our guest is michael hirsh of "the national journal." at 8:30 eastern, tim lynch of the cato institute and winnie stachelberg of the center of american progress debate the merits of hate crime laws. and a discussion of the energy department, loan guaranty program with frank rusco of the government accountability office. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: it is going to be a tight primary night this southern tuesday, with close contests for the gop candidates. and hawaii and american samoa hold their caucus system. coverage begins on c-span with a simulcast with politico at 7:00 p.m. or watch online nacke c- span.org. meanwhile, president obama and first lady michelle obama

welcomed prime minister david cameron and his wife semi of the to the white house today. obama and cameron travel to dayton, ohio, to watch a basketball tournament game and then an official ceremony in state dinner for the british leader on wednesday. good morning, everyone, tuesday, march 13. we begin with the news that -- that the justice department blocked another voter i.d. law, this one in texas, argues it targets the hispanic population. this is after justices blocked another voter i.d. law in december in south carolina. the editorial pages in washington -- we want to go outside the beltway and hear from all of you about voter i.d. laws, for or against. democrats -- remember, you can also send an e-mail or go to our twitter page.

post your comments on facebook. we begin with "the houston chronicle" this morning, and there had lied on the justice department moved. -- headline on the justice department's move. "the washington times" frontpage 3 -- -- front-page story -- and then, "the washington post" had of their story this morning inside the newspaper.

our question to all of you this morning, voter i.d. laws for or against. a democrat from indiana. are you for or against that? caller: i am against. host: why is that? caller: --

host: anything else to add? caller: they are doing this to stop this black man from winning the election. host: let's go to new york. scott, independent caller. your thoughts. caller: i am a democrat but i am also running for office as an independent and i believe that when i go to vote, i actually have to present an idea of some sort. so, i think obviously you have to identify yourself in some way, shape, or form. what the id is, is debatable. a lot of different forums -- forms. but it is reasonable to prevent voter fraud to have some kind of idea. host: you broke up there a little bit. you said, on the other hand -- caller: i think you have to

present yourself with some kind of id two present yourself, but it needs to be the least restrictive and not discriminate against especially minority groups or other groups, of which, at the report -- as the report said, tend not to have driver's licenses and other forms of id. but you do need to identify the person who has to vote. i think it is reasonable. but to make it into a one-side or other side is not the right thing, either. but you do have to conduct -- kind of present yourself in some way, shape, or form, to the board when you go and vote. and identify yourself. i think it is reasonable. host: let me bounce this off of you, because this is "the wall street journal." they weigh in on it. they write --

what do you think? caller: i respect the statistics. but again, when that person present in front of you, to make sure that that person is not using anybody else's identity,

they have to have some type of form of id. i think the real solution is for all of the people who don't have either state i.d. or driver's license, how come they don't do identification drives or something like that for people who are legally able to vote. they should have some type of reform of driveway before the election occurs. it is almost like this is a band-aid solution. one side wants to prevent other groups from voting, which is wrong. host: robin, a republican from nebraska. go ahead. caller: yes. the constitution -- the 10th amendment says the tate have priority over the federal government. i don't have a driver's license and i have a picture id. i am legally blind. and i still vote.

host: you were able to get identification? caller: yes. host: was it difficult? caller: no, not really. ol state -- the state capit at all the birth certificates and i needed a copy of that. i went to the courthouse and got a picture id. host: here is "the new york times" editorial this morning. here is what they have to say --

they go on to say that the -- that is "the new york times" opinion. randy, a democrat from michigan. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. this is a tricky one, because i do agree with the first democrat gentleman who called -- we have voter i.d. out here. i have to show an id. but there are only 80 people in my whole voting area -- or maybe 200, to be realistic, in my whole township. i know just about everybody. i have never grown up not knowing anybody. i live on the edge of next to

know where. i have always known everybody. but i watched on this show before and i have seen -- one gentleman was third generation without a driver's license. i would never imagine in my entire life -- he lived in new york -- who would go through generations without a driver's license. so, that really shocked me for being out here in the country. the premise that it is voter fraud -- i think it is a good -- i reject that promise because that is the wrong way to approach this. because really you can look at the justice department study from 2005 to, i think, 07, and they checked 20 million voters and found about eight cases of fraud. so, the use of that in -- they are trying to politicize something that really we need to have a good, open conversation. like the first gentleman said, open it up and make it brought on the id, because i was

against -- at first i was like, what's wrong with the driver's license, until the one gentleman said he was third generation without one. we've got such a big country. i did not know how it is to live in the city. host: this is a breakdown of the states who have voter i.d. laws. green have strict laws, yellow -- blue -- the gray states have no voter i.d. laws. dayton, ohio. independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think it is a good idea. there is enough time between now and elections for anybody who is interested in voting to look into it. if it is an issue of the cost

of a driver's license being too expensive -- at least for the purposes of the election, it might be considered, i believe states -- you can also use a state i.d. card. there has to be some measure put in place check all sorts of practices. instead of casting aspersions on the ability of the elections -- the rest of the voter i.d. in place. host: here is a tweet-- send us a tweet. let's go to ramona, a republican from san antonio, texas. we lost ramona. we have bryan, a democrat from texas. caller: yes.

hello? host: you are on the air. caller: ok. thank you for taking my call. i lived in plano, texas, and i voted in 2010. the first time i would ever ask for a driver's license, which kind of shocked me because i have a voter registration card, and you cannot get one of those without presenting some sort of valid id, and it has usually always been the case here in texas to use that. i feel like this issue is being used not only in texas but across the country as a wedge issue. something to prevent other ethnic groups, if you will, older people -- there are a lot of older people whose driver's licenses have expired. and then they will go to the polls and vote -- and what? they have a valid voter i.d. card, but there license has expired.

host: you disagree with the texas law? caller: yes, i do disagree with the texas law. i applaud the court for knocking it out in its entirety. host: what about the argument that people say it is not that hard to go and get some sort of identification. caller: it is not that hard for the vast majority of people, but for people with lower incomes, older people, elderly who have a hard time getting out of their house, it is a bit difficult for them. and they might not even have a valid birth certificate in which to obtain the cards with -- they are so old. we have a very old population here in texas, elderly population. and if they were born back in the 1800's or what have you, they might not have that

required id. host: to you agree with this from "the new york times" editorial page? they say it means of to 800,000 hispanic voters in the state could be disenfranchised if they cannot get and government id. do you think it could be that high? caller: i do agree, yes. especially down in the southern half of the state. i do agree with the that. but even if you were to say, okay, this could open the door to voter fraud, which is what they are trying to say basically, there are not enough people that do not have a valid id's that could throw an election one way or the other. really, if you look at the statistics, there are not enough people who could throw the election to the republicans or the democrats, or whomever. so, voter fraud in our country is not the great big issue that i feel like since the tea party republicans in 2010 -- and that

whole election took over, they are trying to make it sound like a huge thing that can throw a presidential election out of the window and it is just simply not there that is my personal opinion. host: brian in texas on i democrat line. i want to give you some other news this morning. we got your opinions yesterday about the civilian killings in afghanistan on sunday. more in the papers today, and something we will talk about coming up in a half an hour or. here is "the new york times." we will talk about that -- president obama in interviews

saying the pullout from afghanistan will not be sped up. we will talk about that coming up. and then a little bit more about the suspected shooter.

philip a bit more. and by the way, defense secretary leon panetta and weighed in on this late monday, saying the soldier could get the death penalty. the soldier under army investigation -- whose base is under the army investigation for denying psychiatric care to soldiers. the base where the soldier was that -- there has been an investigation into the lack of psychiatric care there. we will be talking about that coming up. on politics 2012, the primary, southern tuesday is what it is being called. here is local paper from -- are

the local papers from alabama and mississippi. gop support up for grabs. and hawaii also holds its primary today. and then also, here is the mississippi newspaper. big sandy, texas. scott, a republican. a reminder, our coverage of primary night begins tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. and go to c-span.org /campaign2012 for more

information. what do you think about your state's voter i.d. law? caller: i believe the law definitely is discriminatory, but it should be. it is going to discriminate against people who are here illegally, people who should not be voting. anybody who believes in illegal immigrants should be voting in our elections -- it seems to be the opinion of eric holder and the obama administration. have been able to -- you had been able to vote on a provisional ballot without any idea whatsoever. you can go through the routine of voting but it would not be counted. they will go to the county and they will look at it. if they would make a difference in the election, they will try to go in and research and see if any of the provisional ballots are good balance. but 99% of the time they are not, will not be counted. the only people it would discriminate against are the people who are not supposed to

be voting. akst: what about these twee that texas lawmakers wanted to make, according to "the new york times" best the rejected -- when a lawmaker offered an amendment to allow free access to birth certificate instead of charging $22, they rejected that, too. caller: it should not be the expense of the state to make sure you have an id. you cannot get an airplane without an idea. there are a lot of things -- you cannot get a library card without an id. and to think you ought to be able to vote and cancel my vote without any sort of idea at all? it is just ridiculous. host: all right. jimbo, independent from california. caller: just a comment. i miss the capitol dome as the

backdrop. host: we will be there shortly. our studio is under construction. caller: first, to my friend from texas, there are no statistics that show. i have no dog in this hunt. i am voting for buddy roemer, so i am not independent. i am just interested in the whole legal process. but first, just the stacks -- stats, no statistics show illegal aliens vote. eric holder got the killing of the american citizen in the formation wrong, but i think he got this right. it is all about voter suppression. i -- which they should -- would just be honest about that. the only really good facts out there came from the justice department. the people do not like them, they can go to other places. but it is voter suppression that is a huge problem.

this will probably make it to the supreme court, and really, what it is going to be about is the interpretation of the voting rights act. whether you cannot pass any law and the state level that would disproportionately disenfranchise any group. that is just what it is going to be all about. i think all of these states who passed these laws, they are going to have to completely waiver a system in which people have to pay any money for it, because otherwise we are just back to jim crow -- literacy tests for voting. the huge problem in this country is a voter suppression. that is where the statistics come out. i think it is disingenuous. i wish they would be truthful and say we want to stop a whole bunch of people who blindly

almost in a very christian of fashion will vote democrat and not look at the facts -- always been a hari krishna fashion vote democrat and not look at the facts, and what we really need to do is look at the whole truth and that is what buddy roemer is about. if you are in a state like california you can go and vote for buddy roemer. host: i will leave it there and show "the wall street journal" editorial again because they talk about the supreme court.

anna, democratic caller in las vegas. caller: i just wanted to say i used to live in houston and recently i have been trying to help my adopted mother there get an id card. her purse was stolen. and the only thing she has now, she has a copy of an old driver's license. when she went to the dmv to get a new id card, she did not want a driver's license, and they told her they needed her birth certificate. she was originally borne in the louisiana back in 1929.

there were not given a birth certificate, they were given a certificate of baptism from a church in a small town she was born in. she got that. the people at the driver's license plates told her it was not acceptable. so, she has nothing -- she has her expired driver's license but they would not accept that. they will not honor of a certificate of baptism. this is all about suppression. i just want to say one other thing to greta, right quick. when i lived there, i went in -- a lot of people don't know that i was kind of noticing, they told me at the time -- they did not ask for identification by automatically pulled out my driver's license but they were telling me they did not have my name on the list, so then i said call down to the main office in houston at the boulder place and just make sure

and check -- voter place, and one lady was saying, it will take us a little while, and i said i did not have anything but time, i will wait. i happened to look down on the list and i saw my name and at the time she said, well, we can give you a provisional ballot, but i didn't realize a provisional ballot does not really count. like the gentleman said, unless there is something where they just have to. they don't really count those provisional ballots. that is another way of keeping a lot of minorities off, unless you go and really push to make sure they have your name. host: this is a tweet from john in north carolina. an e-mail from a viewer --

and then, of course, we are taking your comments on our facebook page as well. here are a couple of them. linda, though, says -- book a raton, florida. lucie, republican. i will put you on hold. we will go to albuquerque, new mexico. dale, democrat. caller: how are you doing? i just wanted to say real quick that talking about the need an id to buy cigarettes and beer or writing a plane or driving, that is fine. but voting is a constitutionally protected right. it is not something saying you need to have that. this is a right. one of the rights that came from

of founders. and right now, as far as texas, it is very expensive, especially coming out of a recession -- not everybody have a job where they can spend that extra $10 or $15 or whatever it takes to get your birth certificate or get your driver's license. they did not have the extra money right now to vote because things are real tight. hopefully people will be a little more considerate. the last point i would make is i would be a little more respectful of this bill and the laws if right now in the primaries they were in forcing the voter i.d. thing. from what i checked around the country on the different primaries, they are not doing any voter i.d. checks in the republican primary. anybody who wants to come in

both, whether it be -- republicans and democrats can vote, they are not checking id's. how come you have to do it now -- but in the general have to have an id? it is not fair. that is not the way america usually works. host: the british prime minister david cameron is in town today with his wife for an official visit and state dinner. here is the headline in "the washington post." that is a look at david cameron.

you will see his arrival at the white house what the state dinner wednesday night. president obama and the prime minister had to dayton, ohio, to watch a basketball game later today. this is what "the new york times" this morning says. that is another topic that is likely to come up between the two leaders. it says -- also, the front page of "the financial times" this morning. they know it's in this article that poles supporting -- they note in this article that polls

senneff get -- supporting afghanistan. and the front page of "the new york times" says obama's ratings fall as polls reflects volatility. as gas prices go up, obama's ratings go down. "the baltimore sun" this morning says the administration is going on the offensive on the issue of gas prices. they put this out yesterday. coming out of the white house on the issue of gas prices. we indicated earlier, polls

show tight contest in alabama and mississippi. here is "the new york post" this morning. showing alabama, gingrich up, -- some local papers for you. a montgomery advertiser says strong voter turnout expected. but another paper this morning says statewide voter turnout expected to be light in their state. it's have a different headlines on the primary tonight. our coverage begins 7:00 p.m. eastern time. we will start with a simulcast of politico's coverage and then we will also covered the

candidate's speeches as well. let's go to mark, a republican from lancaster, pennsylvania. voter i.d. laws? caller: i am for showing an id. last month i was watching c- span 2, and a latino woman who was head of the brown coalition or bangkok this -- caucus, saying people need to get out and fight against this id law so they will get their numbers up and more people in power. and she said also about the department of justice, that they had friends in their helping them block this so they can get more in and she said if they can

get the numbers up and more people in power, then they can get the dream act passed. thank you. host: the house is out this week but the senate is in and "cq" says the majority leader set 17 cloture votes on judges. the move to highlight cases of judicial confirmation. the gop calls it a ploy. that is what is happening in the senate. debating a two-year highway reauthorization bill as well. this is from "the new york times" saying the house gop split over a bid to revise a budget deal.

so, this is a battle to come. and the politics section of "the washington times" has this story. that is "the washington times" this morning with that story. "the wall street journal" has this headline on the front page. obama to push china on minerals.

and then the federal reserve is meeting today. they are likely to hold their fire on the economy, as they look at the job gains reported for the month of february. below that, they have a related story -- the federal reserve plans to put out another stress test on the nation's big banks showing the readiness for any type of nightmare scenario. and then all local level, "usa today" says property taxes starting to decline. minnesota. good morning.

caller: good morning, america. this is completely a political situation. this is a waste of time -- talking about mexico, you need an id to vote. if we did not have 20 million people in our country who we did not even know who they are, you would kind of figure it is important to have a voter i.d. because in that scenario alone, it is not like there are 20 million irish who all of a sudden came over and we have an irish vote for people do not know who somebody is. you have 20 million people we do not even know who they are in the country. of course you need an id. host: let us hear from beverly, a democrat from houston, texas. caller: i and disabled, a cancer patient. -- i'm disabled. i have an expired id. i paid $26 to go and get it when i was still able to get out and it never got mailed to me. the state of texas outsources

all of that kind of stuff and they lost a whole bunch of them and they invite me to come down and pay $26 more. our problem is that rick perry is not interested in the federal vote and they won to suppress democrats. the idea is, if you have an expired id or a college id or in my case a card that has my name and my picture, this is more proof of id. we have many proof of id -- and not all of us buy beer and cigarettes or go to casinos or fly airplanes. many people are disabled and elderly and are in their homes. we need to be able to provide more proof of who we are. that is the problem. and not enough department of water miracle offices. we do not have a lot of --

department of motor vehicle offices. we do not have a lot of infrastructure. the vote is being suppressed. host: howard says this on twitter. indiana. emma, republican. you are on the air. caller: i think the id card is wonderful. everyone has a driver's license. and my husband, where he works, he has to have a picture i.d. to go inside the gate. there is no problem with this. people just not want to do it so they can fraud the government. that is my comment. oh, greta, also, obama is part white so i wish they would get off of this that we do not want a black president. cain, i would have voted for him because i think he would have

been a very good president. thank you, honey. host: here is "the wall street journal" headline. if you are interested in this, go to our website, c-span.org, and you can learn more about what this agency does. also "the washington times" had saw this story -- has this story. hot springs national park, arkansas, then, independent. for or against voter i.d. laws?

caller: i am strongly in favor and i would go a step further and say you have to present either a copy of your birth certificate, an original or a certified copy of your birth certificate, to be able to vote. for a number of years not i worked as an election official during a different elections -- state and national level -- and i want to make the point that even with the best intentions and the newest of technology, voting is a messy process. it is essential we have id's perk -- for people to vote. the gentleman -- brian from texas who called in saying there was not enough folks without id to throw an election. brian is living in a dream world. we have a real problem. and the lady who called in and said her mother born in 1929 in louisiana could not get a birth certificate. if she has ever voted, she could get a copy of for voter

registration and give it a shot, or call her state or u.s. representative -- they will get hurt taken care of. the fellow from the mexico saying voting is a constitutionally protected right -- constitutionally protected right for citizens. for citizens only. and make them show some kind of id. thank you so much. host: before you go -- you are an election official. caller: i worked as a volunteer poll worker. host: and you have seen this problem as pervasive? caller: well, to give you an example -- when you showed the chart of the various states of what they require, you listed arkansas as a non-voter i.d. state. a actually the law says you have to present photo identification. but it also says if you do not have it or ask not to show it, you don't have to. why they did that, i have no

idea. but i think there is a real problem, yes, nationwide, with people who are not citizens voting. a look at the motor-voter law and all that has to be done to register to vote in any state in this country, and it is simply reprehensible because you answer five questions -- if you answer them correctly and get your vote registration, no one ever checks unless something is asked about it afterwards -- anywhere. host: a program note for all of you -- we will be covering the senate energy and natural resources committee live today on this channel, c-span, and c- span.org. eight hearing what secretary of energy steven chu about a loan guarantee program that included solyndra. we are covering that hearing today live on c-span. and it is our topic later on

this morning in our last hour of "washington journal." the government accountability office, a gao, did their own investigation into the loan guarantee program -- not just solyndra but the program at large -- and they found there is a lack of oversight from doe. that was the headline in a couple of newspaper this morning. sandy, a republican from garden city, michigan. you are the last phone call. for or against? caller: i am for it because it is -- as a coincidence i was a poll worker the last election we had in our city in west bloomfield, michigan, and i would like to know why is it that people think that they can she -- cheat and vote twice for a certain person running for reelection or election, that is okay. but lawfully anything that has

to do with voting, they should show an idea so they can not cheat. i would like to know why do you always read columns from liberal newspapers and then watch to see when to cut us off? you are not being fair at all. host: after you make your point, i tried to move once i can get as many voices in as possible, whether it is a guest taking your phone calls or whether it is in the first 45 minutes, trying to get as many different voices as possible and we read from all newspapers -- "washington journal -- "wall street journal," "know your times,". we will look and afghanistan and the follow-up -- follow up on the civilian killings from a gas farm "national journal," michael

hirsh. -- a guest from "national journal." >> i hope that as we move forward in this world, there are a number of problems that we have to resolve. problems of genocide in darfur, a growing problem with the people's republic of china, iran. we have a lot of problems to deal with and i think diplomatic solutions are going to have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming. >> congressman donald payne, who passed away this week, was the first african-american to serve the house from new jersey. elected in 1988, he was a former head of the congressional black caucus and served on house committees on education and our

affairs. watch his speeches from the house floor and other c-span appearances all archived and searchable online at the c-span video library. >> congratulations to all of this year's winners of c-span's studentcam video documentary competition. a record number of middle and high school students enter the video on the theme "the constitution and you." watch all the winning videos at our website, studentcam.org, and join us mornings in april as we show you the top 27 videos on c- span. and we will talk to the winners during "washington journal." >> our ancestors came across the ocean and sailing ships you would not go across a lake in. when they arrived there was nothing here. they built their tiny little cabins. and they did it with neighbors helping one another, not federal grants. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look

back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact. >> this is also the time to turn array -- turn white from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world. but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> c-span.org" continues. host: we are back with michael hirsh from "national journal." what do we know about the alleged shooter and what is the status of the shooter? guest: he turned himself in. he is a staff sergeant who was

assigned to a base in kandahar province, which is in a regional commands south, ironically enough, considering all of the affects of this disaster, it is considered one of the more stable parts of the country. he has not been charged yet. the investigation is going on. he was deployed from los mccord base, the joint army airbase near tacoma, washington. and i think one of the more striking things is that base has been under investigation for what appears to be a policy of downgrading the affects of traumatic brain injuries so as to allow more soldiers to be deployed.

we did not have his name yet, but according to various reports from abc news and other organizations, he was now on his fourth deployment. he had done three in iraq and one in afghanistan. he at some point suffered a traumatic brain injury from a vehicle accident in iraq. he had some sort of marital problems, all of which adds up to a picture of someone who is under considerable stress at a time when the tensions were running incredibly high in this country. remember, just before this incident on sunday, we had a series of attacks on u.s. soldiers by afghans in the wake of the burning of old korans by u.s. forces. not to excuse the horrific act he had allegedly committed, but it does seem as if he was someone who had many problems that were perhaps not fully

addressed by the u.n. does military. host: the base he references in seattle, called the lewis- mcchord base in that area. leon panetta waiting in yesterday, saying this soldier could face the death penalty -- leon panetta weighing in. guest: he will be tried on the military justice, which could include the death penalty. there does not seem to be a lot of dispute right now, at least from the u.s. side, about what he did. the afghan politicians are demanding that he be tried under afghan justice in afghanistan. that is not going to happen, almost certainly. certainly not a tradition. he will be tried under military justice. and most accounts that he had from the field indicates that he simply walked off the base in the middle of the night. it was noticed, they sent out a search party.

he went to visit nearby village and began methodically to try to answer various homes where afghans were sleeping and went into a couple of them -- and in one of them, apparently killed what seems to be an entire family. i think the 16 dead included nine children. if these facts are established, he certainly could face the death penalty. afghan witnesses are insisting that more had to be involved. i am not sure why, but these are the kinds of reports we have heard from the ground since sunday. but u.s. officials insist he acted alone. host: of which show our viewers your headline yesterday -- i wanted to show our viewers your headline. it's out about the fallout of this situation. i want to show you and your viewers what president obama had

to say yesterday in an interview about strategy going forward in afghanistan. >> back in 1968, there was the meli massacre -- is this the modern-day version? >> it appears that you had a lone gunman who acted on his own in just a tragic, tragic way. i talked to president hamid karzai and expressed my deep condolences. in no way is of this representative of the enormous sacrifices are men and women in uniform have made in afghanistan. but it stresses the importance of us transitioning in accordance with my plans and afghan taking more of the lead for their own security and weaken start taking our troops home. host: michael hirsh? guest: well, of course the president is going to deny any parallels, and is perhaps a

little overdrawn, but there are certain similarities. meli much worse, more people died, an entire unit involved, but it did come at a time when there was intense stress on american soldiers in the field, and above all, the lack of knowledge of who the enemy was and was not. one of the real problems we have the way forward in afghanistan right now is that the entire u.s. strategy relies on a handover of control of security to afghan forces we were training. in the aftermath of these incidents, u.s. soldiers have been getting killed right of to what happened a couple of weeks ago when two -- two officers were is shot dead inside the interior ministry in kabul. you have this sense of who we can rely on and who we contrast, and if we do not have

that as a sense of reliability in the afghan government, in the afghan military forces that we are training, then the whole u.s. strategy goes out the window. >> the president saying the time table stays the same, but you wrote yesterday in your piece that privately administration officials are talking about speeding this up. what have you learned? guest: there was also a report in "the new york times" to that affected today. there are discussions going on. nothing has been settled. an interesting thing to me is there are no details of the handover that have really been fleshed out yet. defense secretary leon panetta several weeks ago broke some news in the talking about a hand over possibly as soon as mid 2013. of but that was before these incidents began. so, now what we have is about

90,000 u.s. troops left in afghanistan. an additional 20,000 to 30,000 -- i think 22,000 expected to be coming home from afghanistan by september, which constitutes a surge, the last of the surge, so-called, that president obama initiated in 2010 -- 2009. the point in -- the point is we will have about 68,000 troops left, and the question now is, are those going to come home any sooner than the current target date, 2014. that is what is being debated. what i reported and what "the times" is reporting is there are discussions going on, nothing more. but the fact is, getting back to the earlier point, because there are now so many doubts about the viability of the strategy, if what you now have is a quagmire

with no real hope of going forward, then why should we stay any longer. host: the gop presidential candidates waiting in. rick santorum and newt gingrich settings support for the afghan fight drops, citing the polls. rick santorum saying one option is to leave even sooner than called for in the time line. "the financial times" editorial weighing in. staying the course and afghanistan. western allies must avoid repeating the mistakes of vietnam. of the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee as the opposing view in "usa today." accelerate the time line, is what he has to say. "usa today" says civilian slaughter raises new doubts about the afghan mission. gur of gravity will be in this whole debate going forward. it is not just complicated by

the intense politics of the 2012 presidential campaign, but it is also that on capitol hill there is fast decreasing support for this war effort. and without political support for funding the war effort, and you begin to -- you begin to lose your strategy that way. we will see intensifying debate but another important factor here is that -- it is not discussed as much but it is at least important -- the relations with the pakistani government next door has been disintegrating. it is critical because pakistan supplies a safe haven to the taliban will come across the border -- and other anti- american elements like the haqqani network. the area that is really much more model and less secure than even this area where this incident occurred -- that was in

regional commands out, can the heart, which u.s. officials in recent months has been pointing to as a place of stability -- regional command south, kandahar. in the north, you do not have as many troops. and they're real questions about whether in an environment with -- where a u.s. soldiers are trusted or hated, and you have it coming across the border, supported by the pakistan government, which has really frozen its relations with the u.s. in the aftermath of other incidents, including the inadvertent nato strikes that killed 24 pakistani soldiers. and really bad relations since the takedown of osama bin laden, then that is when you

sketch out a nightmare. host: dave, a republican in michigan. you are on the air with michael hirsh. caller: i believe obama-care's apology prior to this incident -- obama's apology prior to this incident -- that soldiers reaction, along with his mental disability, was about what he did. i do not think obama is fighting this war smartly. i think he should bring our troops home before he has many of them killed due to his inability to fight the war properly.

host: in polls, support for the war is weakening in the united states and the united kingdom. guest: we do not know anything about his motives. obama did call president karzai, and that was preceded by an apology by the commander of u.s. forces there which was felt to be necessary because this offended sensibilities. let's not lose perspective on what really happened here. this is obama's effort, and it is perhaps not successful, to make up for what was the better part of a decade of the u.s. neglect of the afghanistan going back to early-2002, when president bush began to turn his attention towards iraq, and there was a disastrous decision not to expand u.s. security

after the fall of the taliban to areas beyond kabul. in general, there was five or six years when the u.s. was doing almost nothing while we were focused on iraq. this is the clean-up from the disastrous series of errors. you could put some blame at obama's doris, but it was a strategy to make up for what was already a disaster with the taliban and resurging. host: in "wall street journal" -- the perils of retreat. they note that nothing like this has happened over 10 years of difficult counter-insurgency warfare. coalition troops have been disciplined and professional. it goes on to say that --

but guest: i would take issue. it has not been 10 years of difficult punter-insurgency warfare. this really only began in the last three years. this was part of obama's surge to apply the thinking that it worked in iraq. owned onboard's to kabul once described this to me as the most under-researched nation-building effort in history. if you had this long period of neglect. countering jersey doctrine, even in -- counter-insurgency doctrine, even in the best case requires a long time for success.

host: west virginia. democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. a republican just called in talking about the president's and his -- the president and his apology. he is not mentally right. that is the trouble with our soldiers. they have gone there so many times because of the war, and the republicans want to do more war, go to iran, start another war -- why do they do that? and why don't romney's sons go over there and fight two or three times. maybe that would help. host: let me add this to the conversation. maverick says what would success

look like in afghanistan? guest: that is very much what is at issue. david petraeus, before he went over to run the cia, had this phrase -- "the best we can achieve it is afghan good enough." that was a way of saying not only will this not be a jeffersonian democracy, we will leave behind something that is close to a quagmire, but perhaps it can be a stable one. there is general acknowledgement, even though you will not hear it said publicly by the president or top officials, that even in the best case we will leave behind a quagmire. the best we can hope for is the taliban do not become so strong that they take over the country again. anything other than that will be considered a success. it will not look pretty.

you will probably have a long- term standoff with a nominal afghan government and the afghan forces better image still made, perhaps, with the taliban. -- forces that are in a stalemate, perhaps, with the taliban. the plan is to have a handoff by 2014 that will lead a marginally-in-control afghan government. host: orlando, florida. caller: i want to talk about the previous republican. stop using obama for an excuse. it is the republicans to put us in this predicament. first of all, i want to say it is unfortunate that this shoulder should be held accountable. these soldiers should be taken care of. they should not be in these

country -- countries, for certain times because it does do mental damage. america needs to look at what we -- what will happen if we go to war with iran. we are not in the business of nation-building, and this is what happens the republicans, this is what they did. host: michael hirsh? guest: that is true. the bush administration was against nation-building. donald rumsfeld gave speeches about how futile it was, when circumstances changed post- 9/11, and we had taken down the taliban in december, 2001, it was time to adapt to reality and leave behind your ideology. he failed to do that. donald rumsfeld there's a lot of

the blame for what is going on. i agree that it is wrong to politicize this and lay it all at obama's door, but nonetheless he is the president, this is his strategy, and it involved a counter-insurgency that is just not working, and you have a growing tide of opinion that says if it is a quagmire, why should we stay another year? it will still be a quagmire. that is the kind of debate you'll hear a lot about. host: chris in alabama -- host: bobby, a republican in oklahoma. caller: i worked on the air fit -- airforce base. we have a lot of soldiers that come in.

host: you have to turn the television down. caller: we have a lot of military soldiers that are deployed, then they come home, and a lot all our friends, it is a stigmata to have psychiatric problems and your record -- on your record. we have so many soldiers that come home for two weeks, if they turn around, and they go back, then monday come home they get post-traumatic stress syndrome. we had a friend that was a 19- year-old. he went to afghanistan. he was checking bombs. they went to a village. there was no one there, which was really unusual. they saw a guy further off on a

mountain and thought that was strange. adam wanted to go check the bomb. it exploded and he had some brain damage. he could not walk. instead of retiring, they got him some help. he is still military. they do not know if they will send him back or not, but he does have brain damage. host: michael hirsh? guest: these callers are all bringing up a critical point that we touched on at the beginning, which is that repeated deployments, the incredible stress on our troops from more than 10 years of war in afghanistan and nearly that much in iraq has been terrific. again, not to excuse what this -- a terrific. again, not to excuse with this individual did, but if he is deemed to be mentally ill it

will effect the outcome of this trial, but there is no question it has been terrible. the controversy at lewis- mcchord, said the base in washington state, where he is from, it goes right to this point, where there was a lot of pressure because of the plumbing needs to downgrade serious posttraumatic stress into something less serious. many of the soldiers do not want that on their record. many of them are eager to go abroad, and the questions remain whether they should be. almost all of the incidents we have seen involving road u.s. soldiers have been traced back to some kind of traumatic stress they have suffered after coming back. so, the toll on our military, if you the tip suicide rates, problems of domestic violence when you come home, this is

something we have not fully reckoned with, and perhaps this terrible incident will bring it into focus. host: the latest out of debt in the stand this morning -- militants have attacked guest: your reaction -- host: your reaction? guest: everyone was expecting this after the news broke on sunday. the taliban promise some kind of retaliation. this plays into their narrative that the u.s. is causing terrible things to happen to the afghan people. that is the great fear, this becomes the kind of incident -- incident that becomes concrete in terms of the view american --

afghan people have of american forces. anytime you are in an occupation for as many years as you have been there, you're bound to get that. there was no since the taliban were going to talk. they had set up an office in qatar, which was encouraged by the united states and by the afghan government of president hamid karzai, but even before these incidents began, there were indications that it would not work. wasai's appointed envoy assassinated by a suicide bomber last fall. so, even the very tentative efforts that were under way and now in serious jeopardy, and i think you will see a period where nothing, or very little will happen. host: "the new york times"

editorial says the united states has to keep moving forward with the negotiations on the americae host: we will go to nate, a democrat in upper marlboro, maryland, good morning. caller: i am noticing that americans in general, democrat, republican, independent, seemed to not recognize the fact that we are at war. we went into of guinness then without a plan. -- into afghanistan without a real plan. now we are at war. we are occupying that country. if it had happened here, some of the same things would have happened. it will be a terrible situation either way it goes. when we come out of there, there

will still be on rest. the only thing we can do is try to stabilize as much as possible, and leaves. there will still be issues just like in iraq, but it is time to leave. it was a poor strategy to go there. guest: just a couple of things -- to go back to the beginning of the u.s. involvement there, i do not believe it was always so bleak. i went to afghanistan myself after the fall of the taliban in early-2002, and at that point there was great hope that with the u.s. and the united nations in there that they might have a chance after 23 years of civil war to have a life again for themselves, and there were impressive efforts in those early days. there was a large tribal

conference that the u.n. development program helps to convene and they begin to select government. we did a noted hamid karzai president, but in the early days he was much more impressive. i am not saying that they would be pulled into the modern world in the space of several years, but it was not always as bleak. host: here is an e-mail from a viewer into son. guest: that is the simplistic narrative that you will hear. we invaded afghanistan to take down the taliban host of osama bin laden, and what ensued was almost a decade of bin laden on the run as the bush and

administration focused on iraq, which had no relation to 9/11. it was early-made the president obama launched a mission that did take down bin laden. i will say that -- looks, again, obama was trying to fix a mess that he inherited. whether that is successful, we do not know. it certainly looks like it is not going to be, but i think the overall strategy will continue, which is to put enough pressure on the taliban to drive them to talks. one of the positive developments, and one of the reasons administration officials are talking about a faster withdrawal are because u.s. covert capabilities are much more effective than they have

ever been. this is obama up with the greatest advance in warfare in that they will have a ticket they have been able to do a lot more -- they have been able to do a lot more. you have the sense that the bad guys from 9/11 have been decimated. the taliban were once their hosts, but they are not any longer. this is containable. those are the arguments you would hear. host: this tweet -- guest: i think what it says it is that in the minds of many afghans, particularly younger afghans, a lot of people grow up to be teenagers or young people

in the space of its and-tear -- 10-year-war, there is a sense of why are the americans here? i teach a class did george washington university, and i am struck talking to some of these undergraduates there were no older than 10 when the war began and they're not serving sure why we are there either. -- they are not so sure why we are there either. it is all the more reason why the u.s. has stopped playing the role of the occupier that has turned to the afghan people who once welcome the form presents into a very anti-american population. host: pam, an independent scholar. -- caller caller: -- scholar.

caller: i would like to hear michael hirsh's opinion and saudi arabia. guest: it is true a majority of the hijackers were saudi, but to this date there is no proven evidence of a high-level of involvement by the saudi government in 9/11. host: robert, a republican, arkansas. are you with us next let me move on. -- are you with us? let me move on. jonathan, baltimore. democratic caller. caller: i am a veteran, and i cannot imagine the mindset of

the veteran center going back -- that are going back to do their jobs. all i can do is think -- recently, we had an earthquake. when the building shook i had a flashback to when i was a station and soldiers had died. i'm just thinking to myself here it is, all these years, and i am still suffering, and the worst place i could go for help is where i should go, the department of veterans affairs, and in my opinion i feel like that is just not the place to go. i can only imagine what these veterans going back-to-back-to-

back-to-back -- what their mindset is. host: michael hirsh? guest: i could not agree more. we, the media, and need to focus more attention on this. when you are in a situation like this, it takes a long time to come out of it. i am not a veteran, but i was a reporter in iraq and afghanistan. no less night i was in iraq i heard -- on the last night i was in iraq, i heard explosions, and i ran to tell my colleagues, then i stopped and realized it was thunder. he was raining. it is very easy to have flashbacks, particularly if you are an actual soldier that has been in combat. we can only guess about the state of mind of this alleged perpetrator of these shootings on sunday, but it is hard to

think that he was not effected by the anger and hostility that he was dealing with from the afghan people, the soldiers that are our allies host: this is a -- allies. guest: again, this is shifting the ground here. this is the tectonic shift we are seeing. the public support is going to disappear fast, and as we have seen previously, at the tail end of the vietnam war, for example, public support goes, the support of congress goes, and it is time to get out. host: and hearst, virginia. harvey. independent. caller: my question involves the

fact we are in afghanistan as part of the war on terror, and how much of the 16 people were killed by this individual who was in a mental state, if he is found guilty and he has a mental problem, a penalty of death should not be inflicted on him because he might have been reacting to the fact that these 16 families could of been involved in the death of the three families but were killed as a result of the accidental burning of the koran. guest: perhaps in his mind that was true, but among those that were killed were nine children, and by all of the accounts we have had, the people that were killed were sleeping in their homes when they were attacked. i do think there is no excuse

for this kind of action, however, the mental state of the shooter is going to be examined very closely, and as we see in civilian trials, if he is deemed to have done not saying at the time of the killings, that will effect how he is tried. host: a republican in alabama. caller: i just wanted to comment on afghanistan as a whole. getting into this situation of a country that is ruled by tribal situations, it is very, very hard to try to build a nation with so many factions, and we are not going to be able to do this, to make this happen, because it is not actually possible. it is not actually possible to

have a structured situation because there will always be a faction somewhere, somehow, trying to undermine what we're trying to accomplish. guest: look, afghanistan was always going to be an incredibly hard problem of nation-building or stability operations because of what the caller said -- a primitive culture. i once described afghanistan as god's gift to and fro warfare. it is because of the geography of the -- two guerrilla warfare. it is just because of the geography of the country. all the places that people can hide. afghanistan was always going to be a problem, even in the best case, which goes back to the point that the bush administration just failed to

appreciate this, but that is not to say that nothing could have been achieved or can be achieved. he still have among many afghans a desire for peace and stability after what is now three decades of war. there were previous times when f in was -- afghanistan was relatively peaceful, so it is not impossible. again, what we are dealing with now is inherited and incoherent u.s. approach over 10 years, which has gone this way, and that way, in which we are trying to leave behind a place where open warfare does not break out, and the taliban does not take over again in the best case. whether that is achievable, i do not know. host: one last fall, for michael hirsch, "national journal" chief

correspondent. host: arkansas. caller: it is very disturbing. this man walked through a village and took 16 innocent lives. murder is murder. it is not manned if it is a mad man, -- it does not matter if it is a madman or you are dropping bombs. murder is murder. host: i will let your comments stand. michael hirsch, what do we look for going forward on afghan strategy? what happens next? guest: i think you will see a debate inside congress and the obama administration, as we reported, about the timetable

that now involves basically removing the remaining -- remaining 90,000 or so troops by 2014. we already know that 20,000 of them will be back by september of this year. the question that remains is will the timetable that called for handing off most of the security to afghan forces by mid 20-13 go forward as planned -- mid-2013 go forward as planned? a lot of this will discuss that the nato summit president obama will be at in chicago. host: in may? guest: in may, and i think then we will have a better idea. host: michael hirsch, thank you. guest: thank you.

host: in our last hour we will talk about the department of energy loan guarantee program, but next round table on hate crime laws and whether they are working. first, c-span radio. >> pakistan intelligence officials say a u.s. drone strike has hit a vehicle, killing at least six militants. islamabad criticizes the strike israel's parliamentary speaker has called off a delegation visit to the u.s. after washington denied a lawmaker a visa. three lawmakers were going to attend, but the trip was canceled saying that it was a front -- and a friend. the state department will not let a member of the national union party enter the united states because he considers and

self a disciple of a slain rabbi who preached expelling arabs from israel, the west bank, and the gaza strip. washington designated it as it terror organization. turning to international trade, the united states, the european union, and japan, are filing complaints charging china is limiting exports of rare earth. the secretary said the chinese companies have an unfair competitive advantage with minerals used in a variety of industries from car parts, electronics, and every smartphone in use today. the white house says michele obama will lead the official u.s. delegation into the opening ceremonies of the 2012 olympic games in london, but first mrs.

obama will hold a mini competition today with activities for d.c.-area children. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> c-span's 2012 local content vehicles city's tort takes our vehicles on the road. march featured shreveport, louisiana. >> he was a local man who was born here and lived here most of his life. he started accumulating books when he was a teenager. over his lifetime he accumulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have a gem in the collection, it will be this one. it is in the original binding from 1699, and it was once owned by a famous scientist, and you

can see his written his name, i. newton, and we're not pulling it out as much. >> we look at the pioneer museum. >> high near madison is a long stretch from what is today. -- high near medicine is a long stretch from what it is today. >> the things we take for granted like things been germ- free, we use the term early -- loosely pegged a lot of doctors were self-taught or had worked under someone that had been self-taught and were getting ready to retire. they would just learn as they want. >> our lcv tour continues from

libor -- little rock, ark.. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back. tim lynch is a project director for the cato institute, aunt winnie stachelberg, thank you for being here. we want to talk about whether hate crime laws are working. guest: they're working for a couple of reasons. they sent a powerful signal to the victim and to the community. the other thing that we see is that local law enforcement really calls for this extra tool that is provided to their ability to investigate and prosecute hate crime violence perpetrated eaton's individuals and communities. hate crime laws are working bulk

of the local, state, and federal level. host: does it show up in the data? guest: id does. in the gay and lesbian community there are nearly 12,000 hate crimes, a disproportionate number compared to the population. it is a problem that exists. hate crime laws are part of the solution but certainly cannot solve all the problems. host: tim lynch? guest: hate crimes are a concept where it sounds like a good idea to reduce, but the closer you look at it you come to two conclusions. hit crime laws are totally unnecessary. all violent acts you can think of are already against the law. the second thing is they are not preventing any crime.

they do not prevent anything because when you think about it anyone that is inclined to stand or shoot another person they will not put down the gun or the knife because the state legislature has passed a new hate crime law. these laws are also problematic because it takes is too close to the idea of thought crimes. investigators and prosecutors have to prove what was going on in the person's mind. that is difficult. they have to delve into a person's background, and that takes us into what magazines they subscribe to, their habits on the internet, and all of that is the necessary because these acts are against the law. host: what about winnie stachelberg's point on the data? in 2010, more than 6628 crimes

were reported to the fbi. host: there are problems because not everyone agrees with what is considered to be a hate crime. the more you talk about hate crimes, the more it fosters the idea that our laws are inadequate to meet a violent acts, and again, all of these violent acts are already against the law. police are vigorously enforcing these laws. there really is no problem. once a crime laws are put on the books, they will be in force, but there are these reporting problems. host: you have written about the protected class. what did you mean about that -- what did you mean? guest: i think we want even-and handed the even-handed enforcement, but with hate crime

law -- even-handed enforcement, but with hate crime laws, they will be in force against particular individuals. i think it creates more divisiveness rather than less. i think it is the wrong way to go. guest: in 1998, tragically, there were two high-profile hate crimes that were both murders. one was given texas, and the second was of messrs. sheppard in wyoming -- matthew shepard in wyoming. when the local law-enforcement went to investigate and prosecute a crime in texas against james byrne, the local enforcement was able to apply forensics to prosecute and closed the case.

it cost a lot of money for a very small community. however, in wyoming, where the hate crime was perpetrated because of sexual orientation, the local law enforcement did not have the ability to apply for a grant to help assist in the prosecution of that crime because sexual orientation was not included in federal aid crime laws. that has been changed. hate crime laws are not only a preventative effort to insure there is a signal sent by the federal government that hatred against anyone is not ok, but it also enables there to beat a fair playing field and for local law enforcement to get the tools they need to investigate and prosecute these crimes. guest: these are the two most

highly-publicized incidents offered as a justification for hate crime laws, but when you look good what happened the perpetrators were quickly apprehended, prosecuted, and i think the death penalty was in texas. you have state and local people who have vast experience. the quickly investigated and apprehend the perpetrators of those crimes and how ben to town. that is what we should want. we should not have more federal laws on the books. host: a democrat in texas, and julia. caller: i am calling because i am supportive of the affair is not a need for hate crime laws anymore because officers are pretty much up-to-date on what to do with crimes, but the

inmate that is in prison or in jail, but do we look at the administrators and the wardens, that make up the people that make decisions -- what about them when they commit hate crimes on inmates, when everyone is covering up for one another? there is nothing done for them, but the inmates did -- get double penalties. host: winnie stachelberg? guest: federal hate crime laws are meant to apply to everyone equally, so whether you are in administration or a been made, they apply equally. the caller raises an interesting point. a crime violence does not pay to victims. you see perpetrators every level of our society.

i have to disagree with my colleague and friend tim lynch on this point, it is not about federal law usurping state law, it is about working with the federal government to ensure there is proper investigation and prosecution. host: the caller also said if you are charged ave a crime is double the charge. -- charged with a hate crime, it is double the charge. guest: there is a double sentence that could go along with a crime laws, yes. host: -- guest: 1 log in new jersey -- one lot in new jersey was declared unconstitutional. they were initially prosecuted, and the jury said he was dick -- guilty for the on lawful discharge of a fire arm. when it came time for

sentencing, the judge said he thought it was a hate crime so he added five more years to the sentence. this went to the supreme court and the supreme court declared the is unconstitutional, saying juries had to decide beyond a reasonable doubt. so, some of the sentencing enhancement has been declared unconstitutional. host: here is how it breaks down state-by-state. the states in the pink and could engender. purple states are those with hate crime laws that do not include laws based the enchanter -- gender identity. there are about 15. the darker purple states are states that do not have a crime laws. those are arkansas, georgia,

michigan, south carolina, and wyoming. rick, go ahead. caller: it seems the only group hate crimes can not be committed against are heterosexual white males if a crime is committed against them, there can be no hit creme component. if a heterosexual white male cadets a male -- a crime, they're automatically will be a hate crime component care that is discrimination -- component. that is discrimination. host: -- guest: the caller raises an interesting point. it depends on how the hate crime his written. he said it is limited to heterosexual white males.

that might be true in a few states. it is controversial when they are being drawn up. are all rapes going to be considered a hate crime because presumably the person is targeting women? if rape is included as a hate crime, that overwhelms all of the other statistics because of those types of crimes. a controversy erupted because criminals in new york city were targeting the elderly. is age -- will that be considered a hate crime? it depends on how they are written. host: winnie stachelberg? guest: tim lynch uses a red herring argument that was brought up.

people wanted to say that you cannot and gender to current hit crime laws because all rate would then be considered -- because all break would then be considered a crime. that is not true. what you see with federal hit crimes is very few -- hit crimes are prosecuted at the federal level. there are very few over the last several years. this is not an over-broad statute that leads to additional litigation as many will claim. it provides a backstop. it ensures the local law enforcement and the federal government can work together when and if local fought -- law- enforcement chooses not to prosecute to the fullest extent. h glen burnie have you respond to this -- isn't any violent

crime -- host: let me have your response to this -- isn't any violent crime a hate crime? guest: no, motivated by a robbery, or breaking even, they are not hate crimes, when you get the brutal killing of james bird, that was because of animus toward african-americans, and it was based on race. the same thing with messrs. sheppard. these crimes are committed not only in a violent way, they're meant to send a signal to a community. they are very personal. they are often more violent than other crimes because of the anchor the perpetrator has not only toward the victim, but the group of people -- african americans, people of different faiths. we sought a spike in hate crime violence against muslims after 9/11, for example.

while tim lynch brings of the elderly in new york, if, in fact, a group of elderly were victimized because of their age, then we ought to take a look at that. think about what that message was sent to older citizens -- would send to older citizens -- to their status, their age, signals they're open to been victims of crime. guest: this is another area where we disagree. the person who sent him the tweet makes a great point. i disagree that hate crimes are more violent. the bottom line of hate crimes is that those that are rooted in jealousy or greed should be treated less severely than hate that arises out of bigotry. i do not think we should set up

this hierarchy of hatred. all violent crimes are awful, and we should enforce the laws evenly and vigorously. host: let me have you weigh in on headlines about hate crime laws, having to do with the case of this rutgers student who is accused of spying on his roommate who later took his own life. he will not be testifying. how does this fall under hate crime laws? guest: it is not a hate crime. it is a tragic example. i do not think it is a hate crime. it is a tragic example of the internet and cyber-bullying. it goes to the motivation. was he chosen because of his sexual orientation? was the perpetrator trying to

send a message of hate for an entire community? in this case, the assailant is been accused with invasion of privacy and it is not a hate crime under state law. guest: i am glad we agree this should not be considered a hate crime. once the police have determined that they have the culprit who is responsible for the criminal act, let's shut them down and move them off to the prosecutor so we can move the case along. when you have hate crimes, it is the prejudice is not obvious, investigators have to try to prove the element, and why do we want the police to look into those things when they already have enough evidence to know who was responsible for the act? i would rather see investigators

follow up on leads another unsolved murders and rapes. guest: this is when you see when a hate crime laws are in place and followed they are not over- broad. i'm not sure whether we agree or disagree, but i think the federal hate crime statute is exactly right and used when necessary. host: teresa, a republican in tennessee. caller: i moved from tennessee -- to tennessee from georgia, and the violence on the white community in georgia is from african-americans, flesh mob's -- they're not considered hate crimes, even though there are specifically targeting white- owned stores, white people.

you are doing nothing but dividing us and try to keep race relations separate. why is there no hate crimes when a black perpetrates a crime on a white? gee, let's take -- host: let's take that point. guest: the hate crimes that it says exactly that. race, whatever your races, is covered under the federal hate crime statute. if it is proven that they were based on race, they would be subject to the federal hate crime law. host: gregory, winston-salem, n.c., a democrat. caller: we are about 40 or 50 years too late, but late is better than never. i think it crimes should be in

place because the gentleman talking about meeting a hate crime law, and that is just an excuse. there was a federal judge bedmate a state -- that made a statement. if president obama wins an election for four more years, thank god we will have these hate crime laws in place. host: tim lynch? guest: i think some of the callers are mistaken. the woman -- woman who called said it is only in force against whites. sometimes they are enforced against young black men. when of the first cases was a young juvenile, and this is where a lot of these hate crimes come up -- high-school students and juvenile as the into a

scuffle on a basketball court. these boomerang, and sometimes african american men and get extra time in prison because they offered some dumb remark during a fight. i think both callers are wrong because hate crime laws are applied against minorities as well, and i do not think it is necessary. guest: there are applied across the board, and we see a reduction based the statistics from the fbi in a hate crime of violence. i think they are working. it is not a panacea. it will not ensure that we do not dislike people or that crime vanishes, but it is an additional tool that local law enforcement calls for, and it is an additional signal sent to victimize committees, the gay

and lesbian community and the transgendered community in particular that hatred and violence is not ok. host: this tweet -- guest: racial profiling is not a hate crime. when we see police department's conducting racial profiling they're not brought up on hate crime laws. host: tim lynch, you brought up the supreme court. tell viewers how the court has voted on this issue. guest: it has kept the supreme court busy because i think it is wreaking havoc with our constitution. there is the principle of federalism under our constitution it is -- crimes -- federalism. under our constitution, crime fighting is to be handled by state and local law enforcement.

we have the violence against women act in the year 2000. there was a case where the supreme court declared the new jersey hate crime law unconstitutional because it violated their right to trial by jury. there was another case declaring a minnesota law unconstitutional because it violated free speech. under our free-speech principles, we allow people to express hateful types of speech. the hate crime laws have kept courts busy and they are declaring them unconstitutional. the federal law winnie stachelberg was just talking about was just signed into law in 2009. host: this person tweets in --

guest: they do not introduce such activity. they enable law enforcement to use the tools available. you have to understand what all of our laws, by such activity, i believe they mean you have to think about the motives for crime and whether that is the objective or subjective, we could have that argument, but we have different levels of murder. first degree, and second degree, third degree -- that goes to the motivation behind that crime. motivation is considered in all levels of our criminal system, no different than hate crime. tim lynch would like us to think that he should not be able to go into what is motivating a criminal's act, and i think that is where we disagree. like the caller suggests, if you have to go into what is motivating the criminalist to act, and with respect to hate

crimes, you have to figure out whether the person is motivated to perpetrate a crime against the individual, and whether the crime is set -- made it to send a signal to a community. going? matthew shepard, that was for -- going back to matthew shepard, that is meant for a community. jeep -- guest: you might have a blatant incident where somebody is being a person over the head with a baseball bat saying and i hate agents, but normal cases are not so obvious. when you do not have the person verbally expressing hatred while committing the crime, it forces investigators to see what is in their house, what posters are on the wall -- maybe we can discern

a prejudice based on what we find in the person's house. that is the sensitivity. will we draw conclusions on that evidence to say that this person not only committed a regular crime, but a hate crime. house and you look for evidence. what is the motivation for the crime? is it a crime of passion. do they do that all the time? i do not understand why for hate crime violence, a particular individual should be treated differently. host: we are talking about hate crime laws in the united states. there are 12 states in the district of columbia. at massachusetts to that list, with a hate crime laws. there are also a federal laws. -- also a federal laws.

new jersey, you are next. caller: good morning. i have a few quick comments and a general question for your guests. i will be brief. first off, i am a little disappointed with mr. lynch's commentary on this subject. he seems to be bring the information somewhat broadly and inaccurately. my understanding is a hate crime is a hate crime because the motivation is the hateful nature of it. in other words, you target someone who is gay, for someone who is a lesbian, or someone who is black, or what ever, because of that particular characteristic. usually, a minority. we will say, well, because he is black, we will make it a hate crime also, but it is because they are going after that person

because of their minority status. that is so i understand it to be. host: let me take that point and have tim lynch respond to it. guest: the caller has put a finger on why people wanted these laws. there's a lot of controversy over what should be included in the law and what should not be. for example, last year there was an awfully of violent crime at a loss angeles baseball game one year ago. there was a giant fan walking to the parking lot. he had his a giant a jersey on. and apparently, this rivalry is so intense, that some of the los angeles fans were so offended by his swagger, his willingness to come into their stadium wearing a giants jersey, that they targeted him and beat him up. he was a paramedic, father of two.

he was beaten into a coma. he was targeted because of his sports affiliation. why should this crime be treated any differently because of the -- because the hatred was motivated by some stupid sports? compared to him being targeted because of ethnicity? host: winnie, i'll give you the next phone call. houston, a republican, go ahead. caller: my psychological viewpoint, it is all hate. when i go to work, i almost have to cite some of the young folks that are there. somebody cut of four of my tires on my car. it is psychological.

he seems a too liberal in his definition. thank you. guest: let me respond by saying, the caller mentioned cutting his tires. i am certainly sorry for that. there is vandalism -- you know, spray-painted, going back to tim's point, at giants bursa's dodgers is one thing. but spray painting a swastika on a temple, on a synagogue is something else. there really are very different issues at play here. we worked a lot with the anti- defamation league in passing a federal hate crime statute. not just, as tim said when it was signed into law, but the 14 years before that. it is an amazing organization that tracks hatred and hate

crime and violence. it helps work with the fbi to train law enforcement to assess what is at play, what motivation is at play when it comes to hate crime of violence. as we have seen, a hate crime statutes are not over used. hate crimes are actually going down. animosity towards anyone is not ok. host: william is next, democratic caller. >caller: good morning, how are you doing. so many laws have been made. once you make a law, all laws should be made to omit to it. take the man who agree on different laws.

ultrasound them. they would love to do that. all the republicans. host: all right, we got your point. here is a tweet for you. guest: again, i know that one of the reasons these laws are put forward, but again, i go back to the basic points that all violent acts -- any violent act you can think of that goes against the law, when it comes to violent acts, this is the one thing that should unite us across the political spectrum, should unite all people of different religions and races. violence is unacceptable. the law should be enforced evenly. we do not need to set up some kind of hierarchy of hatred. i think that treats the

divisiveness like some of the early calls for making a point as to why this is treated as a hate crime and this is not. people will want the fbi involved in their case. the federal law was enacted specifically because they wanted to be able to bring into federal court somebody who may have been acquitted of a hate crime at the state level. that undermines the capital -- undermines the double jeopardy principle. we should not to think about people who are victims of the crimes. we definitely have to take them into consideration. we also have to take a look at the people are going to be accused of these crimes. having this double jeopardy principle undermined is another basic constitutional principles that i think is undermined by these laws. host: tweets hate crimes are on the decline because our culture is maturing, believe it or not.

an article that says the number of u.s. hate groups is rising. guest: whether they are at the local state or federal level are not going to leave this country or this world. if they can provide an additional tool to help prosecute and investigate, if they can help insure that all communities feel safe. i disagree with him -- tim. if you take a look the statute that was just signed into law by the president in 2009, it was modernized. there were holes in it. gender identity and sexual orientation or not included. it was very clear from fbi statistics that those were populations that are being targeted. so, rather than pitting one group against another, it is modernizing our approach to law

enforcement. host: kevin is an independent in niagara falls, new york. caller: i am thankful. god bless c-span. when you have a group of people , like that gentleman who is targeted and they literally went out and looked for a black man, the change in to the back of his truck and drug him until his head came off, i do not see why -- i don't see how this gentleman could defend that not being a hate crime. aen they say, let's find black person to kill. it goes both ways. if a black man goes out and says, you know what? just because i do not like white people, the first person i see, i am going to shoot him.

he ought to do as many years. that to make him stand there and build a jail around him. guest: the caller is a little bit confused about my position. i certainly would not deny what was going on in the james albert case. people sometimes clearly target ethnicities and a race. there is racial crime. people are targeted. he is mixed up about that. my point was that the people responsible for that awful criminal act quickly apprehended and prosecuted for murder. that is what should have happened. we did not need a hate crime to address that problem. host: are their costs -- it dollars with hate crimes that you're opposed to? guest: i do not think tost is the main issue here.

-- i do not think cost is the main issue here. it will involve investigative resources, as i was saying earlier. detectives will need to be dispatched to prove that this was a hate crime. there are some costs there, but i do not think that is a major issue. guest: if i could just jump in. i think the murder is a tragic example of why hate crime laws are needed. yes, tim is right that the perpetrators were brought to justice. but what is important is not only that the criminals are put behind bars for life, but that a signal is sent to all african- americans, to the entire community, and that is not ok. not only is not -- not only is killing a black man not ok, but targeting people for their race, for their religion, for the sexually orientation, is not ok.

guest: but anybody who is so twisted as to think they can stab another person, should another person, draghi person behind a truck, off anybody who thinks they're going to stop and put down the knife or gun because of new hate crime laws are sadly mistaken. it will not happen. host: we're going to get a couple more phone calls if we can. what is next on the hate crime law front. guest: training and implementation of it. ensureu've got to do is that local law enforcement are actually trained to know what a hate crime is and how to prevent them. how to talk to community leaders to assure we have the proper training. the anti-defamation league is one of the groups that works with the fbi to do that. host: what are you watching for next? guest: to see how the laws are

enforced. the constitutional challenges that i mentioned earlier. host: do you expect that to go to the supreme court? guest: eventually. a lot of the cases involved plea bargains. but eventually, one will reach the supreme court. it declares the violence against women act unconstitutional. i think the same thing will happen with this law. host: 1 last caller. a democrat in west virginia, go ahead. caller: in just the opposite. i am white white. i can get no help. there is no law in west virginia. i have been brutalized repeatedly because of my coloring. they can't help me.

i had the discrimination. i want someone to help me. guest: i feel for the caller in west virginia. it seems to me that the state laws they're banning discrimination based on gender, and criminal acts that your help for system has not provided. host: a republican, you are next. caller: good morning. my question is about jury nullification. a white policeman in the bronx, if he shoots a black man, he will not go before a jury. he would rather be judged by a jury of judges. he definitely was guilty but could the feds have brought him

to trial for the crime? thank you. guest: i think his last, about the o.j. simpson case shows how divisive i think these laws can be. because when he was talking about a federal law, then we could add another prosecution. we normally think of these cases, like with the rodney king case, remember those white lapd police officers were initially acquitted. then there were brought into federal court where they were convicted. now, you have to think of the flip side of that. he mentioned the o.j. simpson case. could you imagine if john ashcroft move again after o.j. simpson had been acquitted and said, now we're going to prosecute him for a hate crime in a federal court? we have michael jackson and kobe bryant accused and acquitted. imagine if john ashcroft prosecute them in federal court

after the had been acquitted? it will create more divisive -- divisiveness and racial strife. guest: those are all sort of examples that have not happened. but i think, what we see here, whether it is hate crime laws or many of the callers, people are looking for ways not to divide our country based on race or religion or any other factor. again, hate crime laws and not to solve all those problems, but they certainly help. they send a message. they are working. they're reducing hate crime of violence. host: thank you both for talking about this. we appreciate your time. when we come back, we will turn our attention. this headline. and a new report. not following its own standards in the loan process. first, c-span radio. >> it is 9:16 eastern.

americans increased spending in february buying more cars, clothes, and kmart price for gas. that is the biggest gain since september. evidence that a stronger job market is boosting the economy. the federal reserve is not expected to take any action in today's's meeting. since their last meeting in january, five and a thousand people have found jobs and unemployment is lawyer. -- 500,000 people have found jobs and unemployment is lower. president obama will make a statement on china's trade policy, announcing new efforts to enforce our trade policy and level the playing field for america's businesses. c-span will be covering that event. leon panetta has said he will be awaiting plans to bring home the

remaining 23,000 troops sent there during the 2009 surge. secretary panetta speaking to -- despite recent setbacks, including the burning of the koran and the massacre of 16 afghan civilians, allegedly by a u.s. soldier, the drawdown was scheduled to finish by 2014. but george little says the analysis is not yet complete. those of some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i hope that as we move forward in this world, there are a number of problems that we have to resolve. problems with genocide in dark fur. -- darfur. a growing problem with iran. we have a lot of problems to deal with. i think diplomatic solutions are going to have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming.

>> congressman donald payne who passed away this week was the first african-american to serve in the house from new jersey. elected in 1988, he was the former head of the black congressional congress. -- black congressional caucus. watch his videos and other c- span's appearances on line at the c-span video library. congratulations to all of this year's winners of the c-span studentcam video competition. a number of students entered on the theme, which part of the constitution is important to you and why? join us as we show the top 27 videos on c-span. we will talk with the winners during washington journal. "washington journal" continues.

host: we are back with frank rusco. frank, the headline in the "usa today" this morning. can you explain? what happened there? guest: we have been looking at this program for about a five years. the program was started in 2005. congress created the program to give a financing to innovative energy projects. these projects are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. for example, nuclear power energy years -- generated for qualify -- the generators would qualify. typically, we look at the processes that are followed in

reviewing our applications and issuing loans. our most recent report has found, as we have found in the past, that the loan guarantee program is not always following those processes to the letter. they are also not documenting very well their decisions. this creates problems for us. host: what is happening? what the ramifications of that? guest: over time, the program has set itself up and done a very good job of coming up to speed. it has taken a while. it has learned as it went. over time, the process has changed. they're not always documented those changes. it is not always following its most current processes or document in those terms. the implications are that when we ask -- we do oversight on the program. we are asking questions of the program to determine whether it

is making wise decisions with public money. what is a concern, is without proper documentation, we want to be sure the decisions are prudent. host: are you saying tax dollar -- tax dollars are being wasted? guest: that is the problem. we cannot say for sure. it is subject to criticism and uncertainty about what it is doing. we cannot really measure the quality of the program. host: a doe official responded by saying the findings might have been valid in 2009 or 2010, it's wrong to say that

oversight was it in any way ineffective. guest: we disagree with that. in this program, in this recent report, we started in 2010 looking at the program. we looked all the way through late 2011. we did our audit. in that process, we looked at all the processes that were in place in the program. up to and including the end of 2011. >> host: do you mention solyndra in this report? guest: it is one of the two loans made by the program that have gone into bankruptcy. host: this report specifically, is it about solyndra? guest: it is not about solyndra. it is about the way the program manages the application process to avoid problems such as occurred with solyndra. host: soldier will be the topic this morning at a hearing of on capitol hill with energy

secretary steven chu. that is live coverage at 10:00 a.m. this morning. he is expected to be asked about an independent review the key administration did on solyndra. how is this report from the gao different? guest: we looked at many aspects of the program. in this case, we followed the entire review process of applications from beginning to end. refers determined, what is the process? and then we took a sample of 13 of the loans that were made. we follow them from the process from start to finish. we documented whether or not the program have followed all the steps. in some cases, they had not. in 11 of those 13 cases, they have missed steps. some of them very key such as independent reports that a required to add value of the rest of the project.

in other cases, the documentation was were you cannot tell if the steps were made. the: we're talking about report. if they like oversight over the program. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. in this report you get at why companies like solyndra go bankrupt and investors are paid first? guest: no. we're not approaching it from that angle. on the other hand, we can say something's got away finance works. many of the projects that were funded by this program, there have been a 30 loans that were made. money out the door. another 10 loans, money has been committed to but the money is not out the door.

out of the 30 that one of the door, 14 were -- and four were solar panel manufacturers. solyndra was one of them. in that market, the conditions have deteriorated significantly. the price of solar panels have fallen and the demand has fallen. that part of that industry is in trouble. that is one reason why we are seeing difficulties. host: for all of these loans, does the doe say that investors are paid back before taxpayer money? guest: yes. the law requires that the government take first position. that makes sense, because most of these loans, except for a small number, 100% of the money is coming out of the federal treasury. host: so taxpayers must be paid back first, not investors?

guest: that is correct. host: so does solyndra somehow violate the program? guest: what happened is after the loan was made and solyndra began to have financial difficulties, they came back camedoe and -- came back to doe and ask to renegotiate terms of the loan. they renegotiated the loan after they started having trouble. what doe has said about that is they did not take a subordinate position in that loan. that solyndra would have gone under at that point instead of what happened. it's lasted a little bit longer grant a pension went into bankruptcy. host: our first phone call, a republican in alabama. caller: i have a comment to make.

i came from bulgaria 44 years ago. i understand why the united states government, the one entity that is supposed to protect the citizens and their finances and everything else, goes out and invest in companies. and give it to private companies. that is incredible. they're supposed to protect the people. they're supposed to protect the borders. uphold laws. why should they give taxpayer money to cost -- to companies? i cannot get it, why should anybody else get it? host: ok. can you weigh in? how much money are we talking about? what different type of companies are getting the loans? guest: yes. the loan guarantee program has

made $15 billion in loans. 30 projects. 14 of those are solar generation projects. four of them are solar manufacturing projects. for our wind generation projects. there are three geothermal projects. two biomass products. they are for using technologies that create fewer greenhouse transmissions. that is one of the purposes of the program set up by congress in a 2005. in addition, the program has committed $15 billion more in loans, but that money has not left the door yet. those projects are still in the final stages. that includes the three projects to build two new generation nuclear power plants. one project to build a nuclear

fuels project. and then three more solar generating projects and two energy efficient projects. host: this chart shows the amount of loan guarantees requested. as of july 29 to 2011. guest: the largest amount of loans applied for is in nuclear and fossil fuels. those of the areas where you have a very big projects. nuclear projects are on average -- most of those applications have not resulted in loans. host: the figure we're showing in -- is billions. fossil fuels, $34.3 billion. solar, $49.10 billion.

guest: these are typically going to be projects we put a lot of solar panels out somewhere where there's a lot of sun. in the desert, often. or you get a concentrated solar unit with mirrors directed at a heat source which tends to generate heat and runs with steam. host: george, an independent, you are next. caller: i feel there is too little insight and too little oversight. they allowed the executives to loan a lot of money over a project that should have been seen as improbable to begin with. and then they should have forced the executives to maintain the

money to pay it back. the overall -- like the fukushima incident that was broadcast, you had people on their and none of them had any nuclear experience. to the nuclear industry, -- host: i am going to leave it there. guest: 80 you can respond to that did not specifically deal with solyndra? guest: we did not review solyndra after it declared bankruptcy. we are not apprised of that norton we involve ourselves in the situation like that. that is the justice department. host: we were just showing our

viewers, as you're talking, the link to the gao report. if you want to read it, we have a link on our web site. you can go there to read what's gao found. and what it recommends. that goes to you. can you tell us what you recommended? guest: we found there not following or document in their decisions appropriately. it took months to get that information thatdoe -- from doe because they did not have the documentation in a centralized place. it took them months to get this information. that means that they just have the information to do their job to make sure they are following their own procedures appropriately.

so, we recommended that a fix that. we recommended that they get a timeline for establishing a centralized database that would allow them to track applications. that the populate the database with information on all the decision to have made to date. host: this tweet. is that what you're saying? guest: we do not know what has slipped through the cracks. what we have seen repeatedly as we look at this program is the absence of consistently following procedures, of setting of clear guidelines and document what they are doing. the program itself is very difficult to audit. it is difficult to sit with their doing and it goes on. host: next phone call, a republican in michigan.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my phone call. it seems that obama's administration is very lax on loading the american people's money to these phony companies that are supposedly green energy companies. why don't they have them pay back all that money that was taken from the united states? from our pockets? host: did gao look at whether these companies are legitimate? and whether they're doing enough research on that front? guest: it is important to say that we looked at their entire process -- doe's entire process. the process they have established is a very strong and rigorous process. we talked to other private

banks that finance similar types of projects. we were told that doe's process is as vigorous as the banks. so, we not have questions about the legitimacy of the company. that is not an area we have looked at. what we're more concerned about is that the procedures are followed consistently and documented. you can come back afterwards, both of the program and congressional oversight, and the sea weather -- and see whether is following the right process is to protect the american public. host: from tennessee. caller: please do not cut me off. i want to add another aspect.

anything that the bush administration did, it should have been rolled back by the democrats. one of the main people were complaining about this program -- he was trying to get one of these loans. basically, what i see is all the junk that was started from the bush should ministration is lingering on into present obama's administration. -- president obama's administration. these people are digging up needles in a haystack from this program. any program you're going to have winners and losers. all you have to do is look and see. try to get applications approved. thank you. host: who is requesting these loans? guest: we start with the

applicants themselves. with the applicants in the program. and then we follow those applications through the decision making process. that has been the focus of our work. host: i want to show our viewers the business section of "the new york times." "feeling solyndra's chill." in your latest investigation are you finding now that doe is being too cautious? guest: we did not look at it that way. i will provide some context. all of the loans or made to

date, all 30 loans -- host: going back? guest: the first law was made in december 2010 and the last one was made december 30, 2011. all those laws were made and paid for. they were out of recovery act spending. the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. that allocated some money to this program to make loans to more commercial style energy projects. they still have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. there were supposed to beat shovel ready, as it were. the recovery act required that those loans be made. the shovels hit the ground no later than the end of september,

2011. that money ran out december 30, 2011. host: tweeted this. keep your channel here. we'll be covering that live. the independent investigation that the administration did on solyndra. let's go to john, a republican in of vermont. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a quick question and comment. i was a management procedures officer in the air force a long time ago. when did it become the government accountability office? secondly, i worked for the state for many years as a business manager, a purchasing agent and

so on. a big problem i see here has been going on for years. politicians try to insert themselves into processes for which there are rules and procedures. they have a hot thing. they want to push people within the system who are urged to skip over the rules. you know, let this one go by or let that one go by because the governor of a silence so when somebody in vermont is a microcosm of what is going on. with the nation going green, they have gone completely at of their minds appear. they are trying to build a nuclear plant and windmills on and on. host: can you take his first

question? guest: i do not remember the exact date, but several years ago we changed our name. the reason we changed our name is because we felt like our role, our goal and our mission, is more related to creating accountability throughout all of government that it is just looking at accounting. we have a small number of accountants who work at the gao. a they do financial account audits of the federal government. most of our work is looking at the effectiveness of programs, such as loan guarantee programs. host: frank rusco began his career in 1998. robert in georgia. democratic collar. caller: the nuclear power plant so we had in this country, it is a shame we not take lessons from

what is going on with that. the amount of money the nuclear lobby spends and the amount of money that goes towards nuclear, knowing that we're going to have to baby said -- babysit all that feel for god knows how long. it does not make sense that we put nuclear aside and go grain. at least to try to keep anything crazy from happening here in this country. i thank you. have a good day. guest: thank you. we at gao are doing a number of reviews looking at the regulation of nuclear power. those reports will be coming out soon, including a report looking at how the nuclear regulatory commission evaluates the risk of seismic activity and other natural hazards in terms of the

nation's nuclear fleet. host:,, and a difficult in a new jersey. -- tom, an independent scholar in new jersey. host: are these loans evaluated during that progression? second question, does the gao look at the connection of the company and the owners as far as the administration and other politicians than they have influence who gets those loans? and if they did not, who is watching out for us? guest: with regard to the first question, yes. the loans to not just go out the door in one lump sum and then you walk away. the program is designed to issue part of the funding and an additional funding as milestones are made in the project.

it is designed to look at those loans through the whole life that the companies are still viable. that is the answer to the first question. i'm sorry, the second question? host: he is wondering who -- is their oversight of who is requesting the money to members of congress. and if not, why not? guest: that is not something that gao has looked into. we look at the applicants. their companies who are applying for these loan guarantees. host: is doe looking at that, though? guest: i do not know to what extent anyone is try to connect the dots between companies and where they are. i believe that the program, fundamentally, take applications that come in the door. and looking at them. host: it is part of the application process include in

there? guest: not that i have seen. i do not know of any instances of that. host: ok. number connecticut, republican line. caller: asunder with the loan guarantee rules are, there is a company we gave it half a billion dollars to. a car company. they make high and electric cars. because like $100,000 each. they're supposed to make them here. they took $0.50 billion from us. and now they're going to make the cars over in scandinavia or something because they say our workers are not qualified to make the cars here. and now they want more money. these guys are like golfing buddies of the president. i think they're asking for more. the fact that we give them money and they're supposed to make the cars here, now they're going to make them overseas. is is an electric car.

it looks cool, off but it costs $100,000. $0.50 billion. that kind of money, we could use that money here. today have to give that money back? do you know about that? guest: we do an audit of the program you're speaking of. that is the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program. but that program spent half of what it was authorized to spend and made loans to a number of companies including tesla, nissan, ford, and i probably leaving office a couple. host: what is the process for companies who want to seek more money in loans? are they allowed to do so? guest: well, that would require a separate negotiation and a separate application.

initially, you apply for a loan, you work out the terms of the loan through the loan application process. and then you end up with that amount. if there's going to be an additional loan, there has to be a separate application. there are examples of companies that has -- i believe there's a company with three projects that ultimately received loans. some of them are projects in different places, but these require a separate application. host: tweeted in, if smart people don't want to risk their own money on a project, why should the taxpayer? what is the breakdown for these loan guarantees? guest: i do not know the answer of the breakdown between how much each company has in terms of its own equity versus what the federal government is loading them. i know they have to have at least 20% equity. i do not know how much they have. that will vary by company and

circumstance. host: is that negotiable but under the loan guarantee program? guest: the loan guarantee board requires a certain amount of equity before you get a loan. but, beyond that, no. it is not something to negotiate. host: an independent in atlanta. caller: how they figure that co2 is a greenhouse gas when it weighs more than air? imbibe by this wondered how they figured -- is like a rock -- i just wonder how they figured. it is like saying a rock could bloat. host: whether or not it is harmful to the public. guest: we have done a number of studies on climate change. i do not believe there is any

scientific evidence of co2 being a greenhouse gas. it is a greenhouse gas. we have not within to the extent that this is a problem. we're taking on the goals as they're determined by congress. for one of the goals is to eliminate greenhouse gases. host: are you identify who is profiting from these contracts, including members of congress with insider trading? guest: that is outside my area. host: justin the contract. are you identify who profits from each loan guarantee? guest: that is us and we have looked at. obviously, companies may be privately held, they may be publicly held. maybe holding companies. we ballot into that. host: tell our viewers why he did this report in the first

place. guest: gao is mandated. we are required every year to report on the progress of the program. caller: last democratic caller. caller: i have two questions. they gave a date and time when solyndra was going to go broke. was that is done for the president to make a commercial? they knew it was going to close. they knew the chinese had a product that was better than us. we went ahead and went forward with it. my second is, we are closing 500 dams in the u.s. electric is the most renewable energy source in california and they want to close five more dams.

wind and solar and a backup power plant, it to be $6.60. supposedly, our government is looking out for the middle class. that directly affects me. i'm in fixed-income. host: anything there you can respond to? guest: i am not aware of the situation with hydroelectric dams closing. i'm not sure what the caller is talking about there. in terms of the financing of these innovative energy projects, there has definitely been a change in the market for solar panels. the solyndra was a solar panel -- solyndra was a solar panel maker. there panels got priced out of the market. that was one of the issues they face. host: in the "usa today" about

your report, it says they're going to employ and improved management system. what are they talking right here and what would be the impact? guest: what the program is talking about is creating a centralized database for tracking their decisions and procedures. and then also documented their procedures more complete. both would be more beneficial. host: have they ever had this in place since the program started in two dozen 5? guest: to be fair, the program has been evolving and improving overti time. it is just that we continue to find problems when we look. host: democratic line in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning.

i just want to ask about the accountability and transparency. i am hearing this over current tv. they explained about the gas prices. it starts where the banks -- the oil companies consider the price of oil. this goes up, and this is called -- it goes on up to the banks. they're putting 840% higher price on it, or a speculation, the college. -- a 40% higher price on it, or a speculation, they call it. and then the koch brothers get

all the money they want and then they can buy a present, or by a governor of the united states. host: all right. next, an independent scholar. caller: my question is about the ceo of solyndra. chu doesn't even drive a car. he is at a very good energy guide. talk about the koch brothers. george soros owns a lot of these companies. he owns of the train from the keystone pipeline. they even a shutdown the wind mills because of the hydro power in california. this ability is stupid and you are stealing the money from the american people. host: that was teresa.

a reminder to turn your television down otherwise you get that feedback. sean, a democratic collar. do have a question or comment? caller: do they have to pay those loans back? and if they do, is there a time limit? and how many of them have started paying back? guest: yes. they are loans. the expectation is that the companies will fully paid back the loans over time. since money has gone out the door, the best way to think about this is if you ever purchased a car or house, you take out a loan, your loan payments start shortly after you get the money. it is definitely the case that the companies have gotten these loans that are starting to make payments. out of the 30 that i received money, two have gone into bankruptcy.

the recoveries from that may be less than the amount of the loan. it's very likely will be. for the ones that are successfully pursuing their projects, they are fully expected to pay back their loans. host: democratic caller in at charlotte. caller: you rarely hear somebody with the government come out and say something that is against this administration. president obama has made energy one of his top priorities. you're saying these guys cannot keep up with the money. a lot of money in the recovery act has gone to companies. are you scared for your job? guest: the gao is part of the legislative branch.

we work for congress. our job is to look at the activities and programs of the executive branch. host: are you saying that these projects were not shovelled because of stimulus money? guest: the stimulus projects and all the profits of the door were paid for with stimulus money from the recovery act. everyone of those had to break down by -- break ground by september 30. they broke ground by that time. host: steve, a republican. caller: if all that money was put into refineries as opposed to solar and all that, do think we would still have gas at $4 a gallon? host: i am not sure our guests can weigh in on that.

we will go to texas. an independent scholar -- caller. caller: it is like your double speaking when you talk. we pay insurance on houses and cars. when they get broke, we do not get a call with 80% repair. guest: gao has authority to audit all programs. wherever federal dollars are spent. an enforcement agency. if we find problems better of the nature we found in this report, we make recommendations to the program itself or to the agency to fix those problems. the agency is required