later, a discussion about the penn state and syracuse university child sex abuse allegations. "washington journal host: good morning. president obama back in washington this afternoon after a trip to the geneva -- indonesia, following his nine- day visit to hawaii and australia. this week, congress is out for the thanksgiving holiday. the super committee continues to meet today. it is sunday, november 20 at.

we will get reaction on all of this. and our phone lines are open at -- meredith shiner has the story online at rollcall.com. she writes "super committee seems to fade out." she wrote today that both parties were poised to disengage entirely from the last minute talks. in the headline this morning from the "washington post." lori montgomery writes that the super committee is poised to a admit defeat as soon as monday and the unfinished business will set up a year-end battle on

budget deficits. during three months of negotiations, the super committee has had to figure whether they will spend some of them as a broader plan to shave a minimum of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. -- with that background, we want to get your thoughts on this super committee. the words are "fading" and "sputtering." meanwhile, coming up on "newsmakers," oklahoma senator cockburn, who joined us on friday -- senator coburn, who

joined this on friday. one of our questions was whether or not the finance committee work for not. here is a portion. >> was the super committee a mistake? >> it was washington kicking the can down the road. there is no such thing as a debt limit in the united states. there is no debt limit. the politicians will not make the cuts, kick the can down the road, and pass the debt limit. that is what americans are upset about. they are having to make hard choices, and what do the politicians do? they kicked the can down the road. this is just another way of kicking the can down the road. we are still going to spend more money than we did the year before.

even with the frustration, it is a big lied to the american people. that is why we're not going to get out of that debt problem. there is no political will in the united states to make the tough decisions that are in front of us. host: >> that is tom coburn our guest on "newsmakers," at 7:00 p.m. eastern. today, the headlines, the super committee talks at a standstill. a saturday meeting offers little hope that the congressional deficit super committee will be able to stave off embarrassing failure to accomplish its assigned task. the lack of outward urgency

suggesting that members in both parties were resigning themselves to the likelihood the panel will not reach an agreement by the november 23 deadline. the committee would by law need to for post something to the cbo by tomorrow night -- to propose something to the cbo by tomorrow night. republicans this week made a $643 billion fall back with agreed upon spending cuts and softened across the board reductions that would be triggered by the committee failure. the super committee from politico their -- on the brink of collapse is the headline the sunday morning. here's a picture of the president coming back from his asian trip today. bill on the phone

from pennsylvania. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: yes, my biggest concern is why 400 of the top -- are in bed with the communists. everyone always refers to china. the chinese control -- you cannot do anything in china without going through the communist party. i have been gone for two years to fight the communist takeover of vietnam's, but now we're in bed with the communists. they are overriding our constitution and the laws of this country. host: thank you. the president was in asia for the last several days, including a stop in indonesia. guam was one of the lot

stopovers for air force one -- was one of two stopovers for air force one. the president was feeling upbeat about his asia-pacific to work. the good vibes will probably will not last long. the bipartisan congressional committee looks unlikely to reach an agreement on the debt reduction plan, and the fallout will almost certainly involve the president again. just one other point since you brought the issue of china and asia -- the president in asia in this "new york times" editorial on china -- this is with reference to the u.s. troops in australia last week. --

that is the editorial the sunday morning from "the new york times." in "the washington post," "that talks failed. good morning. caller: hello, steve. you look excellent. you are a great anger. -- anchor. i will give you a calculation on why the canadian banks have no losses and only large profits. i will give you the canadian formula. if you triple the price of oil, within 48 months, abruptly 50% to 60%.

my advice to president obama is to take the 20 billion barrels of oil in the strategic oil reserves, still that. you will take in at roughly $1.7 trillion, and you should drop oil down to $1.50 a gallon, which would be great for americans. one last point. let the mistake -- what bush did together with greenspan -- they pulled oil out of the inflation calculation. add you do that -- if you oil in as the canadians do, it is 9%. thank you. host: thank you for the call from new york city. you can join the conversation on twitter.

you can also send us an e-mail -- journal@cspan-org. one viewer says -- congressman john cliburn -- jim clyburn " can the committee do it?" he says -- "while library, i hope -- while i breathe, i hope." you can read his editorial inside "the washington post." also, how to read -- how to raid a deficit-reduction plan. that is also available online at

washingtonpost.com. good morning, republican line, fort wayne, indiana. caller: it is going to be cut anyway you look at. in the past, the democrats have lost out on the military. as far as what your last caller said about the oil reserves, that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. what would that do to the economy? host: thank you, killian, texas, democrats line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: the subcommittee was put together under the premise that would come out with a tax cut. congress could not do it. the super committee was supposed to do it. host: not necessarily a tax cut. the goal of the committee was to

trim the overall debt by $1.2 trillion. the issue was how do you get to that number? do you raise revenue or cut spending? caller: my apologies. congress could not do it. they are not doing it. is going to back to congress. they're going to kick the can down to 2013. the problem is, we as americans -- our loyalty is to a party and not to america. as long as our loyalty is to a person, to an idea, we're not going to be able to come out of this mess. we need to get real as american voters. these people in congress are not doing their job. united we stand, divided we fall. we are divided at every turn.

host: thank you for the call from texas. the headline is online at washingtonpost.com. "is the super committee likely to a admit defeat on a debt deal?" that is what we're asking you this morning. the cbo needs to look to the recommendations from the committee and determine whether it is feasible, and at the moment, even that appears unlikely. there are 24 hours before the deadline technically. wednesday is technically the final deadline for the super committee. this all came about because of the inability for the president and congressional leadership to reach an agreement over the summer. so, they came up with the super committee, made of 12 members of congress, six democrats, six republicans, working together to trim the debt by over $1

trillion. look at the members of the committees -- democrats, followed by republicans. we are joined by napoleon from lexicon -- lexington kentucky. go ahead please. caller: yes, the republicans are not serious about this. anybody who wants president obama to shoulder this whole thing, and there is no way to fix it. i do not care what they do to the debt limit or what. the republicans are just worried about who want to run for president, but they are not serious. and that is all i got to say. host: joining us from hickory, n.c., republican line.

caller: as soon as nancy pelosi appointed clyburn and the guy from california, but i knew they would never get anywhere. they do what she wants them to do, say what she wants them to say. the only people left there are coburn, and i forget his name, the democrat who is retired in the senate. host: from which state? caller: he's got to be somewhere. but anyway, this issue is not going anywhere. they keep blaming the republicans. it is all of them. the democrats are just as one- sided as the republicans. host: thank you for the call. "it was never in his

responsibility to get involved in the debt ceiling debate this past summer either." that is from chris in alabama. recommendations are often coming from the executive branch for budgets, and in this case president obama. good morning. ky, democrats line. caller: he was talking about the senator from north dakota who was always talking about the budget. host: right. caller: people have a short memory. i remember greenspan saying when clinton -- he balance the budget two or three times, had a surplus. greenspan said we needed a plan to pay off the national debt. the first thing bush did, he gave a tax cut to the rich, put this in two wars, unfunded prescriptions, and now we hear

about them, the republicans want to cut social security and medicare. so, yes, the democrats are at fault, they both are at fault. but we have a broken government. there is something that needs to break this impasse. is ridiculous. thank you. host: thank you. this is the latest of a series of committees and endeavors to cut government spending and reduce the now $15 trillion debt ceiling. last week, we had a forum,ceo's looking at ways to reduce the deficit. among them, president bill clinton was the co-chair of the president's commission on deficit reduction. here is what he had to say. >> i think we face the most predictable economic crisis in history. it is as clear as the nose on my

face. i know the fiscal path here in washington is not sustainable. and i know every member of that fiscal commission knows it, to o. the economics is very clear. the politics is very difficult. someone asked me the other day, can you give me an analogy? i said, yes, the deficit is like a cancer, and over time, it will destroy the country from within. >> erskine bowles, last sunday here in washington, d.c. here, a headline from "the washington post" dictating that the super committee talks are fading. what are your thoughts, independent line? caller: this is not a derogatory term. it is a european-type upturn. what happened, the bush tax cuts

were passed, and they were going to expire in 2010. the republicans did not like it too much, but that was the deal. when we came up to it, people back off of it. president obama in his way and republicans in their white. been obama had the erskine bowles commission -- the simpson-polls commissioned. -- simpson-bowles commission. there was no restriction on the president after he said that they had a commission coming up. they did submit that report to the congress and said you guys work on a. he did not do it. he backed off. been they have a commission looking at the social security tax, which looks good for the middle class, except we're supposed to the crisis in social security and it knocks out $100 billion or so a year for that fund. so, now we are at this late

stage were the talk was, well, we will have this commission. now you hear senator mccain and senator gramm say we cannot really do this because of the military. and everyone is running for the doors, knocking down of what would happen if this commission stops. the basic issue, which you guys on it c-span ought to cover some time, is the senate of the united states. pelosi has legislation that she rammed through the house and it passed very easily. the republicans did the same thing. when you get to the senate, he read filibusters, individual people who can hold up appointments. host: i am going to stop you there. thank you for the call.

we have an e-mail along the same lines you are indicating from new york city. he says -- again, our e-mail address as journal@cspan.org. here we have at tweet that says -- it was tuesday we reached another milestone with regard to the overall debt. here are the latest figures. we are just over $15 trillion with the national debt as of this last tuesday. lori joining us from oregon. good morning to you. caller: i've been watching this

program for some time. i think it is the responsibility of the american citizen, the voter, to look at what we're looking at here. we're looking at people who have their own agendas and parties to have their own agendas instead of having the agenda of america. they need to vote those people who are not concerned with doing the right thing for american people out of office. that is everybody's choice. these people are elected by us, and they share respect for the american citizen and our country. and as far as the commission goes, i do not believe they are going to come to conclusion that is acceptable to anybody, because they know nothing is going to happen until 2013 when it goes to the supreme court's. the supreme court will levy the

budget, correct the budget. therefore, it is passed election time, and they can do as they wish as soon as the election is over. i think it is just a ploy of congress and the senate to just get past the election time. host: thank you for the time. other viewers saying is about pushing the decision passed the next election. so those in power stay in power. and from gem, on our twitter page -- if the bush tax cuts expire, every taxpayer will pay more of a lot more folks, the 47%, will contribute something. steve is joining us from richmond, va., democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. to help the debt situation, they

need to stop on wall street where they did these bonuses. in new york, they were cleaning up all the corrupt -- sorry. corruption in wall street. eliot spitzer was on the right track. someone needs to get these little folks who are stealing millions of dollars, and they should be getting a lot more. they need to change the law. the need to give amnesty. they have to clean up wall street right away. that will give us on the ball. that should be number one. host: thank you for the call. they hope that you are not paying the republicans to go on

tv with the republican message -- moveon.org is one of a number of groups weighing in on this and the impact it would have on entitlement funds. here's the latest from this organization. >> super committee democrats, cuts to social security and medicare benefits? are you crazy or just plain stupid? the overwhelming majority of americans oppose cuts to social security and medicare benefits. have you seen the news lately? people are marching 24/7. pull your head out of washington, wake up and listen to america. progress of solutions have gone mainstream. cuts to social security and medicare benefits, that is so far right fox news should offer

you your own show. host: we want to bring your attention -- "austerity does not quite yet." no matter how they scrape together the $1.2 trillion come -- trillion, the hard work will not even begin. unfortunate, lawmakers of bill to prepare the public for just a grilling the years ahead are likely to be. you cannot stabilize the nation's debt load solely by raising taxes on rich people. you can cut your way to a balanced budget without dropping the atomic benefits that millions of middle-class americans depend on for medical care and retirement. but as europe is demonstrating, fiscal virtue is in its own reward either. in the short term, a deep fiscal retrenchment would slow growth and probably increase joblessness. low expectations when it comes to the super committee.

now indications that the super committee talks are fading or sputtering. of headlines from roll call and politico the sunday morning. brian from massachusetts. good morning to you. caller: as far as the super committee goes, i do not feel they are going to get the job done. i think the trigger should be if they cannot get the job done, this congress and senate should pretty much lose their jobs. this should be the trigger. beyond that, but there is a lot of waste and in this country, and that is where they could really attack what is going on. with the deficit. if they could just politically get their act together and do it. if you put a bunch of us up there, just regular people, we could figure out ways to do that. i saw on "60 minutes," last week

i believe it was, the congress and senate are pretty much exempt from insider trading, so we have pretty much people up there who do not have our interests involved at this point. i do not trust their government to get the job done. host: thank you. you mentioned "16 minutes -- "16 minutes -- "60 minutes." grover norquist will be featured this week on "60 minutes." from "national journal." this is the first course. the hard work will begin next year and beyond. on the democrats' line, good morning.

caller: good morning. we need to take a good hard look at the nature of the super committee. in economic democrat, on their side, they are not really happy with the diversity. on the republican side, what did they not at least a point olympia snowe. just give us some perspective. everyone looks alike on the republican side. the 10% cut across the board, the deadline is january 2015. thank you. host: thank you for the call. up next, joining us from alaska's. up early on the sunday morning. caller: my comments are based on personal experience of the oil industry in alaska.

i have worked on every platform. excuse me? host: you are responding to the earlier comments about the oil reserves? caller: yes. just about how many senators and politicians in general are somewhat against drilling. there has been a tremendous amount of money spent by the oil companies to do research and so on. alaska probably has one of the highest environmental concerns overall in the world. i just feel that our country could benefit from drilling some oil in our state, and i think that some of the senators and politicians can see firsthand how good we are with the

environment and we should let some of these projects go so we can make money for the country. host: thank you. what time is it in alaska? caller: 3 blog 30 in the morning. host: where you of sorely? caller: i had to work late. host:a tweet -- two headlines out of washington. a similar theme from the atlanta journal constitution. and from the pittsburgh post-is that. who pays? $1.2 trillion is the mandate to reduce the debt, debt that is now over $15 trillion. and tom coburn as part of the

super committee. here is what he had to say on wednesday. >> democrat and republican, we have to save ourselves from ourselves. these people are intelligent. i am talking about both parties. they are frozen in place. they are frozen in place by a system -- and we can explain how we got your. -- how we got here. we were sent to congress to bring home the bacon. will present to the tax code change to. we were sent to get this gimmick, that gimmick, this dam, this railroad, this whatever. if you did not do that, you were not reelected. now be paid is dead. there is no baking to bring home. -- the pig is dead. there is no bacon to bring on. but let me tell you -- the power

of campaign contributions has reached the fulcrum. . at the end of the day, they say, we never bother you, we just love you. that is what we support you. but now, when they see what could happen to them, they are in that congresspersons office saying, we never asked you for a thing, buster, but this is it. we will go down the pike if we lose this tax expenditure, and you're going to deliver. i do not mean that in the form of retribution, bribery. forget that. let's call it washington reality. host: former senator and co- cahir of the president's commission on the debt reduction, alan simpson. that is available online at c- span.org. from congressional quarterly,

still divided as the deadline nears. what are your thoughts on all of this? we're joined from sioux city, iowa. good morning. caller: good morning to you, sir. the sequoyah is perfect. my question is come up -- this segue is perfect. my question is, why would you have a committee on this morning their belief systems. george osborne facilitate the failure of the bank of america. and now we have them in america. -- george osborn facilitated the failure of the bank of england. and now we have him in america. it is absurd to me. host: we are not here to promote any organization or agenda.

but it is part of the dialogue and discussion, the same way tom coburn is seen the super committee was a mistake. we're trying to get from all sides. caller: grover norquist -- he does things, too, they do not facilitate their responsibility. everybody just needs to be responsible for themselves, take care of their families, be responsible. due not get in debt that you cannot get out of. host: ok, up thank you for the call. our responsibility as a network and our mission is to facilitate all points of view and that you come up with your conclusions. we will continue to do that. thank you for the call. we have an e-mail --

and liz smith on our twitter page -- "it is alarming to hear all these people that actually believed in super committee's ability to turn all this around." on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: i wanted to speak to the super committee. it is a condensed version of our congress on steroids. the same issues that blocked congress have blocked the super committee. they are putting the interests of corporations ahead of the common man. i feel that 99% is not being represented. we have the interest -- like grover norquist been part of the

equation. i think them, with their 100-day vacation and their salaries, with no accountability to us, but that is part of the problem. we need to get our money out of politics. we need to get it away from their pockets so they start listening to us. host: thank you for your call. this headline from "the washington post." time is running out for the debt panel. a 30% cut in government reimbursements, this is from "the washington post," and in january. the alternative minimum tax would also be eliminated unless congress acts. there is a domino effect with all of this. again, the house and the senate, out this week for the

thanksgiving holiday. than the super committee is still in town. the official deadline is tomorrow for the cbo to score what the recommendations are, if there is a specific outline by this committee. 6 democrats, six republicans. next, from philadelphia. good morning. go ahead, a nick on the republican line. you're on the air. caller: good morning. my comments go to can we increase tax money for infrastructure repairs that are needed, reduce the deficit come and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that is by not studying these pipeline reviews for ages and ages. we need to allow our montana and the code areas that have oil shale -- and dakota areas that have oil shale to get it to

market. and the same goes for the canadian oil that is out there. we need to naturally ensure good environment capabilities for not creating spills, etc. i would think the pipeline is one of the most secure ways of transporting the oil. if we get that oil flowing, and we can cut off our dependence on far east oil coming into the mideast, we can use the reduction in gasoline prices to increase our gasoline tax to help infrastructure repairs. host: nick thank you for the call. elyse rights " governor simpson is funny until easter is trashing social security." of next, from keane, new

hampshire. good morning. caller: i could comment on some many things that have been said. this is a very good program. first of all, i think the super committee was set up for failure. i think president obama needed the debt ceiling raised, if i remember correctly. in the deal was, the republicans agreed to raise it for him in exchange for these cuts, and everyone agreed if they failed in making these cuts -- now we see the president does not really care anymore about that, unfortunately. i still think speaker boehner believes it is going to happen. and he believes it is going to happen and they're going to come to some agreement, but i think it was set up from the beginning. i would just like to clear up some misinformation people are sitting on this program. and hear a lot about business versus the common man.

is not about that. -- it is not about that. business, successful corporations in this country, supports these programs that the democrats and everyone enjoyed. the problem is the earners in the country pay most of the taxes, a huge trunk, 40%. u.s. 48% to peene taxes. they all have a vote. is really ridiculous. with all this misinformation. and people are believing the media -- again, i am going to stabilize -- basically slandering very good people like speaker boehner and republicans who were very good people. also democrats. people have to look at it a little harder and do research

online. go and see some speeches. listen to the speaker. listen to the president. think for yourself. stop listen to these newscasters. there you go. host: thank you for the call. we appreciate. from our twitter page -- you can send in a tweed, twitter/cspanwj. from politic of this morning, "super committee spotters." -- sputters." democrats and republicans did not expect the super committee to reach an agreement. this morning, the suggestion of both sides remain low, and this could evolve into an all else

blamefest. the new york times sunday magazine has "teaching good sex" as the cover story. "cq weekly," and from "the weekly standard." newt gingrich as "the comeback kid." caller: good morning. we are not in debt. how -- who do we owe all this money to, steve? host: we owe it to a lot of bankers. we owe it to china. caller: all of a sudden all our

money is -- if we owe this money to china, pay them peeving -- pay them. the rich is going to get richer. we're not in debt. look at the price of a gallon of gas. why is gas so high? any guess that is drilled in united states will be sold in the united states -- any gas that is drilled in united states will be sold in the united states at a decent price. just look at what has happened. [unintelligible] the wages have not gone up. and we are in debt? cut the money in our so-called

debt and start over. host: thank you. from south carolina -- "is amazing that any of the american people actually believe any in congress are truly acting in the interest of 99%. all must go, republicans and democrats." from fort lauderdale, fla., good morning to you, tom. caller: good morning. i am very concerned the press is not fairly depicting to the american people the magnitude of the problems that we have on our spending. and how could they do a better job? well, my suggestion would be to have a prime-time show and have two blocks. on the left side, you have the $3.7 trillion spending the government does, and on the

bright side, you have the $2.2 trillion of in tom. and have it stacked on the democrat side of all the things the people want for tax increases in addition to the right side and see how close those really do get us to balance in the budget -- to balancing the budget. it blows my mind that nobody in the press says, wait a minute. that does not make sense. when the democrats offer solutions that really do not solve the problem. i do not understand this. the american people are not being told the truth by the press. host: tom, thank you for the call. and dennis lane has this comment -- "the truth is that no one had

any hope that any -- that the panel would do anything but run out the clock." "putting pen point on the map." the supreme court justice in his hometown for new plaque to commemorate the community, a very small town in georgia. that is a story available this morning inside "the washington post." john feehery and jim manley will be joining us as we talk about presidential politics in the next hour. center stage on "snl" -- appears a portion of the program from last night. >> here is something you do not get to here at the debates. "governor huntsman, the first question is for you." isn't it true that you were polling nationally in single

digits? >> that is true. but we were pulling at margin of error. so any retention of all is a big deal. i feel very positive about the future of this country. >> you seem to be putting all your eggs in one basket in new hampshire. to you think he might be leaning to rest of the country? >> seth, i love all of america, from the majestic rocky mountains, to new hampshire's scenic lakes. >> i cannot help but mention -- but none is you keep mentioning new hampshire. >> i would never time myself to one state. i would like to spread my wings and fly like the purple finch. >> which is of course the state bird of new hampshire? >> that is from nbc's "saturday

night live." coming up in just a minute -- it is sunday, november 20 at. we will be back in mr. chairman. >> every weekend on american history tv, the people and documents of american stores. this weekend, david gergen ended his career and in 1971 as a staff -- began his career in 1971 as a staff assistant on president nixon's speechwriting team. today, -- try 1995. for lectures on history, amy norell-taylor on emancipation during the civil war. look for our schedule,.

-- online. there's a story was told from inside the administration that when obama was given the first budget, his first instinct was to veto that budget. he was told by his lobbyists on capitol hill there was no way. i just think that had he vetoed, he would've been a tea party. had he signaled his fundamental desire to change the way washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that now breaks out all over the world because of the frustration that the current wave of democracy does not function. >> lawrence lessig on money and its influence in washington tonight. >> "washington journal"continues .

host: we are here with missy ryan. spot to the for being with us. let's begin with a headline from "then your times." the essence of the story indicates that the afghan government is preparing for the long haul with u.s. troops staying over their. guest: the long-term partnership deal with the u.s. government -- however, they favor some sort of stipulation that is really going to be a problem for sealing the deal, including ending the night raids, which are something very sensitive for afghans. they associate with violation of local customs, high civilian casualties'. but the u.s. government, especially the pentagon believes these are very important tools to go after terrorists in

afghanistan, especially at these levels. host: what is different in terms of our relations and international law in afghanistan compared to a rock? guest: there is the drawdown in 2014. in the case of iraq, you the country with a fairly strong military, with the government' a lot stronger. the anticipation is in afghanistan, they will need support. is hard to envision a scenario in and stand like the one in iraq, where they are like, you know what, we do not need to anymore. host: let's look at the numbers. this is a chart that gives you just how many foreign troops are on the ground in afghanistan. there are about 90,000 u.s.

soldiers. at the u.k. has about 9500. also, countries like turkey and spain. romania has about 1300. almost 4000 from italy. almost 4000 from france. guest: the united states -- it is much more an authentic coalition in afghanistan and iraq ever was. on the other hand, the united states is directing the military strategy and doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of logistic surveillance, intelligence, things like that. host: is president karzai firmly in control? guest: president karzai m. inherited -- inherited a very complex country, and it really afghanistan has barely been a country ever.

he does have some political support, and his relationship with the west has been very important for him. that said, there are fears that once the foreign military presence in its, the country could be plunged back into civil war. i think that is one of the reasons that karzai and other afghans want to make sure that the commitment to an enduring western military presence, but they wanted to happen in a way that suits their own personal political agenda. host: what about the safety of u.s. troops? i will go back to the numbers. guest: civilian military casualty's have climbed steadily from 2009 and 2010. continue to take a major toll on american soldiers. i think that is one of the reasons, obviously, the president obama has come up with

a plan to decisively drawdown the u.s. troops, and the rest of the force of the next three years. host: our phone lines are open. you can also join the conversation online at twitter.com. or send us an e-mail. on at thesing relationship with afghanistan. the situation in libya -- gaddafi is now captured. he is essentially the last holdout in the gadhafi regime. it is expected he will try to resurrect his father's legacy? guest: certainly not. and i think it is remarkable he managed to elude captors for

three months. his father was captured and killed a month ago. and apparently it is trying to exit libya disguised as a bedouin. apparently, he feared the same sort of violent and his father met. apparently, they would like to try him in libya rather than sending them to the hague for crimes against humanity. it will be a huge test for the libyan government as to whether or not they can organize a trial that would be credible, fair, transparent. host: how stable is libya today? obviously, the transitional government, a lot of change going on over there. but the day-to-day life is relatively normal under the circumstances. guest: certainly to some extent normal life has resumed. but there are the pro-gaddafi

die hard to continue to fight. the real test will be how well does this in rihanna government institution stand up to -- and a periodic government institutions stand up to challenges and provide services -- helping to write a constitution, holding elections. all these things are very difficult for a country. especially country like libya where they had an autograph for 40 years. host: when were you last in libya? guest: i left in august. host: what were your impressions of the country and its people? guest: i spent my entire time in gaddafi-controlled aaa. the mood was very tense. it is a country that is very divided. it will in some ways have some

advantages in terms of oil resources that they have and try to rebuild an economy. that said, and it is hard to get over the kind of social divisions and violence since the uprising occurred in february. that just cannot happen overnight. host: we are with missy ryan of reuters news, pentagon correspondent. president obama returned from asia. he addressed the australian parliament. >> afghanistan began a transition so afghans can take responsibility for their future and a coalition partners can drawdown. with partners like australia, we have struck major blows to al- qaeda and with that organization on the path to defeat. so, make no mistake, the time of war is receding and america is

looking ahead to the future that we must build. host: missy ryan, about 1500 australian troops in afghanistan. when we look at this transition and the responsibility we have to the afghan people, the u.s. government specifically, what lies ahead over the next 18 months? guest: the president has chartered a course to drawdown the surge troops ordered after the 2009 strategy review. debt will be gone by the end of next summer. the white house -- they will be gone by the end of next summer. the white house is already asked for recommendations of troop levels in 2013 and 2014. we expect some foreign presence in afghanistan in 2014. they will not be strong enough to operate security forces on the rump. -- on their own.

obviously, the drone operations, the drone program in pakistan is very important. pakistan is a very difficult, unreliable ally. we see the rock solid relationship with afghanistan following 2014 as a very important goal. host: this comes during the debate on trimming our debt. we cannot afford to billion dollars a month to keep karzai. the point about the amount of money this is costing us, we are pulling back in iraq. there's still a significant presence had a significant time. guest: i would not expect congress to cut any of the money for soldiers on the ground. i do not think anyone wants to

do that. areas to be targeted for cuts in afghanistan would be our support of the afghan national security forces, billions into that future. also our support for reconstruction and development in afghanistan, a big part of the obama administration strategy there. united states has spent over $50 billion in reconstructing afghanistan since 2001, with only meager results. certainly we have been able to decrease mortalities and have spent -- we have sent millions of girls to school. there has not been a lot to point to decide that. host: looking at a map of afghanistan, where is the country most on stable? -- unstable?

guest: a few years ago, he would upset the south. we have been surging into those areas, kandahar, and they had tactical successes on a grounder they have been able to push the taliban out of some areas. that is something that the military is very proud of. on the other hand, eastern part of the country along the border with pakistan, security there has deteriorated. the haqqani network has been a very presswork and they have been involved in a number of high-profile attacks -- have been very aggressive and they have been involved in the number of high-profile attacks. it affects afghan perceptions on house security is proceeding. host: i want to point out the border with iran and talk about the threat or influence that iran has on any terrorism or insurgent groups inside afghanistan.

guest: the pentagon does accuse iran of supporting insurgency in terms of weapons and logistical support in afghanistan. it is really not the primary focus when we have a conversation about foreign powers involved in half and insurgencies. pakistan is obviously the more important country there. the obama administration is trying very hard to bring about a change in pakastani behavior. it wants them to crack down on the proxy groups, the no. groups such as the haqqani network that operate from within pakistani borders and are able to resupply and launch operations within afghanistan. host: tom joins us from maryland. on the democrats' line. guest: -- caller: one question

for your guest is on her being a reuters correspondent. are there any black reuters correspondents? austin and i do not know if you want to respond to that are not. guest: there are, sir. caller: just a brief comment and then it is my question. i watched a documentary about one of these four bases in afghanistan. -- forward bases in afghanistan. it was a disturbing picture on how exposed our soldiers are. my question is, why should the united states be spending at $50 billion but anything in terms of reconstructing a tribal society

with the geography as it is, knowing the history of afghanistan going back thousands of years? guest: i am sure that you know the history of the initial intervention following the september 11, 2001 attacks. at that time, the idea was to help rebuild the nation that had suffered greatly over decades and bring it into the modern era. since then over the past decade, that philosophy has changed. the overall international support for that has ebbed and flowed. but the idea was coming into a certain extent still is, that a strong, stable afghanistan with a functional economy, but that barely literate population is good for its own -- a literate

population is good for its own people. host: our guest is missy ryan, spending a number of months stationed in baghdad, also in mexico and central america. she has been afghanistan, egypt, and peru, and margie joins us from georgia. welcome to the conversation. caller: my question is, if we wanted them to get osama bin laden turned over, and it took us two years to get him, how did we expect them to give him over? and after pakistan possible pipeline going to china, that is going to take as two more years. and that is what we are protecting over there, that they keep up blowing up, because they want us out.

guest: certainly the regional security and the political climate is a complex one. the history of american involvement along in afghanistan and pakistan has been rocky over the past 30 years. on osama bin laden, as you know he was discovered in pakistan in may. he was killed in a u.s. raid there. certainly the u.s. government is asking hard questions about which pakastani officials may have known what at what level. that is something there we have not heard the in. i think that the obama administration is saying that it is committed to a long-term diplomatic security economic relationship with these countries that we see as key to american security. host: we are getting your comments online at twitter.

guest: if it certainly did hurt the efforts in afghanistan. once the iraq war began in 2003, it really diverted most of the focus at the pentagon to the rapidly increasing insurgent violence in iraq. there was a lot of consumption of the oxygen here in washington as violence increased in iraq. and then there was the surge and the debate about a role of the americans in iraq. the insurgency continued in afghanistan, but the military funding and the political attention that was given to afghanistan was far inferior to what iraq was receiving. i think that when obama came into office in 2009, that is one of the reasons why he elevated

the afghan war in terms of his national security priorities. he ordered an overhaul of the war strategy, and one outcome was the surge of 3000 troops. host: president karzai said that he continued to go back to the issue of army raids and night raids that he wanted to end. guest: those are incredibly sensitive from an afghan perspective. afghans see this as a violation of their culture, of their privacy, certainly of their own security. this really may be the sticking point that would preclude us being able to strike a deal in the near term. originally the obama administration had wanted to conclude the partnership agreement before an international meeting in bonn, germany in early december. it does not look like that will happen.

both sides feel very strongly about this issue. host: why is this so important from an american standpoint? guest: we see it as a primary tool to get the planners, the high level insurgent commanders, and we feel like especially as the force grows smaller, we will be more and more reliant on two things -- these targeted raids, part of the terrorism operation, and training the afghan security forces. but really we feel like the first one is probably the most important. host: next call from oklahoma. mike is on the phone on the democrats' line. caller: i have heard that the afghan security forces were made up but former no. alliance militia. is that still true? i know that they do not speak the language of the rest of the country. and they are not trusted by the

rest of the country. guest: yes, the composition of the afghan security forces has been a big problem in the past. i think that there has been some improvement over the past year in terms of getting pashtun people from the south to join the security forces, but not as much as one would like. this goes to the bigger question -- what does a national, nationwide state army look like in afghanistan, in a country that has been fractured all along all of these geographic, ethnic, tribal lines for so long? it is a big question. i do not think the answer -- you can ask anyone at the leadership level at the pentagon, it is not satisfactory yet. host: having been in the region a lot, i'm sure this tweet is a question you get a lot.

guest: this is definitely a question we hear more and more, especially in the area of security and fiscal crisis. president obama is quite clearly -- he has clearly defined the mission to be primarily about al qaeda. about the al qaeda threat, that we face in terms of attacks on the homeland, and since he managed to conduct air raid in may that killed osama bin laden, i think that there is a lot of debate happening right now at the highest levels of the obama administration, now that we have really knocked out the key kasich, how much longer and to what extent do we actually need to be there? i think that as we go on, is very possible that we could see

a retrenching of our role in the region. al qaeda is the focus. the taliban at some point in the past may have been defined as the true enemy, but the taliban may be part of a peace deal that we broker with e.f. get -- that the -- what the government. host: the independent line. good morning. caller: about afghanistan, are you with me? host: we sure are. go ahead, sam. caller: i watched a lot of news, a lot of hearings on c- span. and one thing that i really have concluded about afghanistan is how it is being waged, like sending out a small group of soldiers, small in companies as,

maybe platoon sized, and they will walk up in the mountains, and the backyard of the enemy, sure that someone is watching them, and at an opportune time that will bring them under fire. i think the epitome of this, i am sure you both know about the young soldier given a medal of honor here recently. there is a ceremony with the president giving him this award. and the next day or so, 60 minutes had a program on about the details of that operation. are you familiar with these? guest: i am familiar with the case of a soldier who won the medal of honor. host: we are short of time. do you have a question?

caller: you are not familiar with the 60 minutes story? guest: no. caller: it was a operation. they could not have been more wrong. and there was a case where the seal was shot and helicopter. one person said on the tv that they thought they had been set up. in other words, that the seals were directed to a group of soldiers under fire. host: i will stop you there. let me take a larger point of what happened so often in war, misinformation or the pentagon in some cases misleading what happens on the battlefield. guest: certainly the operating

environment in afghanistan is incredibly complex. if you compare to iraq, from a terrain perspective that is much more difficult. you have these steep mountains, isolated valleys, and all of this lends itself to the logistical and tactical challenges. i do not think anyone would want to understate the tremendous sacrifice that our soldiers have made over there. oftentimes with great results. that said, the rank-and-file soldiers asked the same questions that all americans do, which is, what sort of country will we leave behind? what have we accomplished in afghanistan after 10 years? host: missy ryan covers the pentagon for reuters.

the russian invasion took place in the late 1970's and early 1980's. guest: there is some evidence of iranian support for insurgents in afghanistan. i think it is unclear. it is a much more distant relationship than the relationship, if we're talking about outside powers, with pakistan. host: warren joins us from ohio. collor and i think the previous caller said head on most of it. isn't afghanistan the graveyard of empires? what makes us so arrogant as to think that we can bring up a middle ages country, or dark ages country, into the 21st century and make it stick? i do not understand that. and iran is up, for insurgents coming in. the government has already admitted that it is a pass 0.4 fighters to comment, not to mention the other weapons.

another thing, about weapons, the kill cost ratio, the rocket- propelled parades, look at a cost of weapons systems that they can destroy and bring down. a cheap portable weapon, and we cannot fight a war like that. host: thank you for the call from ohio. guest: the graveyard of empires, it certainly has been an accurate description in the past. we need to remember what the context was in 2001 when the international coalition launched its operations in afghanistan and the taliban government at that time. we really saw an existential spread igniting from afghanistan and from al qaeda. from there, there was certainly a period where we wanted to be nation-building.

i think that that has gone away over time. president obama has quite clearly narrowed the scope of what he wants to accomplish and what he thinks we can accomplish. it is no longer about nation- building. it is about bringing a country to a point where it can operate on its own and push back lingering security threats and most importantly, it is about securing american national security interest. host: if you could look at the monitor, the pictures from the "of new york times," leading after the traditional meeting of elders being boycotted by many members of parliament. guest: certainly there is controversy surrounding the elections that occurred in 2010. karzai had his political opponents and there was

criticism of the elections as fraudulent. it took a very long time to actually see the parliament. all this goes to the bigger question, which is, what is afghanistan -- what are the odds of afghanistan remaining as stable, functioning state- democracy in the future? host: we are talking about u.s. relations with afghanistan. the last caller is from buffalo, new york, the republican line. caller: i have not talked to you guys in a while. a couple of quick comments. that $50 billion you are talking about, yes we need that in our country. number two, i am united states marine corps, and vietnam.

training wise, we have four weeks of combat training. guess what? you've got the rest of your training in vietnam. do it or die. afghanistan training, if they cannot learn that in 30 days, then they are backwards, backwards, backwards. we do not need to train them anymore. that is my comment for the day. host: thank you. guest: the afghan security forces, their effort is quite different from the effort undertaken to build security forces in other countries. compared to a rack, that was a highly militarized country that had a strong standing national army for certainly that one away and had to come back. but it had the institutions and the culture there. that is simply not the case in afghanistan. literacy has been a huge focus of the effort to build up the afghan police and army.

illiteracy was so prevalent. the levels of poverty are so much more intense in afghanistan. it is just a totally different situation. host: is the afghan government negotiating directly or indirectly with the taliban? guest: the negotiation as afghan-lead, and the in that his days as an important role in broking -- brokering a peace deal. i think it is unclear whether a peace deal can be had, in the timeframe we would like to see it, from now until 2014. that would guarantee us an honorable exit from afghanistan. the obama administration strategy is predicated on two things, the first of which is, developing an afghan security force that is cohesive comic effective, not predatory against his own people, and the second

one is the peace deal between the taliban and the afghan government assuring some pork -- some sort of long-term political stability. host: of pentagon budget question. we could have a sequester and the pentagon could see billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars cut automatically from the budget. how likely is that? guest: it could happen. that is why secretary panetta and everyone at the pentagon is lobbying very hard for the super committee to come to an agreement. they are selling it as a sort of existential threat against not just the pentagon and military, but the long-term capabilities that we have pared the award of about a hollowing out of the military. it would not affect afghanistan,

but it is more about long-term capabilities, weapons systems. host: missy ryan taking a look at our relations with the afghan government and its people. thank you very much for being with us. coming up later in the program, we will turn our attention to child abuse laws on a state-by- state basis. what of the lessons for the federal government? minutes, a couple of far sunday ran table taking a look at how ohio, new hampshire, and presidential politics. it is also on c-span radio. nancy has a look at some of the issues and topics on the sunday morning programs. the super committee will dominate the conversation. >> they will be talking about the congressional super committee on all the programs to date. we begin at noon eastern with

meet the press, welcoming two super committee members. john kerry of massachusetts and jon kyl of arizona. at 1:00, this week, talking with rahm emanuel about the 2012 race. marco rubio and chris coons on their bipartisan job plans. at 2:00 p.m., fox news sunday, talking with republican congressman geoff and sterling -- jeb hensarling. at 3:00 p.m., condoleezza rice talking about her new book. finally at 4:00 p.m., face the nation, talking with super committee member pat toomey of pennsylvania.

republican presidential candidate ron paul of texas, and west virginia senator joe manchin. rea errors reairs began at 5:00 p.m.. listen to the mall on c-span radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area. nationwide on xm satellite radio 119, or less than anywhere at our website. >> every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. from oral histories, david gergen began his political rare as a staff assistant on president nixon's speech writing team. three years later, he was writing nixon's resignation letter. a balanced budget act, the debt

ceiling, spending cuts, taxes. try 1995. the university of albany the professor on emancipation during the civil war. look for the complete we can schedule at our website. get your scheduled week -- get our schedule in your in box. >> if it was a story was told that when obama was given the first budget, 700,000 earmarks in it, his first in team -- instinct was to veto the budget. it was told that there was no way that he could do that. you cannot cut your ties with the democrats. i just think that had he vetoed it, he would ban the tea party. had he signaled a fundamental desire to change the way that washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement now dow breaks out all over the world because of the

frustration with the current way that democracy does not function. >> lawrence lessig on money and its influence in washington, tonight on "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: and our sunday roundtable taking a look at presidential politics and the super committee. two veterans of capitol hill. jim feehery and jim manley. gentlemen, thank you for being with us. i want to talk about the super committee in just a moment. from the papers and in the number of stories this morning, this is from the "new york times." anybody but mitt. choosing a menominee would spell disaster, conservatism dies, and barack obama winds. there is a related editorial

from bill kristol trade talks about the inevitability. anything could happen in this internet age. bill kristol is no fan of mitt romney. guest: mitt has a long record. he ran and won in massachusetts. it is hard for a true blue southern conservative to win in massachusetts, a lot easier for someone more ideological flexible to win, like mitt romney. he is still the front runner. he has the best organization out there. he has got more money than the others. he has got the experience of running in coming in second, which allowed the others do not. many will not like him but at the end of the day, you still have to think that he will be the nominee. host: let me point this out in

the "washington post." a longtime strategist from new hampshire, what makes me nervous is new hampshire's history. it is like having a five-run lead which of average quickly. someone can always make you run. you have 27 alps. mitt romney not in iowa this weekend but new hampshire. guest: let me tell you this. my history with him goes back to 1994 and i was a young assistant press secretary of course senator kennedy when he was running against romney in the senatorial race. there was a point in time, late september, where most polls had public and private had senator kennedy down by 2%-3%. once they start debating, the

rest was history. mother would own not have recognized her he was. what is true then is true now. he is a quintessential flip- flopper. he bends to the wind. that was true back in 1994 and is true now. romney, i's newt or feel good about our chances. host: how important is this endorsement docks -- endorsement? guest: this is her first term and is a rising star. i think it is a good sign for mitt romney. the thing about romney is that he was able to get within two

points of ted kennedy which is really hard thing to do and then was able to win the next election. he has shown an ability to win in a blue states. that is a nice change of pace for republicans. the question is if he can win in the red states. host: a new poll showing that mitt romney would get 29% of new hampshire voters and newt gingrich would get 27%. is newt gingrich the comeback kid? guest: i read that piece yesterday. is it a match made in heaven or hell? i have not quite figured that out. he is definitely the flavor of the month, but he is really a lot of baggage to the table, which she was marked enough to recognize because he put together a website designed to try and refute some of the questions that have been raised,

whether it is on a personal level with some of his policies or the fact that, first of all, he claimed to be a historian for freddie mac and it turned out that it was a consulting agreement typical of inside the beltway political consultant types. i just feel it is a fatally flawed figure. he has a historical view that i find very troubling. host: the headline, "according i was conservative christians -- "courting conservative christians." some questions came up including the two divorces' by newt gingrich. he discusses those and said

he was going through "a deep personal crisis." guest: will not necessarily turn on the personal stuff but if the people can trust that newt gingrich can leave the country and bring it together. he is a brilliant idea guy. he comes up with brilliant ideas and then some really bad ideas. managing newt is it will come up the cape -- occupation for his staff. what is interesting is that he has absolutely no campaign structure. he has been able to shoot to the top of the polls based on the debates. one of the most fascinating things is that he has been very good after the debates with the media which pleases the

republican base. he has a lot of very good ideas. does he have the staying power or is he the flavor of the month? we will see. usually it is based on a campaign structure. host: are republicans ready to look past the discretions with the history of new to? an issue that came up in a number of the appearances for the former house speaker included on the fox news program with sean hannity. >> i wanted you to explain the $300,000 that freddie mac did not take your advice. you're not a lobbyist for them? >> i have never been a lobbyist

for anyone. i refuse to go back to lobbying. i offered strategic advice on their concerns and i tried to give advice. >> and give it buys to freddie mac and it did not take it? >> that is correct. there was a confidentiality agreement there, so i cannot go into the details. i never did any lobbying for anyone. >> mr. speaker, thank you for being with us. host: your reaction? guest: nothing wrong with being an lobbyist. the problem for newt is you on one attack the gse's hand and get money from them on the other. that is not kosher. that is a big problem for him right now. he has shown some intellectual flexibility himself, doing some campaign ads but al sharpton and

nancy pelosi on global warming. all of these things have given people a reason to doubt where he is going. lobbyists are not very popular with the american public right now. strategic advice when they are actually other lobbying of it. host: year has seen this before. this is herman cain's interview in which a number of issues came up, including libya, and responding to president obama as efforts in libya and other foreign policy issues. we will just watching this from earlier in the week with herman cain in milwaukee. >> do you agree with president obama on libya or not? >> libya.

president obama supported this, correct? it called for the removal -- he called for the removal of gaddafi. it is what to make sure we're talking about the same thing. i do not agree with the way he handled for the following reasons. different one. i have to go back to sea. -- have to go back to see. i have a lot of stuff twirling in my head. host: you is supposed to get

the union leader editorial session. they're supposed to sit down with him for a conversation about his endorsement, but they said no to having cameras in the meeting. guest: there is a small part of me that feel sorry for him, if only because i served as a senior communications adviser to both senator kennedy and senator reid. every time we went to an advertorial board, i found it a very intimidating environment. -- every time we went to an editorial board. he has to begin next president on some animals, but on the fundamental issue, he -- on so many levels. it shows a gross lack of understanding of the very

important foreign-policy issues. specifically to your question, he is still under the impression that he can maneuver the press, which in this day and age, in the 24/7 news cycle, it cannot be done. the press is an important component of the political process and you need to engage them every chance you can. conventional wisdom is you do not do that or manhandle reporters on the campaign trail. again, not necessarily a good tactic that you're trying to court friends in the press corps. host: alan thorton is one newspaper endorsement? -- how important is an endorsement? guest: it is the conservative newspaper in new hampshire.

it is some important in this process. it has a greater size importance due to the size of its circulation. they do take it very seriously there. the editorial paper stick it very seriously. -- papers take it seriously. cain will say he was trying to collect those spots. the problem is when you have a camera on you, you do not have -- he was trying to collect your thoughts. in this youtube world, that can be very damaging. host: the editor and publisher of "the union leader" will be live to tell us why he will pick the candidate to endorse. first caller. caller: good morning. i would just like to ask a

question, especially to the democratic strategist. there are only 400 it rich people in the country. when the democrats say "middle class" they are only talking about union members. they are not talking about the small business owners. these restaurants are close and as we are not franchising. we have three different types of insurance, 30 types of taxes, 20 kinds of bees, state and local -- 20 kinds of fees. i would have to make $1 million gross for my business to function and pay 60 employees. my husband and i only make

$100,000, but we are required to pay the $1 million tax. explain that one to these people who talk about the "rich" and the millionaires. in that 400 people, all the small businesses will get dragged in. host: i am understand the premise of your question. you sit there are only 400 wealthy americans? the number is much higher than that. caller: no, no. when they talk about and on the news, they talk about the 400 people that are millionaires and billionaires that should pay more taxes. the problem is there is not that. guest: thank you for the call and the point. about 400 figure is not quite right. that number comes from the

wealthiest of the wealthy, and it is not the millionaire variety. those are the extremely rich. democrats understand the concerns of working-class america. we understand the needs to promote small businesses. we have done everything we can to try and help small businesses to run the country, but again there is this a ideological test going on between republicans and democrats, currently in the house and senate, where house and senate republicans are standing up for the wealthiest and democrats are trying to fight for the working class. host: and lines -- headlines looking to the iowa caucus.

phoenix, arizona. good morning. you need to turn the volume down on your television. we're getting an echo. good morning. caller: yes. hello? host: i'm going to put you on hold. week will come back to the put the volume down. james car month -- james, republican line. good morning. caller: i am a republican. it mitt romney ever becomes the republican nominee, i would never vote for him. at the massachusetts would not. he was hated here. we did not care for him at all. we were waiting for him to get the hell out of office. i would vote for new gingrich. host: ok.

we will get a response. guest: this explains why mitt romney has some work to do. he has some shoring up, as we have seen, that some simply do not trust him. to the point on taxes and regulations. i own my own small business. it is a nightmare dealing with all the regulations. if you're working with a very thin margins come you deal with state, local, federal regulations, and then on top of mount, especially if you on the business itself, you have to pay all of these taxes, and it is a disaster. keeping up with all the regulations, you're never quite sure. you deal with the local governments and they get back to sometimes, especially in the sea. i and stand what the restaurant owner was saying.

it is really, really hard out there and the odds are stacked against small business owners. all of these people have to make $1 million just to pay their bills, and they get called "rich people," which i do not think they are. we need to be a whole lot friendlier to them if we need to continue to thrive in this country. host: back to the caller in phoenix. caller: this is for the republican strategist. i was just wondering that this big thing will cost $11 trillion. the wars cost $4 trillion. when we need to do is to start looking at our assets and rebuilding for the 21st century.

right now we're dealing with twentieth center problems. -- 20th century problems. i do not know what's wrong with the republicans right now they have amnesia or something. guest: a couple of points. first, if you're talking abut the current tax structure, it keeps a lot of money overseas and and if we could repatriate that money, lower the taxes so that the companies have an incentive to bring $1 trillion back in from overseas, it would actually create a lot of jobs here. yes, the wars should have been paid for. i accept that point. the real cost driver and why are

step -- our debt has steadily increased is because of health care and entitlement costs. if we do not get a handle on entitlements for the next 20-30 years, and the social security trust fund is already upside- down. medicare will bankrupt. if we do not deal with that, we will not have enough money to pay for the pentagon. we have some real challenges to deal with. politicalre that our system is up to the challenge right now. host: let me follow-up on the point on whether or not it is broken. you have the negotiations the president had with the speaker of the house and an inability to reach an agreement on where to get revenue and cut spending. we now have a debt of $15

trillion. senator harry reid is not in town this weekend and the deadline is essentially tomorrow, though technically wednesday. the headlines this morning are about the failings of the super committee. guest: regarding the super committee process, the discussion of the super- committee process does it lead to a discussion about whether or not the political process is broken. all you need to do is look at what happened with the so-called super committee given the powers to move legislation on an expedited process not subject to a filibuster. i believe this will be the case next week. i spent 21 years in the senate, a place that i love and respect very much. i worked there for 11.5 years

for senator kennedy. six years for senator reid. i have the greatest respect and admiration for most people in that party. what will it take to try and fix it? i do not know. something has to give somewhere. just to be fair, i would point out that the process is broken because republicans have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to deal with democrats. senator mitch mcconnell has been very transparent about his views. he told "the new york times" last year that they would do everything they could not to cooperate with the president. as most people know, in early january, he gave a statement to the national journal for he said his number one goal was to make sure obama was a one-term

president. when you look at it like that, it is difficult to imagine anything getting done. sure enough, that has been the case. something has to give. i do not know what it is. i do not think, like i said, the super committee will work something out in the next couple of days. host: a member of the committee and a freshman republican from pennsylvania. here is what he had to say in the republican response to the weekly address. >> by law, all work on this committee must be completed this upcoming week. i remain optimistic. we have what is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity to create millions of jobs, a simpler tax system with lower rates for

everyone, and put our government on a path toward fiscal sanity. we can learn from europe's mistakes. we can continue to be the land of unparalleled opportunity and prosperity. host: it does not look as if the committee will meet their deadline, at least today. guest: is not looking good. i was a super committee optimist early on. i was hopeful they would get this done. if you things conspired to make this not happen. first of all -- a few things conspired. first of all, the deadline has been a fault. the automatic spending cuts do not go into effect until 2013. the legislative leaders say there really is no downside and they can just fix it later on. second, the financial markets will not react negatively. i have already discounted this and they are so focused on what

is going on in in europe that the u.s. looks like a better bet. third, the political leadership on both sides largely believe that precipitous cuts in spending or precipitous increases in taxes at this juncture probably would not be that good for economic growth. they are basically punting. what tom coburn had to say. he is joining us on "newsmakers" coming up after "washington journal." >> was the super committee a good idea or a mistake? >> in washington, the answer is kicking the can down the road. host: john feehery? guest: it seems to have been an exercise, much like the simpson- bowles commission. it was an effort to continue the

process of getting ideas out there and how to deal with this. it would be too tempting to not take, but obviously there was a lack. i would make the point that come early on, president obama was not anywhere near the scene. he had no interest in participating in the super- committee. matter of fact, he is in bali right now. he is not in any way shape or form anywhere near this. you need to have presidential leadership. the president early on in september give a speech to congress about his jobs bill and three days later it appeared in a campaign commercial. he has already started campaigning.

he has decided on a a do nothing strategy. getting something done is not really in his game plan. host: you mention him in indonesia. heat is on air force one this afternoon coming home from indonesia this afternoon after a 21-hour flight. guest: president obama made it very clear according to senior administration officials that i spoke to to the leadership in both the house and senate early on that the president would get in gauge if they would like. he was politely told by the leadership that they could handle it. they're going to take care of things. number two, regarding senator coburn, it is not the first last time i will ever so politely disagree with him.

i do think this was a mistake, but try to take a step back and figure out where it came from. it came from the complete and utter inability of the house republicans, in particular, to negotiate in good faith over the so-called debt limit increase in august. from that camera process to try and deal with the deficit issue facing the country. again, you have to get two parties in this on sunday morning. it appears to be, at this point in time, that the entire exercise was to try to scare the wealthy while making sure the middle class paid more than their fair share. unless something turns around quickly and republicans began to bring more revenue to the table, i do not think the super committee will work and we will

figure out what the next steps are. host: illinois on the independent line. good morning and welcome to the program. caller: it concerns social security and medicare. both of those programs are now solvent. why are you cutting them? why are you placing more deficit reduction on to seniors rather than put it on the programs that are really running the deficit up? i will hang up and listen to what you have to say. host: jim manley? guest: great question. the obama administration comment members of the house and senate, all agreed to cuts in the health-care program. though they will largely be taken from the provider side with no impact on seniors.

it appears to be that republicans, again, whose entire goal is to try to make sure the rich were spare these cuts to try and focus most of the attention to catch on medicare, medicaid, and social security. democrats, so far, have resisted those cuts and i expect that to continue to be the case. host: we welcome our viewers oversees including on the bbc parliament channel which carries this every sunday. from london, go ahead. caller: hello there. how are you today? host: the afternoon to you. -- good afternoon. caller: i have a question relating to the u.s. debt and deficit, and this is coming from a european perspective, so please do not shoot me. in relation to basic commodities

like gasoline, petrol, diesel, etc. the average price per gallon of the pompous about $3.70 in new york. in the u.k., we are paying close to $9 per gallon. one of the best things you could do, which is what we had to do in the u.k., which is sustain a higher gasoline price to get taxes into the coffers of your treasury. you should actually look at the pricings, meaning that people who actually have the money and those consumers will actually have to spend more meeting the poor will not get hurt because they do not have the money to spend now so they surely will not have the money to spend in

the future. you need to have a more equitable fuel price on your side of the atlantic. it is just not there for the rest of us -- not fair for the rest of us to pay the global price. we are paying the bill for you. that is the way we see it in europe. sorry. host: thank you for watching us in great britain. guest: we cannot raise gas prices one nickel, let alone $9 per gallon. we driver further here in the u.s. than they do in the u.k. the fact of the matter is that we drive more than the brits and the europeans do. that is just kind of our culture. it really does not affect the world market whatsoever. this idea, a tom friedman idea, that would be the surest way to

be a one-term member of congress, try to raise gasoline taxes. raising this by $1 for a gas tax will not happen. host: hit it is a tweet. -- here is a tweet. he points out the 89 seconds in the cbs debate ron paul had. guest: daret to dream. he has a core conviction and knows what he stands for. having said that, he has a less than zero chance he will be the next president of the united states. everytime i see the ron paul phenomenon, whether it is this year or in years past, i am fascinated. he has an ability to connect the people on a certain fundamental

level, but the odds are stacked against him. many of his views are far outside the mainstream. like i said, there is just no chance. host: he has indicated he may run as a third-party candidate. guest: in many ways, he has already run. he has shaped the primary debates in many ways. use the first one to have this incredible hostility for the federal reserve which is now, in many ways, republican dogma. he has been an isolationist and a paleo-con. that is a growing popularity among the republican base voters. in many other ways, he has shaped up people look at things like drug laws and other laws that the government put on people. he is, in many ways, a voice for

freedom. he will not get the nomination, but he will and has profoundly impact of the debate. host: in the iowa he is in the top two or three candidates. here is a new ad. >> and economy on the brink of collapse. >> jumping 20%. >> fallout from the debt crisis. >> the nation's debt keeps searching. >> change has come to america. >> the concept of tarp, i was willing to go along with it. >> there is a need for economic stimulus. >> i signed a letter with democrats. >> where are the people here say all of this stuff is socialism?

>> the government ought to be of the protection of liberty, not intrusion in economic affairs. >> we are too much and are bankrupting this country. >> i have been talking about these problems for a long, long time. we have talked about which way we're going to go. i am ron paul, and i approve this message. host: the latest from the ron paul campaign. these events that we covered with the candidates are live on c-span.org/campaign2012. caller. caller: i have a couple of quick comments. last night, i was watching c- span and i saw the democratic speech with rahm emmanuel. shortly after that, pat toomey

came on tv. to me, the republican party is a big joke, so i just turned the station. mitt romney, herman cain, it is just a big joke. you have to feel like you are protecting a bunch of clowns, because that is what those guys are. host: are you embarrassed, john feehery? guest guest: not at all. the offer a variety of visions for the future. i think mitt romney would be an excellent president. newt gingrich has some brilliant ideas. i think jon huntsman, had he not started off on the wrong but, he could be a very serious

candidate. all of these candidates offer important viewpoints. herman cain, from a business perspective, that is a very important to point. we will see how the primary process works out. that will be fun to watch. i am not embarrassed. the fact of the matter is that the republican party is not at 9%. the congress is. not the political parties are all that popular. that is because things are not going as smoothly in america as any of us would like. host: we will go to the dinner but recovered last night with former chief of staff rahm emmanuel. an email.

host: that does, essentially, expelling the sentiment of a lot of this country. they are frustrated with washington. guest: by emperor shredded and i know members of the house and senate as well are frustrated. i try to find a greater good in all of this. like i said, most come on both sides, both parties, they are honestly reflecting their own personal views and opinions and they are trying to articulate and represent their constituents. there is just this great debate that is going on in this country symbolized in part by occupy wall street, debate about where this country is and where we're going. for instance, i find it interesting that republicans are beginning to discuss income inequality. i think, for me, that

symbolizes that they're finally beginning to figure out that there is some angst out there. as an aside, that leads me to say when gingrich tells the occupy wall street people, "get a job and take a shower," he is missing it by a mile. there is conflicting opinions within the congress. people struggling trying to work it out, a lot of good come interested people try to work behind the scenes, but i do not see change anytime soon. host: marlboro, mass., good morning. welcome to the program. caller: thanks, steve. i would like to ask john and jim about media bias. and i would be interested in john's response. i see him a lot on a channel

that basically seems like it's all promises to tear down the republican party. from 3:00-the 11:00, they are lambasting in a front runner. john appears on a show where the moderator will ask a three- minute question and then 15- seconds into a response, he will talk over you. in general, i just want to hear what these guys perceived about media bias that swings toward the liberal point of view. host: the want to share which network you're referring to? caller: news by communists. guest: we live now in an era of advocacy for journalism.

i go on msnbc, because i would rather have me, who can speak freely, then a member of congress who will face trouble back home. i loved doing the show. we get into a lot and it can be a lot of fun. there is a difference between bias in journalism and the advocacy of world we live in where they are trying to get ratings, create fights, spark discussion. obviously, it is very slanted, one way or another. the has always been a suspicion that "the washington post" and "the new york times" lean left, and i do not think there's any doubt that they do. there are plenty of good reporters who are fair in both organizations, but the editorial branding leaves left. i think what people street journal" lanes right.

-- i think "the wall street journal" leans right. i go on those shows. i watch all the networks because i tried to get an understanding of where everyone is coming from. it is actually useful from that perspective. i do not think anyone will be persuaded by the chris matthews show. the watch it for entertainment value. host: mitt romney shifting in iowa, playing to win quickly. cautiously calibrating expectations about his chances in a staple of social conservatives it is now playing to win. guest: a fascinating development. i will agree with that. a couple of months ago, he made a concerted decision to spend as little time in iowa as possible and focused his attention, in particular, on new hampshire. having said that, according to

that article, and other recent ones, he has made a concerted decision to try and spend a little more time, energy, and began to build up a staff there. what will be interesting is that the caucus, among other things, are dominated by evangelical christians in iowa. i have a certain sensitivity to this because i spent six years working for senator reid, who is a mormon. mitt romney, mormon as well, and it will be interesting to see how that will play out in that state, number one. number two, more importantly, as i can go on and on, his repeated series of flip-flops' on the environment, health care, i think he will have a hard time playing in that state, but it looks like he can go for it. host: this gives you a sense of

what we looked at in 2008. mike huckabee essentially winning in the most of the 99 counties of by one of and you can see the strength of mitt romney the did come in second which translates to about 30,000 actual votes compared to more than 40,004 mike huckabee. but romney's support was on each side of the state, but nowhere in the center of iowa. guest: what romney has decided is he has to show that he wants to win, come in second or third instead of the fifth. the governor of iowa said he could not ignore them. it would turn out to be really bad for him in new hampshire. the romney people are looking at this as saying that it probably will not win, but second or third would be better than coming in fifth. that would not be good for them. the fact of the matter is, we learned from rudy guiliani in the last election, he decided to

sit out iowa, said that new hampshire, and put all his marbles in florida. by that time, he had lost all the media attention. you have to play all of these places because of the media attention. this is in media-generated campaign because it so much of the cable networks are covering this 24/7. it is important to be where the media is. host: another debate tuesday night in washington, the first time there has been a presidential debate held in washington, d.c. cnn has the debate at 8:00 p.m. eastern. c-span radio will carry it at 10:00 p.m. eastern. rahm emanuel, the now mayor of chicago, in town for a democratic party fund-raiser and taking aim at the republican field. here he is.

>> take mitt romney. he said he would be in iowa tonight. we should have known he would change his mind. news that the debate, he had to leave early. he had to run back to the most important people, the salespeople at tiffany. cain and rick perry arrived late. there were in their tutorial class. where is libya? host: john feehery? guest: that sounds like a good thing for the democratic base. rahm as a big job taking care of chicago, which is going bankrupt. i am a chicago guy come aboard in the south side. illinois is a disaster. chicago, a complete disaster. he got to get back to work and

try to fix my hometown. host: here is more from rahm emmanuel last night in the morning, iowa -- in des moines, iowa. >> i do not know about you, but i have watched a couple of those debates and a half to be honest. i never thought i would say this. i am beginning to miss the wisdom of syrup pailin. -- sarah palin. [laughter] their debate was called "the thanksgiving family frorum" which is fitting because i have never seen a greater collection of turkeys. guest: that was a great line about governor palin. i am a political junkie at heart, but i have not spent time watching a lot of the republican debates until a couple of weeks ago on another network, and i

have to tell you that i was dumbfounded. that i can say anything this morning, it is this -- i want to urge at the american people to watch more and more of these debates. the more they watch these debates, the more they will be turned off from the extreme rhetoric we keep hearing from these people. watch as many debates as possible. if i was the obama campaign. i would be sitting back and feeling pretty good. host: along a series of questions from new hampshire. they call you both informative and balanced but here.

guest: there are political action committees, so they keep them. the use them to pay off debts. what there is money left over, they use it to influence other campaigns. sometimes they try to use them to promote their own ideas, maybe get a website up. i know people that continue to have them from years ago. they do that so they can take money from the pac and give it to campaigns they care about. sometimes they give it to charity. sometimes they give it to their all maters. -- alma maters. host: john feehery and jim manley. welcome to the program. go ahead with your comments. caller: i would like your two guests to compare and contrast the redman bill way back when

and what is going on with this super committee. i think that would be beneficial for everyone to know what happens when we really do try to balance the budget or get the budget back under control. host: headline from politico this morning. guest: a couple of different ways to respond to this viewer. first of all, thank you for the call. the cynical way to look at gramm-rudman is that it did not as suggested. they put caps on spending that congress soon found a way to get around. for many, that suggests that it is indicative of where this process is going. congress always finds a way to get around the different requirements they set up a.

that is one which went to the question. guest: gramm-rudman did a couple of things. first of all, established the automatic sequestration if you did not hit the cap, and it propelled congress to act. it established a-go in the senate. you could not do anything without it unless you've increased taxes or cut spending. that has an impact. in the 1990's, it was a decade of deficit reduction. by the end of the decade, we had a surplus because of the combined efforts of republicans and democrats at different times. it was bipartisan in 1990. it was partisan in 1994 and 1996. the route that, they came to agreements. chiefly because of the success of gramm-rudman. this could have an impact.

the fact of the matter is that every 20 years or so, congress decides it needs to spend less money. host: we conclude with this e- mail. guest: it will be a significant help. it will not be the only thing. ultimately, you either need to sharply raise taxes or deal with the entitlement program. if you do not deal with entitlements, we go bankrupt. host: if the committee bill to come up of that agreement, what happens next? guest: at the super committee fails to act, there are a handful of issues that need to be addressed ostensibly by the end of the year. president obama is going to new hampshire on tuesday to continue his push for a cut the payroll tax. we need to address that. congress also needs to address by the end of the year another extension of unemployment insurance.

there are a host of other so- called tax expenditures that need to be addressed. the alternative minimum tax needs to be addressed. there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, some of which, the tax extenders and the extension of the bush tax cuts, that needs to be addressed by the end of the year. some of these, including the tax issues, can be done next year and be made retroactive. in this environment, and it is too volatile. like i said, to deal with this retroactively, but short-term congress is going to be consumed again by a debate in early december over the extension of unemployment insurance and cutting the payroll tax. host: i want to share with you one moment from last night from "saturday night live."

>> two new polls show newt gingrich is gaining ground and has now passed mitt romney. that is surprising because i think one thing newt gingrich would be bad that would be catching up with people. he received consulting fees between $1.60-$1.80 million from freddie mac, home of many conservatives blame for the crash of the economy. , on, -- come on, newt. you know what? i'm not going to carry it out yet. host: comments from both of you? guest: when people talk about you on "saturday night live" from where you were six or eight months ago, you think things are fantastic. guest: when they talk about you like that, you are in a heap of

trouble. add to that the reporting in the newspapers about some of the ties to freddie mac and the health care foundation he founded that made $36 million, was it? i do not see it happening myself. host: but the protests, -- both of our guests, john feehery and jim manley, gentlemen, thank you for being with us. guest: thanks, steve. host: 18 comeback, we will turn our attention to this serious issue of child abuse, reporting laws, and how they very. -- vary. first, a look at the topics and guests on the sunday news programs. good morning, nancy.

>> reairs begin at noon on c- span radio. topics today include negotiations by the super committee and presidential politics. we begin with "meet the press." david gregory wilkins two super committee -- welcomes 2 members. abc's "this week" with rahm emanuel about 2012 and marco rubio and a connecticut democrat on at their bipartisan jobs plan. at 2:00, fox news sunday. chris wallace talks with republican congressman hassling -- henserling. at 3:00, "state of the union," condoleezzary and

rice on her new book. at 4:00, "face the nation." bob schieffer talks with pat toomey and ron paul of texas and joe manchin. reairs begin at noon eastern with "meet the press," "fox news sunday," "state of the union," then "state of the nation." e d.c. area, xm 119 or online on cspanradio.org. >> every weekend, the people and events that document the american story. this week and come up from oral

history, 1971 at a staff assistant on president nixon's speech writing team. three years later, he wrote his letter of resignation. also, a balanced budget act, the debt ceiling, spending, and taxes. from lectures in history, university of albany-suny on the civil war. look for the complete schedule on c-span.org/history. click on c-span alerts. host: we want to welcome to "washington journal washingtoncarolyn atwell-davis. a thank you for being with us. let's begin with some of the facts, and we will put these on our screen. the 18 states require any adult who knows or suspects trout the beast reported by law.

42 states and district -- 32 states and district require teachers and medical providers to report. connecticut, iowa, washington state, and the district have clauses that mention athletic coaches. take those figures and explain what the rules state and how they very state to state. guest: every state has a law that sets out mandated reporters, classification the people who are brought -- required by law to report child abuse. the reason they set up these professions, doctors, teachers, is because these people are most likely in a position to be able to know that a child is being abused or see the effects of that, and therefore would have a responsibility. the law is not intended to be exclusive, obviously. everyone should have a moral responsibility to report certainly child sexual abuse.

the states are trying to be in compliance with a federal law called capta which provides grants to states. host: host: 1 with any adult abuse a young child? what motivates them to do that? guest: i wish i had the answer to that. i do not know. unfortunately, it is all too common. many medical professionals have tried to get to the bottom of that, why someone would use a child that way, but we know most of them will continue to abuse children. it is questionable as to whether or not they can be rehabilitated. certainly, treatment is an option as well as certain kinds of laws that regulate sex offenders, such as registration, so that people in the community can learn how to protect

themselves. >> we are dividing our phone lines in this segment not politically but regionally. if you live in the eastern or central time zones, the number to call. as always, you can join the conversation online at twitter.com/cspanwj. guest: it is difficult to put children have not been victimized as a result of laws, but one of the important takeaways from the penn state incident is greater awareness. we know from recent research -- the part of justice says one in five women and one in 10 men have reported being abused as a child at some point before they turned 18, yet only one in three

had disclosed it. that means 2/3 of child sex abuse victims suffer in silence. it is up to the adults to speak for them and tell what happened to them. i want to talk about the case, not to comment specifically because it is an ongoing investigation, but allegedly, you have two adults coming forward alleging they were abused by an assistant coach that took place years ago. why come out after such a long time? >> obviously, they feel empowered by the publicity are around the penn state case. i think that is a good thing. if they feel they are in a position now to come forward and speak about what happened to them publicly, they are in a position to prevent other children from being abused by the same people. host: whether it is the catholic church for a college institution, why do some people

say it is better for the institution not to let the case become public? guest: that is a good question. there's a lot of information about what happened at penn state that has not come out yet. some reporting laws do have specific provisions for public/private institutions that the reporting procedure be through the institution. it is to the person in charge. i believe that states might be looking at the procedures now, but certainly, they were not written with the anticipation that something like this could happen. host: a meeting took place in washington last week with a number of college and university presidents in the area. penn state was topic a. the question is how they can avoid another. what did they not do that the university should have done and how can other institutions learn from that? guest: that is a good question. there's information that has not come out yet. we know the grand jury report,

but there are more details. one of the defense counsel for one of those charged said that the recording had to do with children that were under supervision by the institution. if true, then that certainly is a gap that needs to be filled. any child abuse needs to be reported regardless of whether the child is being supervised at that moment by the institution. host: we will look at what "u.s. news and world report" says about how the laws break down. our guest is the national affairs director for missing and exploited children. our phone lines are open and gordon joins us from new york city. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was divorced in new york state over 10 years ago, and in new york state, my ex-wife's father, under investigation by child protective services, reported by case workers when my daughters

were telling me graphically what he was doing to them -- might ex-wife broke down in court, sobbing, crying during the allegations how she was sexually abused by her father, but in new york state, i cannot -- i have no control over this, stopping my ex-wife from delivering my children into the arms of the man that repeatedly sexually molested her, and i look at this -- this is a man that does not like women. this seems to be a generational thing. this is a family of violence, alcoholism and. it all seems to go hand-in-hand. i appreciate this form -- forum. and the maliciousness with which people who have been molested lash out at their spouse and lashed out at boyfriends and girlfriends -- it goes both ways -- these are people that are emotionally disturbed and are

not focused on getting help with their problem and end up destroying, as we know, the ripple effect all over. i thank you for your heightened awareness. host: how old are your children today? guest: they are 20 -- caller: they are 20 and 17. host: does the abuse continued today or has it stopped? caller: their grandfather has passed away, but in front of caseworkers when they were very small, they were graphically telling me, "pop pop was talking about our but hold -- butthole." as a divorced father, there's nothing i can do to stop my s y -- ex-wife from delivering my children into the arms of the man that molested her for years.

she broke down in the queen's family court, sobbing, crying, without a single denial of those allegations. host: how are your children doing today? caller: psychologically, they are top students. they are into their own things. but they have really been turned against me. my ex-wife and her father have been exposed as perjurers and liars in the court system. they lost all credibility with the district attorney, prosecutors, and the police. thank god we had a legal system because the malicious rumors that they were spreading -- and incidentally, the grandfather was abandoned by his own mother. his father was a notorious drunk and a wife beater. this goes from generation to generation. i just want to alert your audience, and your guest will probably confirm this -- the moment these allegations of the

analyst and you see people that are control freaks -- "why are you reading that book? why are you wearing that shirt? why are you talking to those people?" i have interviewed a lot of people. it is almost 99 out of 100 people. i say do not tell me, but was your ex-wife or x has been molested as a child? they look at me and ask how i know that. host: thank you for sharing with us. guest: clearly, that is a concern. some adult offenders were themselves offended against as children. it is very important to get the treatment for these people that they need early on, but back to the point that these children will not disclose. so it is very important for the adults who suspect or see it to report to someone in a position

of authority who can provide help for that child. host: tony joins us, flint, michigan. thank you for joining us. caller: the gentleman that just called was so dead on. my question was the thought that i have my grandchildren right now. they reported over a year ago that their father was molesting them. the oldest, who is now 12, was started at age four. they had two more children. kept them so -- what is the word i want? dumbed down. they could not talk. they did not know their alphabet. they did not know anything, to keep them from talking. the youngest, was only six at the time, reported what his dad was doing to him, they ignored

him. we went to advocacy centers. they spent maybe three to five minutes with these children, and then turned around and tells their mother and myself that they have quite a good imagination. that this for boy has a good imagination and he will lay on the floor and play with a car and not move it more than 68 inches, but he has an imagination that can say these kind of things that even i cannot get out of my mouth. i do not understand how criminal charges are not brought against parents that do this to these children. and their father had already been in jail for molesting a boy in his family, nine years old or seven. i am not sure the age that was. but still, i am fighting every

day. i had just been in court all week for these children for the second set of allegations because they made them go see their father again and have visitation. can you imagine what this man did to the youngest child? host: let me just jump in there -- the court is still allowing your grandchildren to visit their father? caller: they were removed in january 2010. they got released back to the custody of -- well, not custody, but i had temporary custody. host: you do not have permanent legal custody at the moment? caller: i am having to fight foster care to keep my grandchildren here because the youngest is a boy and the other two are girls, so he has to have his own room and in order to do

that, i have no say. what do i do? add an addition onto my home? host: 94 your call. we will get a response. appreciate you sharing your story with us. guest: it is very sad. it is tragic that most children are victimized by someone with legitimate access to them. a family member. a family friend, a teacher, coach. this is a reality. obviously, i would hope that there is more attention brought to her grandchildren's case. i still do not know the specifics, but law enforcement getting involved with child sexual abuse is critical, as well as child protective services, who can then provide services to the family, but these children will suffer in silence because they are in a

position where they feel they either cannot tell or no one will believe them, as the caller demonstrated. it is possible the children are not being believed. >> we're talking about reporting lines for children around the country. our guest is a graduate of georgetown law and also studied at western michigan university. she is legislative affairs director for the national center for missing and exploited children. jim hines has this point, something we touched on earlier. he says -- guest: that is true. sexual abuse, especially with children, is about control and manipulation. host: next is ron, chicago. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i am glad you brought this topic up. so many kids are of use but feel that they have no power.

usually, family members are aware of them. they cover each other. it is like a big secret. once one person is found out, it is a reflection on all the family for not reporting it. i have custody of my kids and i keep my kids' clothes. they tend to get a little upset, but i know some of the things that happen to children. if children at times feel and empowered, these kids, these coaches -- they might not have a father at home or things are going bad at home, and their mom might have problems. but i would just like to say if you all get may be some type of number to make the kids feel something can be done, but so many times, things are reported and kids feel they have no leverage. usually, the person they are reporting against may be an

influential person. if you all could just speak to that. thank you. host: thanks. where can children go? what can they do? guest: they should go to an adult the trust, which is easier said than done. it depends on the situation. it depends on the adults in a child's life peer they might not feel like they can trust an adult. we hope they feel they have that power to reach out to someone in their orbit. a teacher. perhaps a minister. perhaps a family friend, a neighbor that they can reach out to. in addition, the national center for missing and exploited children has a hot line that adults and children can certainly call. we have that report. we report -- refer all reports directly to law enforcement. host: right now, only 18 states require any adults to report sexual abuse. why is that number so low?

guest: i do not know why the laws are written that way. it is possible that some states felt that certain delineated professions would have an obligation, and some professions are licensed so that any failure to report could be handled by the licensing board. any adult reporting certainly child sex abuse -- obviously, we support that. those reports should go immediately to law enforcement, who would then contact child protective services. i believe other states are probably taking a hard look at their loss now and probably saying they should look at this. maybe they should take the situation into account and see if they have gaps and loopholes in their laws. >> says it is in the news and so much focus on the loss in the commonwealth of pennsylvania, what do you think that particular state needs to change? >> might understanding is that state does have that provision in their law that only children under supervision of the

institution must be reported by the person in charge of that institution. that's certainly would need to be changed. i think the takeaway is the greater awareness that any adult, regardless of whether there is a law saying you have to report it -- they have a moral obligation to speak out for these children that are suffering in silence that did not have the power to speak for themselves. >> -- host: by all accounts, former coach joe paterno never witnessed what was happening. we want to emphasize that is an allegation. but if you witness the and did not take it to the next level, what were his responsibilities? guest: there are so many facts we do not know yet. pennsylvania law says the person in charge is responsible. i just do not know who that would have been, but certainly,

having heard this allegation, i would think that -- i would like to think that anybody would first call law enforcement. host: peter joins us from oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things we have not really touched on yet, but which i know very intimately is the business of the family courts and housebroken they are. it is hard for me to talk about this, but my knees has been saying i have been forced to sleep with her. my brother the last five months -- we went into court a week ago, and the judge gave my brother full legal custody for

this child, continued to do that. the thing about the courts is there is no accountability. there is this sense that -- and it is the game because there's so much money involved -- host: i have to go back to your earlier point, and i know this is a sensitive subject. clarify your earlier point about who you were forced to sleep with, so we have this correct. caller: the whole subject of control. it is about -- eventually, it was reported to child protective services five months later. host: what was reported? caller: my point is that the whole business is that you cannot get any traction legally if you do not have money.

it is obviously very emotional -- host: i misunderstand your point. what was reported there? what specifically happened? caller: all that was reporter was the fact that he was sleeping with -- requiring her to sleep with him for five months. that is all that is reported. according to the child protective services in california -- this happens in california. in california, with the child protective services said was, "we do not know that there has been any penetration." it is all about forcing this child to obey her father in the ways that he wants to. host: how old is the child? caller: 14.

host: was there anything beyond sleeping with him? was there any sexual abuse going on? caller: we do not know that. that is the point. you have these therapists, court-appointed therapists, and you have also these mediators, and because they are allowed to be confidential -- i mean, you cannot talk -- if you are a therapist for a child, you cannot talk to anybody about it. you are supposed to represent the child. the child says this child told her court-appointed therapist that in fact she had told her and month end to this happening , and we suspect she never reported to child protective

services, which is, of course, she would lose her license right away. host: going to stop you there. this shows you how complicated and difficult this is. guest: this is tough for every agency in every state to deal with. many times there are these areas that are hard to understand exactly what is going on and who is culpable for what. it is very difficult, but there are many good professionals out there that are very good at interviewing child abuse victims and talking with them. every state has a child advocacy center that works with victims and works with law enforcement and the state welfare agencies, and the more train people we have dealing with these children and can speak about what happened to them, then that will certainly help the system. host: david joining us next, chicago. good morning.

guest: -- caller: good morning. i think we need to back up and address what is behind sex abuse and sex addition, which is the proliferation of pornography, and what legal regulations we can impose on these websites that have easy access to of fenders. i would like you to address that if you could. guest: i'm sorry, which websites that provide easy access to offenders are you referring to? host: are you still on the phone? you are talking about the proliferation of pornography? caller: in free web sites in abundance that abuse is gaining

speed through these pornographic web sites. host: thank you. where is the line drawn? guest: that is a difficult subject, because you have adult pornography which may or may not be against the law, and you have child pornography, and the internet has resulted in the collaboration of child pornography because anyone can go on the internet and fine like-minded individuals who like to look at those pictures like them. they can stay at home, go on the edge that, and file -- fine child pornography virtually for free many places on the internet. host: an e-mail and a tweed on the same topic -- "can we have a national standard for this type of abuse?" jan saying, "can we have uniform reporting requirements in all states?" guest: the u.s. senate is

looking at that as to whether the child abuse treatment act can be amended. host: jennifer joining us, raleigh, north carolina. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have worked in child welfare for 16 years and seen it done both ways where we have had excellent cooperation between law enforcement and social services and where the sheriff's office commended a couple of his deputies that that is all that they did was child abuse investigations. these were deputies that wanted to take the job. they were trained. they were excellent at it. social workers were specialized in it. then, there were other systems where you sort of catch as catch can. as far as the social worker or law enforcement, they may not want to do those types of

investigations. i have done them. they are not easy emotionally. there are just some people who did not want to do them and they are hard to do, but they get stopped doing them. this is really just a call out to law enforcement and social services to work together to create child abuse task forces that are specialized for this purpose. i think they work great together. thank you. host: thanks for the call. our local law enforcement agencies in this day of budget constraints underfunded when it comes to following up on these cases? guest: they are underfunded when it comes to any crimes against children. we know that. officers dedicated to crimes against children are absolutely critical, whether it is child pornography, whether it is child sex abuse. education of officers and having those officers dedicated to investigating those crimes, as the caller said, is just the

best way to attack the problem. yes, budget restraints are a problem. i know the present one to provide some funding opportunities for some specific areas of fighting crime. i do not know if they have one specifically for child sex abuse. they do wonderful work with dedicated teams of internet crimes against children. host: less than a minute left. quick question from cincinnati. please keep it brief. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am concerned that a misrepresentation of statistics can perpetuate homophobia. i and my years at the drug council, the data seems more like less than one male to 10 females report sex abuse as children. host: i will stop you on that point. guest: current statistics are always helpful. i do not know the numbers on

offenders of their sexual orientation, but the sex of the reporting of sexual orientation might lead to lower instances of reporting. another thing we need to look at. it is a challenging subject. host: you for being with us. more information online at missingkids.com. the conversation continues tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal." we will check in with the supercommittee as the deadline looms. and paul singer on chips for the house of representatives peer and a director of the direction -- the direction -- director of the coalition as we focus on foster care and adoption. that is all tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, 4:00

for the viewers and listeners on the west coast. thanks for joining us on this sunday. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, "newsmakers" with senator tom coburn. then, "the contenders," the show on key figures who ran for presidential races and lost but changed the process anyway. hubert humphrey. >> there was a story i was told from inside the administration