will hear from mildred next. a republican in phoenix. caller: i am watching your show, and she acts like she is a grandfather sitting around a fire camp telling her grandchildren all of these fantastic stories. she is glorifying people getting killed in murder. they have families just like we do, and with all due respect to the callers that called it, you're absolutely right, how are we going to change anything? we're civilized, but they are

not. i do not care how long we stay in there. if you want to use the excuse that normal people are any different, that is your culture and nature and will not change anything it is a total disrespect for her sitting there. host: why did you decide to write the story? guest: these soldiers were still struggling with what they went through, and it is the kind of battle you hear about, but that we do not often -- i think the coverage is tough to get into those sorts of fights that these soldiers have to go through during their deployments. like i said, they do ultimately weighed, but the price they pay is high, and they're really

tough fight. i think it is important for folks here to know the kind of hard fighting that they need to do. >> she brought up the culture of afghanistan people. for the afghan national soldiers involved, working side by side with u.s. soldiers? guest: there were. that has been one of the questions outstanding. to what extent are these soldiers cord to be able to step in when u.s. forces leave? i think they feel like they're making progress, but will they be able to hold the line as well? they are not sure. u.s. forces left in march and turned it over, and they were worried the afghan forces would not be able to hold it. they pretty much abandoned the

base. there were soldiers there, and now the u.s. forces are back. they have codenamed this operation hotel california. how many times will be to go back? i think that is what they worry about. tom, a democrat in california. go ahead. caller: it keeps going through my mind why president obama was given the peace prize. it seems like the man given a peace prize would want to get out of something like that as quick as he could if he was a true man of peace. the second biggest is in vietnam we said we would not fight with limited rules of engagement for a corrupt government. essentially --

host: that brings up one point that has been talked about. what is the update of that? where does it stand? guest: i think it is possible. the pentagon says there will be of limited advisory role. so now you have 10,000 forces leaving by year's end. i think that is another think u.s. forces are grappling with. you have limited forces, we're still in these areas, but we're supposed to be drawing down. what is the right strategy to leave for work? the calller raises the point will we do this again? i think that is the big question in the pentagon right

now. how will they fight the next four? the budget pressures are intense. these kind of wars are extremely expensive. will we ever engage in a war like this again? a lot of people say it is too expensive, too time consuming and never try to nation bill to this extent again. host: tj has this tweet -- hear from michael was an independent in brooklyn. caller: high. thank you for c-span. my sense that the comparison of be a novice but such an illegitimate comparison. at some point we will declare victory and leave a and thand te taliban will take over. i want to get your comments from the guest.

guest: the calller raises the point about what happens when u.s. troops leave, and that is what they're working on right now. what does of sort of reconciliation -- the military calls it reintegration, but how could they come to set term -- some kind of peace deal? at lower levels their brigade bringing in others. they get some money may be. maybe they become local forces. at the higher levels there is the idea of reconciliation. how you bring back the top level commanders into the fold? is it a good idea? is it possible? that is something that a lot of women's groups are concerned

with. i was talking to a director in that runs a women's group and they said we do not know whether to take a seat at the table and be part of the negotiations, but if we do, then are we giving our consent to this prospect of a greater taliban role of the government that we do know support? host: a democrat in massachusetts. thank you. caller: i would like to explore the rules of engagement, which literally sacrifices our troops in order to avoid nasty headlines on the front pages of newspaper. my son was in iraq twice, and i believe -- the of his units were

greatly in danger just to save a few headlines, just to pacify the liberals in this country about war in general. i find it insulting to me, my family, my son, that his wife could have been taken -- his life could of been taken just to spare a headline. guest: the calller raises a point that has really been debated on the ground and up instead, to. -- that has really been debated on the ground, too. etreus strengthatric in rules of engagement. i think u.s. commanders felt like this was a huge stumbling block to the war, that it prevented them -- civilians were

killed, that there were these reports that set back the process. they strengthened those rules of engagement so the soldiers had to be more sure they are caring in -- calling in air strikes. i think what the calller expresses is certainly what you would hear often off -- on and off the ground, that this was tough because you are choosing one like or another. you heard a soldier who recognized why they made this decision, why it was important and why civilian casualties were so damaging and that in order to avoid them, it was work going through these extra measures. host: democratic calller in fairfax. caller: we went into iraq, took away their weapons, and then we attack them. yet c-span has this lady is

titled the defense correspondent. it might seem more prepared to call her the attack correspondent. it does not seem very christian. then she went on about the advisory role in afghanistan. you could advise all you want, but nothing is changing. talk about that a little bit, the advisor role. guest: i think a lot of these troops are not able to read. they are high literacy rates. from the very beginning it starts out with reading lesson so they can fill out forms in request for supplies and things like that. it is a huge undertaking. they are teaching them in some cases how to use weapons, the

logistical part of it, so how to get the food and ammunition that their troops need, when to order things. strategy and where to go in. i think at a certain point they feel like the training wheels need to come off if we're cord to be able to leave afghanistan and turn it over to an afghan security forces. at the same time it is such a large undertaking that as one officer told me, you do not want to be the guy to pull off the training wheels if they fail. i think u.s. forces are trying to impart all of this to the afghan forces, but whether they will be able to do it before they leave, that is an open question. host: anna mulrine is our guest.

she just returned from afghanistan. if you want to read all the stories go to csmonitor.com. independent calller from d.c. caller: i want to know why so many soldiers are in iraq when soviet soldiers to not want to be there. guest: why are we there women soldiers to not want to be there? caller: yes, it also the american people do not want to be there. guest: i think there are in of soldiers that do not want to be there. others that feel like maybe we can help this country. others to say what are we doing, we will never be able to help this country. i think you hear the whole range. i think with the american forces

or american people do not want them there -- i think sometimes you hear soldiers over there say we are less than 1 percent of the population of the united states, and we're fighting this war, and the other 99 percent we're not quite sure how engage they are. they do not do protests against the war. as in some of the soldiers say if the american people feel like they do not want this, why aren't they protesting? is it because there's not a draft and they're not invested enough to really show they do not want to do this? you hear soldiers talking about that overseas. caller: i have a question. we had geraldo rivera showing

we're hoping to grow the opium and helping them out. this is all a big illusion. pick up a point about the heroin business and opium business out about give a stamp. guest: it is still going on, particularly in the south where it is the epicenter for poppy and growth. and the soviet officials have protested really stringently against those figures not going down more, because they feel like it is getting into moscow and a big way it really affecting the population. it is pretty inexpensive because there is so much of it. that is something the u.s. military has been reticent to take on. you're showing the poppy field of some poor farmer in the south, and they resent it, and that is their livelihood and is destroyed, so that does not mesh

well with counterinsurgency tactics. they have been giving the farmers' money for their crops, so fiscal incentives to turn it into wheat or barley or other spices. the problem is they're not always distributing this monday. that is a wider nato thing. it is still something they are grappling with. host: front page of "the washington times" this morning. what is the pentagon said about this? what comes next? guest: as of 12:01 this morning reporters were asking, can now person walk into a recruiting office and say i am gay and would like to join the military.

they do not to declare their sexual preference, but if they did, they serve liquor. the pentagon has said we take pride in the fact of this they will be just like any other day, we do not expected to be any different. for some time there has been a moratorium on troops getting kicked out of the military because of the sexual orientation, and certainly if they are touted by third-party officials. -- outed by third party officials. over the course of the year 14,000 approximately right thrown out. that has come to an end. host: an independent from new york on the phone. caller: i have a request to c-