of government a -- government employee, we discussed the budget. and then, the pentagon chief has details on the debate between the justice department and pentagon concerning benefits for same-sex military spouses. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--] >> good morning. it's the "washington journal" more for march 24, 2012. louisiana hold its primary. make assure to check in on our website. that's at cspan.org for forcing and results. and -- forbes. and monday, the supreme court argues the health law for three days and you can hear same-day audio in the afternoon around 1:00 eastern.

and washington tonight, it is the annual gridiron dinner. it is comprised of high ranking journalists. that takes place tonight. president obama weighed in on the shooting of travon martin at the rose garden. we want to get your thoughts on what he said, about the case and what impack it might have long term. and here's how you can do so this morning -- host: a variety of papers with the remarks made about the rose garden yesterday. this is the atlanta journal constitution's write-up, obama, if i had a son that says the president gets personal in

vowing to get to the bottom of tragic death. ken thomas saying president obama spoke in unusually personal terms friday about the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in florida -- reporter asked a question about the case, here's the reaction. >> i'm the head of the executive branch and the attorney general reports to me, so i've got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we're not impairing any investigations that's taking place right now. but obviously, this is a tragedy. i can only imagine what these parents are going through. and when i think about this boy, i think about my own kids.

and i think every parent in america should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state, and local, to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. so i'm glad that not only is the justice department looking into it. i understand now that the governor state of florida has formed a task force to investigate what's taken place. i think all of us has to do some soul searching to figure how something like this happened. and that means we examine the laws, and the context for what happened and as well as the specifics of the information. but my main -- the message the

parents of trayvon martin. if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. and, you know, i think they are right to expect that all of us as americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. host: so those are the president's remarks. again, if you want to comment on what he said about the case, here's how you can do so -- twitter is the first comment we're going to air this morning. joseph ramirez saying that what the president said is fine but what we need to know is what happened. we do not know. so to the president's remarks, our comments for the first 45 minutes on the case itself about what he said and what it adds to the case and what's going on with the case. camden, new jersey, is our first call.

pat circumstances democrats line, hello. caller: good morning, everyone. hello, c-span. thanks for taking my call. i'm a little nervous but what i want to say and in addition to trayvon martin and what's going on with him, we have a case here in south jersey, at rutgers university and i was watching a program last night, "21 jump street" -- twenty 2011, i guess racism has been on -- twenty/twenty" that young man that needs to be looked at, they're making him pay for him being a young man who -- and young people make immature decisions, and when they showed it on "20/20" -- host: let's go to the president's comments. caller: ok. with trayvon martin, you just had a twitter there. one thing's for sure. certain facts are out there.

125 -- i'm an educated person. i went to rutgers university. host: houston, texas is next. joins the republican line. hello. caller: yeah. this is really -- this is a really sad case and i feel for the young man's family and everyone involved, but i think about how many blacks kill blacks and we don't get this kind of coverage. you know, here in houston, and please let me say this, a young black man killed his young black girlfriend, he cut her up and put her on a barbecue pit, they found parts of her body down the garbage disposal. we didn't have this outcry in houston about this young woman.

and think about her family. i had a niece -- host: so joy, before you go too far, let's stick to the topic at hand and the president's comments. what did you think it add yesterday? caller: well, in the beginning was fine but when he brought in that his son was like him and racism, it was totally out of control and i think that's a sin before god. host: this is the hill write-up yesterday. a little bit of context to yesterday's statements saying that the senior administration official familiar with the president's thinking said the case is a personal one for the president. for the president given some of the challenges he has faced, it hits home. the official said clearly he had a personal connection to this story. it's something that has really struck a chord with the nation and it's something that the president sees that is not going right, something that needs fixing.

to new york, cal is on our democrats line. what do you think about the president's comments from yesterday? caller: yes. i guess i was kind of echoing the previous lady's comments but i have it in a more objective tone just being a black man in new york and having my own hassles with being identified as a black man in the very -- -- very same way. on behalf of the fellow who shot this young fellow in that they say all look-alike, as it were and in a twisted way, maybe this is the way i woke up this morning but just the president saying if i had a son, he would look like trayvon is albeit, a more benevolent, a more compassionate way of almost saying the same thing. if i can even like say it in an objective way, the idea that you know, for the president to

assume that his son would look like that is a more liberal, more commags that, more objective way of saying that. -- that the fellow who shot this young fellow in florida had a similar kind of general recognition of young black men. i don't know if i'm expressing that right, but it was just -- maybe it was just the way i woke up this morning. i feel for the young fellow who got killed and his parents and i don't, you know, seem to imply at all that he deserved what he got, but there is a tone of racism in this country and maybe to like look at the president's remark in that way is to see even among the boast benevolent of us that it still exists in some deep, deep unconscious way. that's all i want to say. host: don richie says off twitter. it's about time the president of

the united states would say something. i wish the statement was stronger. he adds the south can't hide in the information age. annapolis, maryland, gerald from the maryland line. hello. caller: i want to make it clear that there is no retreat laws in about 20 states, i think and i'm not sure about that, where in case you're assaulted on the street, you don't have to retreat but none of those laws do not, repeat, do not allow somebody to start a ruckus with somebody or to make a fight. -- or that can shoot them. that's murder. and so there's no retreat laws are only when you're actually really threatened. so i think people should be aware of that. host: this story from the

"baltimore sun." this is christy parsons from the comments of doug brinkley. frequent guest on our program. said the care that obama used in choosing his words made them for effective. -- more effective -- host: seattle, washington, michael, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes. i want to say this that i felt the president was far too one-sided on it by referring to him as this would look like my son. the thing hasn't been fully investigated. we don't truly know what the

nature of the incident was besides the end result. and i feel the president, he should have been far more objective in this. host: the "chicago sun-times" choosing its full picture -- full page picture of the president and then with the comment the president made yesterday, if i had a son, he'd look like trayvon." and that's how they decided to put their coverage on the newspapers. other papers leading with this story as well. other topics in the news as well. this is "the times-picayune." all eyes there for the primary today and pictures of all the candidates as they are active in the state. don't forget, if you want some information as far as what is going on politically when it comes to the primary, you can always go to our c-span 2012 campaign website. the latest information, result and video from the candidates as their desire to become the next president of the united states. yonkers, new york. fred, democrats line. go ahead. caller: how are you doing?

i agree with the president. my wife and -- when my wife and i heard about trayvon martin, we looked at each other and we said you know, that could be our son. we are both white. this rachel -- racism has got to stop. you have to have enforcement of the laws because these people are not going to stop it. that's all i've got to say. trayvon martin is a national tragedy. my heart is broken and as the black community heart is broken and just hope that we can get our heads on straight. host: so before you leave, i can ask what you think as far as -- away from the actual statement, what the president added yesterday? caller: what the president added yesterday is we have to look into this and make sure that we got all the i's and crossed all the t's and make sure that we look at this and see exactly what has happened here. i think there's a strong indication that this young man should not have been in the position that he was in.

he should have been -- he should be if they're going to have auxiliary police, they should have auxiliary training to keep an eye on the community, help the police and they keep an eye on the police too. so it's good have auxiliary police but you can't have kids out there with guns running around. i spend a lot of time in the service. i have a gun on my hip almost all the time that i was in the service you have the go to be very careful within you put your hand on that holster, man. it's a very tricky thing. i just -- i think the president -- i have a very funny feeling about the president anyhow and i keep it in my mind all the time and it reminds me of the christmas card, you know, the christmas letter was sent in, i think this was in the "post" many years ago. yes, virginia, obama carols. i think this man cares. i think he's one of -- cares.

i think he's one of us. quit looking at the picture. quit looking at the color. the man cares. whether or not you agree with him, he is the president. please refer him to as the president obama, not as obama like it's a dirty word. i've never used that kind of expression i talked about other presidents who republicans that i didn't care about, you know. host: ok. video there the president making statement in the rose garden. twitter is another way you can reach out to us. john fox doing so this morning. he said it is a tragedy but the president should have said no comment. denver, colorado. you are next. ray, republican line. caller: yes. i just like to make a comment. when president obama said that -- i don't think he's looking at it as -- he had -- [inaudible] host: ray, i'm sorry, i poll

jifmentse i've get to stop you. the connection you have is a bad one. please try to call back. let's go to boston, massachusetts. bill on our republican line. caller: what happened in florida was an absolute tragedy. it was disgraceful and it is so sad. but with regards to what -- host: how was the president treated? you think? caller: i was about to get to that. with regards to what the president said yesterday, if he had a son, he would look like trayvon. i don't agree with that. if he had a son, i don't know that he would have his son walking around with a hoodie on. hoodies con tate a certain thing. and whether they like it or not, people who wear hoodies are -- cause other people to become very uneasy. i have a friend that works in a convenience store and we talked about this and he interrupted me

as soon as i started the conversation and started telling me about what a hoodie does to him when he was in the back of the counter. go talk to a convenience store person. ask them what goes through their mind when one or two lads come in with hoodies on. that's about all i have to say and this is so tragic. host: university highlights, ohio, yvonne on democrats line. caller: yes. my comment is it is not about race, it is about -- racism, it is about judgments. because the president is exactly right. trayvon's murder or trayvon's homicide need to be investigated further. for the basic fact that it is all over facebook and also, there is not anything wrong with wearing hoodies. hoodies is sold every day. if they don't want people to

wear them, why do they sell them? host: what about the president's treatment yesterday at the rose garden? caller: if he had a son, it's a perfect image because i had a son with the same situation happened to him. host: jacksonville, florida. greg, independent line. caller: hey, pedro, good morning. 30-year watch of c-span. first time i've had an opportunity get in your program, i appreciate that. my comment basically regarding the president's comments that trayvon would look like his son represented what i thought the president was meaning is that trayvon was a young african-american. the president is an african-american. it has no symbolism to racism other than the president saying that his son looked like trayvon as an african-american. when it comes to again, the facts of the case, as one caller said we have to investigate the facts and governor scott here has appointed angela corey out

of jacksonville who is state attorney here as the lee's attorney and she is a thorough prosecutor and i would think would certainly try to find what would be the true facts of this particular murder on this young man is that she was pursuing trayvon. it's a matter of justice more so than race. and of course race always services when it comes to african-americans more so than any other ethnic group in this country when tragedy has hit our community. there's always the representation from others who do not look like us to suggest that race is solved. host: so from the actual side -- aside in the actual words that the president used yesterday, what do you think the message that he was trying to communicate? >> well, i'm -- caller: i'm not sure other than relating a family to a family member. he's a father. we have other fathers who love

their children and love their boys so all these comment abc the hoodies and all that has nothing to do with justice when a call says hoodies -- and like the lady said. a hoodie doesn't mean that you have to die because you're walking in a neighborhood that's not familiar with african-americans or that former dress. this young fellow wasn't doing anything and he was accosted by someone who cuz carrying a gun and who had called police on 46 times on african-americans. let's stick with the facts versus all these sort of insinuations again about race and that kind of thing. race would be a factor because every time african-americans come up with a national issue, and it was appropriate because this is a national issue, pedro. so it's have been unfortunate. our sympathies go back to the family of trayvon martin. host: george zimmerman said it remains a mysterious figure as the controversy around him continues to grow. in hiding since the shooting,

little has been known about him. however, new details have emerged. two sources confirmed the "orlando sentinel" that zimmerman was an employee at the office of digital risk. a mortgage risk management 50% firm. -- firm. the firm which has offices in jacksonville, new york and dallas spoke with the sentinel of anonymity. we're more focused on the president's statement from yesterday. if you're just joining, speaking in the rose garden about the case and, you know, he talked about his thoughts on it. we're getting your thoughts on what he said yesterday and if you want to join us for the remainder of our time, it's --

host: a couple of other things before we go back to calls. the "new york times" has profile of the man who will be arguing for the health care law next week starting monday saying that if history had proves any guide, donald would hold up in a hotel -- host: he's also known about being passionate. as far as the case, that's starting on monday, three days

of arguments and you can hear the supreme court deciding not to tell rise the arguments, they are providing audio which we will in turn cross and turn to you and give to you as it occurred in the courts. that will be monday through wednesday. you can listen to a variety of platforms at webb webb, c-span radio, c-span video library and if you want to watch it on television, c-span3. that's going to cower at 1:00 in the afternoon on those three days. i invite you to go to our website at webb webb. -- cspan.org. we've set out a page and give you a chance to interact, to give your thoughts on the oral arguments as they are proceeding and again, that's part of our supreme court coverage. cspan.org is where you can find that. back to our calls. marilyn on our independent line. we're talking about the president's comments on trayvon martin yesterday. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: yes. i don't really -- i don't watch

the news, but people have been telling me about this and i kept my tv on to c-span last night and i heard this this morning. but my comment on what the president said, i understand what he's saying. i loved what he said. and i think that if he had his son, well, what he was saying if he had a son, he would be just like trayvon martin. and i can't see people not understanding that the president is human. and my feelings on it is we need to stand behind our president and i'm not one, i'm the first one to say that i really didn't really care for the president politics but now, i see that i really need to stand behind the

president. that's all i need to say. host: charlotte, north carolina, joe, democrats line. caller: yes. about the president -- excuse me, i think he made a very good speech and he's articulate in it because he -- they've already accused him of being a racist. but what the guy really meant was -- that the white people for all black people looking alike, and i think that was part of his comment without him saying it and he's having a lot of problems in congress because he is black and we don't want to admit that. but now, i believe that there is racism and we continue to and -- don't have artifact yet. i think it is wrong.

and the president said america, we need to search ourselves those that are decent among us need to examine ourselves and see whether or not we are racist and that we will always be bigots and that's all i have to say right now. host: jim line saying the president's message was a care fully crafted politics of identity politics. the caller from charlotte. the story in "the washington post" saying democrats trying to raise funds in preparation for thevention -- the convention later on this year. the host committee needing to raise $37 million. it is banned under new rules and -- from accepting corporate cash --

host: they and others who reach such goals will receive the same type of exclusive access and event prudentials that the new rules were intended to prevent. also in lou of the -- lieu of the campaign, there's a story in the "wall street journal" particularly if you follow the idea of how ads are used in the campaign, this is amy shott saying the campaigns are targeting prospects on websites and high engaged platforms as

it's known the the first column, she writes spending on online political advertising is expected to reach about 160 million this year, more than seven times what it was in 2008. as campaigns and outside groups use targeting internet ads -- host: new york. joseph, republican line. hello. caller: hello. good morning. my comment is that i think it's a travesty that the president waits to come out and say anything when only the media jumps on this specific topic. trayvon martin definitely was a disgusting, you know, incident. but the facts remains over the same weekend. 40 young african-americans were killed in chicago with guns. and about 6,000 a year are killed.

but 93% were by african-americans. and nobody says anything because that doesn't grab headlines but with one case where they can promote and say it is racism involves, but that's all over the place. host: baltimore, maryland. bobby, independent line. caller: yes. good day. no one does say anything about the african-americans that die every year. mainly because this is -- that's the plan that's supposed to be used for us to kill each other and the dire straits that people are in chicago and other urban centers. i'm glad he mentioned the case. i thought he wasn't going to say anything. i didn't think he had the onions to say anything because he got ramrodded when he said something about professional skates. but i'm sick of being a suspect.

no matter what i have on. whether it's a three-piece suit or it's a hoodie when i'm taking a jog. i'm sick of being a suspect. so anybody that thinks -- because you have on something that is scampi because you have a hoodie on, i don't believe that's the correct way to go, man. there will always be people like the person who is standing the other person that was saying it's justified. wells we don't know all the facts. so let's be cautious. host: what do you think the president added to the conversation? caller: i mean, the fact that he said something, yeah, a lot of people were mad and it's a sin against humanity, a symbol for god or whatever stupid stuff. but he's supposed to say something. it is tragic. you can't say anything more about the other people that look like him that are dying because why? you're going to say he's a racist. even though he hasn't done anything for us specifically

because he's not allowed to. if people with scared, you should be ok, all right? host: memphis, tennessee. robert. democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. first, i think the president was right in waiting. and he made a very profound statement. i think it was right on target. first, he could have taken it farther by saying that if the hispanic man tease a white kid about to get in trouble and he looks on that kid with compassion, if a black man looks -- sees a white kid about to get in trouble and he looks at that white kid with compassion, if a hispanic sees a black kid about to get in trouble and he lacks at that kid with compassion, then we're going to see change in the world. the entire thinl thing was handled incorrectly. number one, someone was killed and the person who did the shooting not only was not

investigated, but walked away with the gun. that law is a 007-type law. so i think the president was 100% correct and that people are misunderstanding what he meant when he said that that kid looked like his kid. sure, that kid should look like all-of-our children and apparently, we are -- someone had said that the morals have just been thrown away. well, no, we have dug a hole and put morality in that hole any time that is not our rage about kids being killed in the streets regardless of whether they're black, white, hispanic. and there is no moral outrage then we have a problem. thank you. host: on our newsmakers program, you'll get a chance to hear from the new director of the consumer financial protection bureau. he talks about the agencies, how

they are tasked into looking into banks and other financial institutions since it began operations last july. and the impact that the blew has had and especially in opposition the agencies creation back from what it's known as big bank -- and one of the things he talked about was the opposition large banking institution had in the creation of the bureau. >> large banks and the banking industry was very opposed and remains opposed to the agency's existence. are you shying away from going after them? >> we're not. i get different signals when i talk to c.e.o.'s and we talk to compliance officers and top executives and different product lines at the larger banks. many of them recognize there seems to be a clear recognition that something is needed here that we're needing to rebuild trust in the marketplace and that means people have to have confidence that there's even handed oversight that our

examinations, we are dealing with all institutions top to bottom and we do have open matters that we're looking at involving a range of institutions, large banks, smaller banks and non-banks. host: that's richard cord ray -- cordray. you can hear more tomorrow on c-span. tampa, florida. sandra is next. on our republican line. good morning. caller: i had to say yesterday and i would just like to say i believe the president spoke on behalf of all americans. i do not believe that he made that statement in regards to the fact that the young man was black and that he's black. because in essence, he's black and white. so i believe that if president bush had said trayvon would look like him, we would not be having

this conversation this morning. if president reagan had said it, we would not be having this conversation this morning. i'm a republican and i truly believe that if anything that party has to say in regards to me voting for a president election, if they don't meet my qualifications, i will go across the line. so therefore, i believe president obama spoke on behalf of all of us americans, even you. he spoke for you because if your son was walking down the street and the color of your skin, your son has the same color of your skin, he may have been a trayvon. so i just want to say god bless america and hopefully all of us would get on the right track because we need to. thank you so much for hearing me this morning. host: the president traveling to korea. should be there by now. says in the "washington post,"

part of his agenda will include meeting with the pakistani prime minister on the sidelines of a security summit in seoul -- host: reston, virginia, jody on independent line. caller: i want to follow up on the comment of the previous caller and say that i think president obama was reacting to an emotionally-charged situation and even though he speaks at great cause, those were emotionally-charged words. i think any person who hears about trayvon's story, he had

help but think about their own family members, whether it will their son, father, mother, it doesn't matter. how losing one of them to such a senless killing would be a tragedy. so i think -- i agree with the other caller that, you know, he really was speg for all americans in all walks of life in all situations. but i also want to add -- host: do you think he should have gone further? and i only ask because some of the folks calling in this morning said he should have gone further with his statements. caller: no. i think in saying that the justice department was looking into it, i think and the fact that, you know, the effort would be coordinated on federal, state, and local level, that was all he needed to say. he's not personally looking into it. he can't speak more than what he knows about it and i think leaving it as his personal statement was exactly what he needed to do. but i did want to say something

else which is that if we choose -- i think we might make the mistake of ignoring the racism in this case by speaking about trying to i guess make it about all people. and i think, you know, again, it can happen to all people, but in this one situation, i think race definitely played a part of it. it wasn't just a hoodie. it was the fact that trayvon was black and his killer was white or hispanic, however the police identified him. i think there was definitely that racism was there and choosing to ignore it in trying to play it more neutral i think we do everyone a disservice in that whole community and in the nation. host: announcement in the house ethics committee saying they announced yesterday that it was extending its reviews of two members of congresses --

host: the ethics committee has been investigating mr. buchanan's failure to disclose in full 17 outside business interest as financial filings. one of the richest members of congress. he made a fortune as an auto dealer and has been involved in land and development deals in florida. and when it comes to ms. berkeley, she positioned herself as -- host: so that's from the house ethics committee concerning those two legislatures.

new castle, delaware. patrick is on our republican line. caller: hi. good morning. host: morning. caller: as far as mr. obama's comment on this thing, actually, his son would look more like a george zimmerman since mr. zimmerman is a mixed race and so is obama. and my sympathies go out to mr. zimmerman and his family who are now being threatened by black espn groups who want to have him -- black panther group who wants him to be killed. host: so call, about the president's statements, as they were yesterday what, do you think agassi them? caller: i just told you. he should have said if it were my son, he would look more like zimmerman. because he's a mixed race. host: all right.

walter. caller: thank you for taking my call. what happened to trayvon was a tragedy. i personally believe he should tried to well this as far as what the media is trying to do it. i don't think it's race. he looks like a big fellow and trayvon looks like a little guy. i don't think he would have been a threat to his life. that's the first part. the second part, i always think the president should say the senate on national defense while everybody else is looking at health care because national defense budgets has a lot more to do with us in our way to living than anything else. i want -- i'm not going to be suspected by a criminal and taken away by a criminal with no attorney, no court date, no nothing for an undeterminant amount of time. host: our focus on the story on the national relations board saying that republican member of

the board improperly revealed information about the agency's private deliberations to outside parties -- host: the matter has been referred to the justice department for further investigations that newell, spokesman for john klein.

irvington, new jersey. arthur t democrats line. caller: yes. i certainly agree with the president making his statement. i have a son, 26 years old. and i feel like it's a shame. that you cannot walk the streets without being subject to racial profile. host: what do you think -- is that the message you think the president was trying to deliver yesterday or was there another message there? caller: the message -- yes. correct. absolutely correct. host: maryland, you are the last call this morning. republican line. tom. hi. caller: how are you doing? i'm thinking obama's statements, i'm not taking race related at all. everyone kind of talking about him putting himself in the shoes of a black parents, i think he's

putting himself in the shoes of a parent. i mean, my wife and i have a 4-year-old and an 8-month-old and every time there's a tragedy involving any child of those age range, black, white, red, or yellow, i automatically think of myself in the shoes of that parent. so i don't think obama is saying that his son would look like trayvon. i mean, i think he just means a son of that age, he has put himself in the shoes of a parent dealing with that situation right now. i don't think it's race related at all. host: and that's the last call we'll take on that topic. you may remember that the comments came as the president was in the rose garden for an entirely different purpose. that's for in the announcement of the nomination of jim young kim after president obama announced him and as nominee to become the head of the world bank. this is "the washington post" headline that the pick is a surprise as far as -- this is what it says.

a finance experienced was cited of particular concern for an agency that aims to strengthen private markets and build infrastructure alongside the public health and social programs that underwrites -- host: before we go on and there's a little bit of information about mr. kim. host: so we'll hear a little bit more from the nomination and the president's reasonings behind choosing him. memphis, tennessee, ann,

democrats line. hi. caller: hi. i was calling because i stood where the -- i understood where the president was coming from because i don't care what people say, most times when it comes to blacks, we the most mistreated race there is in the united states. and when it come to us, those things are pushed under rug. host: so what did the president's comment add yesterday? caller: ok. he was saying if he had a son, he would be wearing the same type of clothes that trayvon, the hoodie. host: sure. caller: all kids wear hoodies. kids wear hoodies. i hate them but they wear them. host: but then those were the words. what's the message, do you think? caller: i think he was saying everybody, watch out for your kids. and be careful. be careful. you know, before you shoot a

gun. be careful. host: we'll leave it there. those are the comments we'll take for our first 45 minutes. coming up, we're going to look more into this decision when it came to the shooting in afghanistan, the accusations against staff sergeant robert bales. charges coming down yesterday and we'll talk more about the process. but first, back to yesterday. the president talking about his nomination for the world bank jim kim. >> i believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that mission than dr. i didn't mean kim. it's time for -- jim kim. that's why today after a careful and thorough search, i'm nominating dr. jim kim to be the next president of the world bank. jim has spent more than two decades working the improved conditions around the couldn't as a physician and an anthropologist, he co founded partners in health and led a

world health organization campaign to treat three million parishes with h.i.v./aids. i've made -- patients with h.i.v./aids. i've made h.i.v./aids and the fight against that dreaded disease and the promotion of public health a cornerstone of my agenda. healthy pop mations enable growth and prosperity and i'm pleased that jim brings this particular experience with him to his new job. jim was also the chair of the global health and social medicine at harvard medical school. and for the last three years, he's served as president at dartmouth college. after immigrating from korea at 5, jim went on to become the president of his high school class, the quarterback of his football team the point guard of his basketball team. and i just found out he's a five handicap in golf. i'm a little resentful about

that last item but he does it all. jim has truly global experience. he's worked from asia to africa to the americas from capitals to small individualization. his personal story exemplifies the great diversity of our country and the fact that anyone can make it as far as he has as long as they are willing to work hard and look out for others. and as experience makes him ideally suited to forge partnerships all around the world. so i could not be more pleased to nominate jim for this job. and i think i can speak for exactly clinton and exactly geithner when i say we are looking forward to working with him. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining now, colonel lisa marie. currently serves as an active -- attorney on military issues. colonel windsor, thank you for

joining us. could you talk about the story that came out yesterday when it came to the actual charges against staff sergeant bales for us, we understand him in a certain perspective. from your perspective, what do they mean as far as this case is concerned? guest: you know, i anticipated that those were the charges that were going to be filed, you know, just from everything that had come out in the news, from everything that we've heard about it, you know, to have 17 counts of murder, you know, i think that's more, you know, than we heard people that had gotten killed in that offense. but, you know, it's also very common to charge things in more than one way, you know, so some charges has attempted murder, assault. you know, some of thaus those might fall off. you don't no know. host: in this case, it's preemptive murder. does that -- premed tariff murder. does that make a difference?

guest: it means the death penalty is on the table. host: when it comes to the trial itself, one of the things that we heard in article 32. we have a still that breaks down that. correct me if i'm wrong in some cases, but in this case, being at the article 32 hearing, when it comes to the jury that will ultimately hear this case, has to be unanimous in both its verdict and its sentence. could you add some context? >> yes. there's some layers to that. so this is very similar to a civilian jury where normally in state court, you would have to have a unanimous verdict to convict so in the military here with a capital case, you have to have a unanimous verdict to convict on the finding of a guilt or innocence on a merit, ok? and then you hear analysis about whether there was aggravating factors in the case. it could be occurred in time of war, could be murder of a child

under the age of 15, must have a unanimous finding that aggravated factors exist. and then must have a unanimous finding that those aggravating factors are not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances. ok. and then the unanimous verdict for the death penalty. and in the situation like that, you know, once you get there, the penalty -- panel only has two choices and that will be death or mandatory minimum which is life imprisonment. host: could we hear a case where john henry brown, the attorney for the staff sergeant could say he's had a repeated amount of details to iraq and afterstan? and he's in arguments of ptsd to it? guest: certainly. there were reports that he had

had a traumatic brain injury. that multiple deployments that he had experienced the trauma just the day before that happened. just seeing his buddy's legs get bone off. all of this factors into his state of mind at the time of the offense. host: who comprises the jury? guest: they call it a panel in the military. host: ok. guest: and this could be -- you can have an all-officer panel. everybody's going to be senior at date of ranked to the accuse ful he's an enlisted. he could request there could be enlisted members of the panel. host: if the commanding general in charge of the hearing could commute sentences if it's deemed to him or her too harsh? guest: there's a possibility for cleems si just like any civilian trial, there would be, yes. so the commanding general who is the queening authority would have that power. host: one more aspect. ultimately, it leads the

president must -- leads the president signing an order, approving of an execution. guest: the president has to approve the execution of a service member. that hasn't happened yet. the president has signed -- bush sign one in 2009 but that individual, mr. ronald greg, that case is still under -- gray, that case is still under appeal. host: why so long for the appeal process? guest: just it turns slowly. host: if you want to ask our guests questions, here's your chance to do so. you can call us at -- and you could also send us e-mail at

cspan.org or a tweet. what's the burden of proof going to be on their end? guest: the burden of proof in a military court as a civilian court is beyond a reasonable doubt which is -- it's not the judge, tell them it's not with a mathematical certainty, but it is, you know, they have to -- it's difficult to describe, you know. it's greater than a 50-50, you know, more than 50%. but it is not a 100%. host: so when it comes to the evidence gathering considering that it's a war zone and considering that it occurred in night time circumstances and a variety of other circumstances, what's the evidence going to have to be presented and what's going to be the difficulty in gathering that? guest: you know, any forensic evidence if there is any, obviously, you know, any time you're going -- crime scenes occur and they occur in houses

and neighborhoods. forensic evidence, it's always difficult to gather. eyewitness testimony. it can be inherently unreliable. so definitely as time goes on, memory phased. so all of those are going to be challenges for the prosecution. just logistically having a crime like this that happened in another country and having to bring witnesses to the united states, the language barrier, you know, a lot of chance there. -- challenges there. host: and there were -- what happened right at the very beginning. guest: there with. i don't know all the circumstances surrounding that, whether he turned himself in, whether he made any statements at the time, whether those statements will be admitted, you know, in court against him. now, it sounds like he's iing he doesn't remember what happened. host: our guest is with us until 8:30 and first call is from florida. sherry is on our democrats line.

you're on with colonel lisa marie windsor. go ahead. caller: hi. you know, when i think about this person that has served in the military and has been deployed more than a half dozen times or whatever, he is not the only -- who has gone through deployment more than, you know, how many times he's been there. more than ones. -- once. and what if -- and i'm sure all the other people in combat has seen just as much as he's seen sometimes a certain race, they are allowed to have a breakdown and go nuts and start killing people that they see as somebody

probably beneath them. and that goes a to -- goes to back to what happens in america towards people, you know, of color. host: we'll leave it there. colonel? guest: you know, i think she makes a very good point that just because he's been deployed numerous times. just because he's seen horrific things in combat, it's very likely that most of the people that are going to be on the panel judging him will have seen those same things too. so you know, the post-traumatic stress disorder does not necessarily make somebody go out and commit an offense like this. i think that there's also, you know, definitely -- we don't know what the motive was, you know, we don't know, really, any of the circumstances surrounding this. there has been a lot of

instances recently with the military in afghanistan that appear to be insulting to the islamic culture, you know that was the motive behind it. we don't know what the motive for koran burning and, you know, you're nating on the things of that ---your-nating on things of that nature. it represent a growing frustration among the troops however, i would separate this offense from those others. i think this offense is not, you know, i mean, we don't know what motivated him, but it's not -- it doesn't seem to be solely as racially motivated as possibly some of those -- other offenses. host: what's your opinion on the strength of what his lawyer said about lapses of memory concerning the incident? guest: well, you know, i think that goes to possible mental disease or defect, you know, which could be pointing to a defense. it could also be pointing to something called diminished

capacity, which is might negate premed nation. you know, if he was intoxicated at the time, if he was suffering some kind of mental breakdown at the time, then he may not have been able to tomorrow the premeditation in order to find him guilty of that offense. there are different types of murder offenses in the military just like there would be in state court. so pred meditated is the highest level, you know, you also have murder with intent to commit death or bodily harm. you have the reckless endangerment, the shooting into a crowd kind of thing. and you also are the felony, the felony murder rule. so the murder while in commission of another guest: absolutely.

that's an individual's constitutional right. and he certainly has the right to remain silent. he could elect to testify. but that's going to be a decision that is left up to sergeant bails and his defense attorney could be a strategic decision. host: have you heard of john hen brown before as a defend attorney? guest: i hadn't. i was stationed at fort lewis at one time. i was a defense counsel at fort lewis and there are defense counsel that practice a lot in the military courts around fort lewis. but i don't recall him. i don't think that he has a lot of experience practicing in military court. i had read that he had done some military cases. host: one of the accounts is he's very flamboyant and wondering how that plays before a military system. guest: not as well as it plays in -- host: why not? guest: well, i think that the

military officers are just not impressed by that sort of thing. you know, it's -- they are public servants and they believe in selfless service. and so that tends to be what you do you do for the organization and not for your own personal glory or benefit. i don't know that that's -- you know, i don't think that it goes to way a military panel as much as it might go to way a civilian jury. host: west virginia is next. john, republican line. good morning. caller: i was wondering how could he go and get into these homes and do this to this people when he's in a platoon and i thought there should be somebody that could have heard the situation or stopped him.

shouldn't there have been somebody around him? guest: and there should have been. i think that's a very good point and i think that there are ongoing investigations going on within the military as to the complete circumstances surrounding that. did he give any indication to anybody that he was going to do something like this? generally they're supposed to be traveling with a buddy. and what if anything did his superiors know, what indication led up to this. what were all of the circumstances surrounding that, the fact that he was able to, if he was, walk a distance and go house to house like that? host: from the time the charges come down to the time of the actual jury trial, what's the time span?

usually. guest: the government has to exercise due diligence. 10 days is sort of the rule of thumb -- 180 days but there are a lot of factors that could cause that time to extend out. obviously you see some cases the fort hood shooter case, the bradley manning the wikileaks, these cases have come a very long time to come to try. so what stops that clock then is generally defense requested delay. so i'm sure that mr. brown is going to take all the time that he needs in order to perfect his case. host: more interview? guest: the longer he can delay, the longer his clinet is not -- client is not sentenced and sitting on death row or -- potentially . host: and that adds what? guest: well, i think it adds a

certain psychological factor for the accused. you try to keep them out of prison as long as possible. i mean, he is in pretrial confinement. but there's a certain fine nalt to being locked behind bars. host: michigan, on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe that -- and thank you c-span. i enjoy your show. i would just like to say that he has done this before and he just happened to be caught this time. he sat around and drank with his friends. those same peers as the peers are going to be there and be on the panel to judge, be his judge and jury to determine whether or not he's committed a crime. and feshed pay for it. and i think his background should be checked because if probably he went and did this

in other places. because you just don't strap on your night vision goggles and gear and go house to house and try on your way back to camp to invade -- evade authority when they're look forg a purpose that committed a crime. it's a hate crime in prison and he probably did the same thing in the u.s. guest: it is hard to imagine that somebody could just do this out of the blue. you know, but it does happen. there's no indication that he had committed any other offenses in the military. i know i did read that there were some indication that he might have committed some misconduct in the civilian world prior to coming into the military. those things, hour, are largely inadmissible at trial. you cannot bring in past acts to show that the individual acted in conforment. you know, you cannot paint

somebody as a bad personneringo he must have committed this crime. so i heard that there was some fraud possibly at one point, there might have been some not domestic violence but some assault previously. i think that those things might come in to impeach the credibility of sergeant beals if he were to testify. host: massachusetts, ben, democrat's line. caller: i really appreciated that you raised the premeditation and the culpability question just a few minutes ago. i'm really interested. i'm just wondering if he has the sanity [inaudible] mensrea as a possible intent. and if you think that that might play into this case.

you know, this is a young man of my generation. we do tend to have -- i don't know, some hostility issues and some various issues that might -- [inaudible] bullied in his head when he did this. guest: i definitely think that the insanity case is always a possibility where you have any indication that the individual might have been suffering from some sort of mental disease or defect. it's a very high standard to overcome to guilt. you mentioned mensrea. it has to rise to the level that at the time the individual committed the offense they were unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. in other words, they didn't know they were commiting a crime. they genuinely sincerely believed that they were acting in self-defense.

something like that. so it's very difficult in a case like this to get over that. what it does do, however, is some kind of diminished capacity, some sort of mental illness, intoxication, can bring that premeditation charge down to an intent charge. you know, murder with intent to commit death or grieves bodily harm and that can take the death penalty off the table. host: denver, colorado. good morning to ray. hello. caller: i just want to ask the colonel if this soldier, who is military trained to do his job, he went out and he had a few drink or whatever, everybody is saying about what he did. but my question will be, aren't we at war? so at the time if he was drinking and he went and did what he did or if he didn't -- i'm not assuming -- i don't

think that we should be, as americans, so hard on him because he had gone through four tours of duty to protect us. so where do we protect him and his family at? guest: this is a tragedy for everybody, his family included. and ink -- i think that there has been a lot of deployments. the troops have been under a lot of strain. they hear a lot in the press that the war is not going well. they see that. it has been going on for quite a long time. you have multiple deployments. and people really not being able to recover from the previous deployment and then getting deployed again. so not only do you have the stress of having to be deployed. but there's a lot of family issues that go along with that. so definitely the fact that he had had multiple deployments,

that he was under a lot of stress is going to factor into this case. host: so is this case not only about the case but the war itself and the operations in afghanistan? guest: i think if i was mr. brown that i would bring that up. i mean, the war is not on trial here, but definitely that is a factor that the way that the military have gone about prosecuting the war has added to this stress and frustration of the troops. it's built to a crescendo here. host: for those charged why not a jag lawyer? why hire an outside lawyer as far as the option that staff sergeant bale had? guest: i'm sure he will have a jag lawyer also. you can have a jag lawyer of course at no expense, you can have a civilian attorney at your own expense, and you can have both. and frequently a person will elect to have both. they like the civilian attorney because the people tend to be older, have more experience, have more trial experience than

the jag attorneys. on the other hand, the jag attorneys are going to know all the players. they're right there on post. they know all the military terminology, the jargon. host: protocols? guest: protocols and all of that. so it's very good to have that team. host: so the jag lawyer serves as an interpretor as far as the -- host: and liaison to the staff judge advocate. yes. host: this is tennessee up next. raymonden. hello. guest: how are you doing? as i sit and listened and i think -- i don't know what happened in that situation. but to me it had to have been something that flipped him like it did, that sent him off like it did. and then they arrest him and put him in solitary confinement. but still we know what went on in stanford.

and yet, as a man still walking the street who has committed first degree murder as i see, and yet he's not confined at all. our laws conflict with each other. i know those are military laws. but he had to have some type of motive to act the way that he acted. and i don't know what it is. but we do know this guy's motive in stanford. we know what his motive was. guest: i think that motive does play in. although motive is not an element of any offense under the uniform code of military justice. you really don't have to prove in a court why a person did what they did only that they did. motive comes in sort of to explain and might add some mitigation to the offense. i think that it is just very

difficult to tell at this point why something like this would go on. with the troops, that they're having issues with aggression, well, that's all part of it. sometimes we want them to be aggressive with regards to the enemy. we do not want them to be aggressive with regards to the civilian population. host: there's a picture of fort 11 worth, kansas. most of us have heard the term. can you tell us a little bit more about life there and what's facing sergeant bales as he stays there? guest: the military prison, i've been there a few times. it's devenly more structured -- definitely more structured and disciplined place than federal prisons that i've visited. and in many ways i think if you were going to be confined and

of course nobody would want that, it's a good facility and the people are very -- treated very well there. host: new jersey, linda. caller: good morning. my question is i wonder why this soldier is being rushed to trial when the alleged fort hood shooter is still waiting for trial and i'm also wondering why this is getting so much coverage when that particular terrible shooting did not. the government officials including leon panetta, the president, and hillary clinton are coming out with such distinct outrage, i wonder if this soldier hasn't already been convicted just by the fact that this government seems to be so outraged and yet hassen is still waiting there while they complete all of the discovery that needs to be done. guest: yes. that's a very good point. why do these cases take as long as they do?

why have the charges in this case come so soon? i do think that there is a pressure in this case to get this trial accomplished as soon as is reasonably possible. again, the defense has to have time to prepare their case. and they're going to take as much time as they need to do that. that tends to be the reason for these lengthy delays. as far as the fort hood shooter case, you did not have such the political aspect of that trial and the international aspect of that trial that you do in this one. so i think that's what's resultd in these very high profile, the president and mr. panetta making comments about that. host: alabama, republican line. caller: the soldier that's charged with murder, i think he should not be charged with murder. general allen in charge of

afghanistan was on tv said he is on a truck that was exploded that killed seven soldiers and wounded 77. general allen is in charge of afghanistan and he was on tv on sunday afternoon a couple months ago and said he allowed it and the reporter said general you are guilty of seven killed and 77 wounded. why didn't you stop that truck? he said i flew -- i knew three days ahead of time they were going to below up this com-- blow up this compound. host: what's the -- guest: he knew it so general allen should be charged for delaying the war and everything and not the soldier. guest: i commented on the growing frustration among the troops with the way that the war is going and it doesn't seem to be progressing quite as much as people had hoped that it would have progressed at

this point. i think that with regard to civilian casualties, you always try to minimize those as much as possible. in a war where you have a very easily identified enemy, in other words there's an army on the other side wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, you know, very clear who the enemy is in that case. in a case where you have the enemy that is dressing the same as the civilian population, sometimes the likelihood of civilian casualties is greater in a sense. in situations that you saw in iraq quite a bit where you had civilians firing on troops, the

troops are always able to defend themselves against anyone firing on them, whether that person be military or civilian. in this case, though, i just don't see that as being a factor. it appears that it was at night. people were asleep. and there's no indication that anybody in that situation, american troops, felt any way threat bd or were taking fire. host: our guest served as a former judge advocate general in the army currently serves as a military attorney. how did you get into the work of judge advocate general? guest: i went into the army right out of law school. i did a summer internship. i did a summer internship here in washington, d.c., as a matter of fact, and i was just very impressed with the army jag corps and just they embraced me and so it was a great way to get a lot of experience and as time goes on

you learn what a wonderful organization that is and just how wonderful those people are. i know there's a lot of criticism about the military out there. i think that people have to remember that these individuals that are commiting offenses, this is still a very, very small percentage of all of the troops. 99.9% of the troops are wonderful people. they believe in what they're doing. they have a great set of values. so it's very important as these kinds of incidents that have been happening in the news a lot go on that the american public remembers that this is not the face of the american military. host: what's the frequency of article 32 type trials? guest: i would say they ebb and flow but with the general courts martial i think they're fairly frequent. so in the heavier jurisdiction

which would be someplace like maybe fort bragg or fort hood, you could easily see two, three a month. host: georgia, tyler. independent line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. guest: i guess this is a question of fairness. i know the afghan like the americanry is coming in, grabbing off civilians and rushing them off to court in guantanamo bay. i guess from an afghanistan perspective they look at him as a terrorist. so do you think the afghan people feel that it's fair that he's not being tried under an afghan law under an afghan trial? guest: from their perspective i would assume that they probably do think that it's not fair that he is not being tried under afghan law or international law as a war

criminal, which it is a violation of the laws of war to target civilians. cannot target civilians. however, i think this is an instance where you have one person that, for whatever reason, committed this horrific crime. i don't see this crime as any different from more like unto the fort hood shooter case that you just have this person that went on a rampage. more like unto that than something like the hah deefa case where you have soldiers saying that they came under fire and that's why they went house to house and may have killed innocent civilians in that case. so that's part of the accomplishment that they're saying we were doing this to accomplish the mission. where as in this case i think that you just have an individual that lost control. host: on our democrat's line, lauren, sacramento, california.

caller: thanks for having me. this question is for ms. windsor. i've been hearing you allowed to the fact that this was an individual crime. i understand that it was an individual crime. but the question remains, though, can he solely take the responsibility for this? we need to really look at how we recruit soldiers, how we train soldiers and how leadership structure is how they take out our leadership and how they discharge those duties. and further more, will the defense attorney reference the maila case that happened in vietnam back in march? will he reference this in order to bolster his case about post traumatic stress syndrome?

guest: as getting to the last point i think i would distinguish this case from the meali case because that case was more, this was combat operations and these people were ordered to kill innocent civilians. i definitely don't see -- i would be very surprised if that came out in this case that he was ordered to carry out some type of an operation here. we certainly haven't heard anything along those lipes. i think that you do mention the post traumatic stress disorder. i think that will be a factor in this case. how people are recruited, though, it's very difficult to screen out absolutely for those kinds of things. obviously if somebody has a diagnosed mental illness they cannot come into the military. but there doesn't seem to be

any indication that that happened in this case. also, people cannot come into the military if they have a felony conviction. again, you know, this person evidently did not have anything on his criminal record that would raise a red flag. so very hard to screen out for any kind of potential problems like -- of this magnitude. host: oregon, will you an, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am very disappointed. why don't we put our congress on trial for sending our men and women over there so many times? this is their fault. this is a tragedy. and i'm so sorry but when you mention that they're rushing this to trial because of the world opinion, forget the world opinion. we're the united states of america. and we're to back our men and women. again, this is a tragedy. and he's been found guilty? why?

because of senators and the house of representatives don't have the guts to pull our men and women out when they're exhausted. he was told he was not going to go back over there again and all of a sudden they say we're going to deploy you back at a certain time. and maybe that's what triggered it. he was tired. guest: a couple of things there. i think from the military perspective the people on the panel are not going to be as sympathetic for the fact that he underwent multiple deployments, that he saw horrific things in combat because they're likely to have seen those too and so have all the troops. all the troops are under the same strain at this point. but they're not commiting activities such as this. i do think though you know also that there are defining moments in wartime that turn the tide of public sentiment. and this may very well be one

of those. host: georgia, james. democrat's line. caller: yes, sir. i don't understand in korea and vietnam we didn't have multi deployments as often. and anybody that's ever been in the military, which i was, knows that the military courts are kangaroo courts and they're not going to get justice. it should be turned over to a civilian trial and let them handle it. and take it out of the military. because it's a kangaroo court. host: what makes you say that? caller: well, if you had been in the military you know. i served in the military in vietnam, korea and i know it's a kangaroo court . host: do you know that experience first hand? caller: yes, sir. everybody knows it that served in the services. host: everybody knows it according to him. guest: and i would have to disagree. that was not my experience.

i've tried several courts martial on both sides. i've been both defense counsel and trial counsel for the government and certainly didn't feel like a kangaroo court to me. certainly did not feel like there was any preconceived notion of guilt or innocence among any of the panel members. i think that the panel members in the military work very, very hard to put their personal feelings aside just like any jury member would and follow the instructions of the judge. with a military court, people are in uniform but that's really the only difference. there are differences in appearance, in most of the military courts martial it only takes a two thirds majority to convict. that fact in and of itself tends to account for the higher rate of conviction in a military court. host: one more call. alaska, independent line.

caller: thanks for having me. i have this question. my question is why as a mission -- i mean, i'm from another country. i've had the privilege to be outside this country and i see the way people look at. other countries also follow us a lot. they respect us a lot. they emulate us. they want to be like us. why are we not standing by this guy right now? i feel like he needs us as a nation. i don't know how to put it to you. i mean, we shouldn't be quick to turn our back on him for some reason. we should stand by him.

he made a mistake. i agree. ok you make the mistake. so [inaudible] making us safe as a nation? host: thank you. guest: again i don't see this offense and the circumstances surrounding this offense being part of combat operations. i think this was one individual commiting a crime and i am sure that he will be tried and given every right under the constitution. that's this country stappeding up for him that he is afforded all the rights benefits and privileges that he is entitled to by virtue of being an american citizen. host: how long do these trials usually take? guest: the military tends to get trials over and done with fairly quickly. depending on the number of witnesses and depending on

logistical issues with getting witnesses. i've seen murder trials last for two to three days. they could go on for weeks. but generally the military is able to get trials completed in a shorter length of time than most civilian courts are able to. host: can the general public observe these? guest: they are open to the general public. yes. in a case like this though that has so much press involved, you saw with the bradley manning case that they are trying at fort mead that that's been restricted. host: our guest has been colonel lisa marie windsor. guest: thank you. host: coming up we'll talk about the house g.o.p. budget and plare what it does for those who are federal employees. we'll have that discussion when we come back.

welcome. guest: thank you. host: how would you describe what your organization does with regards to federal employees? guest: well, we are very proud and fortunate to represent about 700,000 federal employees and executive branch agencies across the nation and around the world. we represent employees in the department of defense, department of veterans affairs, department of labor, h.u.d., bureau of prisons, border patrol. really, across the board who do a tremendous quantity and variety of work on behalf of the american people. host: do you serve as the union? is that fair to say? guest: we're the largest union in the federal sector and affiliated with the affle cio. host: can you tell us what has happened to the amount of pay and benefits that you have? guest: it's been open season or fran employees for several years now. right now, federal employees

are in the midst of the second year of a two year pay freeze. we've been targeted repeatedly to pay for various initiatives that the congress is considering that are completely unrelated to federal employees and the cost of our pay and compensation. there are certainly proposals out there that would decimate the federal retirement system. reanything on promises made to federal employees when they were hired with regard to their health insurance, retirement benefits and pay. every week brings new proposals to cut federal pay and benefits. so federal employees are very much under attack for no good reason. host: this week was the release of the g.o.p. -- the house republicans released their version of the budget and specifically within it there were several items relating directly to federal employees. just to highlight, maybe you can add some context. one thing overall according to

the house budget would propose about $370 billion in workforce cuts over 10 years. guest: to put it into some context, not that the numbers add up, we can talk about that later. the house of representatives republicans propose about $1 trillion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts over the next ten years and within that extra $1 trillion there was another trillion from the budget control act of last year. so this is the second worth of spending cuts. 378 billion, about 37%, they want to take from federal employees. think about it for a second. there's about 2 million federal employees. our federal workforce makes up about six tenths but is being asked to shoulder close to 40% of the burden of spending

reduction. according to the house republicans. and what this would -- he didn't lay out many details but one thing was to extend the pay freeze for an additional three years. a ten percent reduction in the number of federal jobs. sort of an across the board 10% cut. and then the rest is unspecified but it's supposed to come out of federal retirement. and with the numbers they're talking about you might as well say good-bye to your federal retirement benefit. it would require both higher contributions, reduced benefits, and various combination ks get you to that quantity of money. host: is that a reduction in monthly benefit like a mention or 401(k) that you have to contribute more? guest: possibly both. i think that what they really can't stand is the fact that a federal employee still is eligible if they work long enough for a defined benefit pension, a monthly benefit.

and there's a lot of false rhetoric about there about the size of federal pension benefits. currently, among current federal retirees, the average retirement benefit is about $900 a month, $12,000 a year. if you worked 30 years for the federal government, you get roughly 30% of your final income as your pension. not excessive by any measure but there's so much false information out there that has fueled this attack on federal employee pensions sfloofment this has come down before and since where -- how have they succeeded in the senate once it gets there? >> well, the most recent successful attack on federal pensions was approved by the senate and that was when federal employees for reasons that make sense to no one were forced to pay for fully half of

the extension of the unemployment insurance benefits. recent legislation that was passed that extend it had payroll tax, that bill included an additional $30 billion for extending unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed and $15 billion is going to be paid for by federal employees who will have higher mandatory ask contributions to their federal plan. host: our guest is here to talk about federal worker pensions. so what is the likelihood of this proposal actually going somewhere? guest: well, we have a

tremendous team of lobbyists in our union and i put nothing past them even against the most impossible odds they do such a good job protecting the interests of our members. i'm not as scared as maybe i ought to be. but i think that there's a tremendous amount of anti-federal employee sentiment that's been sort of whipped up by certain right wing think tanks here around washington, d.c. and the newspaper today that can't seem to get enough of these incredibly irresponsible and false front page stories. host: such reflected by one of our people watching commenting via twitter this morning. guest: i think that what part of the insidiousness that part of the campaign that cato

heritage and u.s.a. today are engaged in encourages people to see themselves as taxpayers, fully as taxpayers rather than fellow workers. i think that the cynicism of some of the people who support this -- and unfortunately there are plenty of democrat whose support this as well as almost all republicans, is the idea that private sector has lowered pay and benefits for workers. you know, they've managed to make it almost impossible for american workers to form a union. they passed laws that allow them to i say ren egg on promises of pension payments and hins and retirement. so people in the private sector have had their pay and benefits cuts. so their answer is i'm suffering you should suffer. i think that we want to try to change the momentum and change the direction of the conversation and say wait a

second. one generation ago, thanks to our parents and grand parents effort to form unions and make demands but they deserve a decent retirement, standard of living, secure health insurance, now nobody deserves that. and we can't understand why that seems plausible to anybody. host: first call florida, democrat's line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to ask the lady, are there any sectors of the government that we give federal money to, that actually payed out for itself? i actually read one time that food stamps, for every dollar we give we get 20 cents back because of the multiplying fact of the people spending the money directly in the economy. and i'll take my comment off line. thank you.

guest: that's a very interesting question and it's a great question in the context of this republican house budget. i would argue that almost every dime that the federal government pays to its workforce both in terms of salary and benefits finds its way back to the economy and is ultimately stimulative. the biggest problem our countries faces is aggregate demand not enough economic activities coming on. and the question is how much of their salaries do federal employees actually spend in the economy? or when it comes to federal benefit programs, social security benefits, veterans benefits, meals to poor children, health care provided to poor children and poor families. do those benefits find their way back into the economy and spur chick growth?

the answer is absolutely yefment i would say in just about 100% of the case because federal salaries are so modest, there's not tremendous hoarding of money. people have to spend everything they earn to keep the body and soul together. tp guest: i would just like to comment on this. that isn't it true that federal employees in their staff get their benefits too? and don't they get the best health care coverage and pay the lowest rates? guest: i wish what you say were true. unfortunately it's completely not true. i have a few friends who have recreptly become federal employees and they're shocked at how bad the hins benefits are, how expensive and how little they get in turn for the high cost. federal employees pay anywhere

from 28 to 55% of the cost of premium for their health insurance. and if they work long enough yes they are eligible for family coverage. in retirement if that was your question. and that can include a spouse. but one of the things that afge has long explained about on behalf of our members is that the program is not a well-run program. the last time it was seriously analyzed by outside experts it was found that the cost paid for by combined employees and taxpayers, is way too high given the actuarial benefits provided. and we have often said that we should have a single plan, more like a medicare style system. but there are very powerful

interests on capitol hill. and getting that changed so it would be a more efficient system and lower cost for taxpayers and enrollees seems to be an impobblet. host: off of twitter. guest: well, i think that what we want is to go back to a time when more people did get a defined benefit from their employer. i think it's one of the tragedies of our generation. if ronald reagan brought in individual retirement accounts 401(k)s and it shifted all the risk for retirement funding on to the worker. i think the latest statistics i saw more than half of all americans have no employer sponsored pension plan. and that's the tragedy. not that federal employees still have one. it's that everybody else needs one and should have one as well. and we should focus our energy

on making retirement income security a reality for every american workers. host: john on our independent line. guest: is this program affecting the military re tirement. the way our retirement system works is different than a federal civilian retirement plan. you know, the retirement plans that a civilian worker has is different. they put in -- they have different plans and what not and we don't. but we sacrifice a lot more than a civilian employee. that's why i'm wondering why should it affect a military retiree and considering the

circumstances. what i've read about are profoflse charge military retirees quite a bit more for their health care. but beyond that i really probably should not speak because i have no expertise in military retirement. host: louisiana john on our republican line. caller: i spent time in the military. i also spept time in civil service and i also spent time in the private sector as an airplane pilot. a little bit, there is no defined benefit program any more. if i remember correctly 1983

when civil service retirement system, which was went away and fers came in. so i think your description of a defined benefit program is a little bit off because we haven't had one in a long time in federal civil service. and that, the civil service retirement system those people did not pay into social security. i believe they paid 7%. in fact i know that's what it was because i did it. and then as i went on to my civilian career, i was an airline pipet. i had a defined benefit program. and when the airline i worked for declared bankruptcy i got 50 cents on the dollar and complete loss of medical. now, because i also have a retiree medical through the military, which actually is social security because i'm over 65 so all i get is try care for life which is only the portion beyond social security or medicare.

but like i say, back to the original thing i think you need to distinguish the fact that there is no defined benefit except for those people who opted for that back in 1983. and i'll just back off and listen to your reply here. thank you. guest: you're right that there was a new federal employee retirement system establish in the early 1908s when there was a commission trying to prepare for the eventual cost of the retirement of the baby boom and amendments were made to the social security law and federal employees were brought into social security like you said. so under the old civil service retirement system federal employees did not participate in social security and they had a pension that was the equivalent of a pension plus social security. fers that succeeded cfrs does have a -- it has three components, social security,

401 k style retirement savings plan called the thrift savings plan, and there's a small pension. small defined benefit pension. host: oklahoma jr, or junior perhaps, on our democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. what i would like to know is since congressmen are federal employees, are these same cuts and benefits and wages going to impact them or are they considered special? guest: well you've asked a kind of explosive question and the answer is a little bit complicated. the answer is yes and no. on the one hand yes the cuts will apply to them except for the fact that they're subject to the vagaries of election of course and they can lose their jobs at any time. and consequently they are eligible for early retirement without any kind of reduction

in their benefit based on whatever their age is. so although the increase contribution requirements will apply to new members of congress, they have saved themselves from any of the penalty that is a regular federal employee would have to experience if they retire early. in other words, before they're actually old enough to be eligible and have served long enough to be eligible. host: the current pay freeze is that an absolute pay freeze or no cost of living adjustment? guest: it's a hard pay freeze. federal employees sometimes we call our pay adjustment a cost of living increase. it's not based on the consumer price index, it's based on a different measure from the bureau of labor statistics called the employment cost index. based on changes, an index that measures changes in wages and salaries in the private sector and that is absolutely canceled

across the board. but there is -- i think it's important to raise this question. the federal -- all the focus has been on federal employees, the direct employees of federal agencies. but the government employs indirectly an even larger number of contract employees than it does federal employees and they work side by side with federal employees often doing work that is arguably inherently governmental that should be performed by federal employees but we'll put that to the side for a minute. they have not been subject to any kind of pay freeze and in fact we've been working on legislation with representative tonko of new york and senators boxer and grassley. they've both introduced legislation that would cap contractor salaries. right now the most highly compensated contractor employees can get compensated by taxpayers for up to about $700,000 a year.

and an unlimited number of employees of any given contractor can be paid -- can be compensated by taxpayers for even more than that. the senate legislation, boxer and grassly, would limit it to the salary of the president of the united states, 400,000. representative tonko's bill says capnet secretary salary 200,000 is enough. this small portion of the federal workforce that everybody likes to beat up on has been under a hard freeze and then the big federal workforce, the contractor, has not. host: you mentioned off the top several think tambings. but also the oversight committee chairman darme ice avement in a story related to the health benefit he added this as far as the comment in terms of his committee said.

so when it comes to how your pay reflects on the average person who works in the public sector how do those two relate? guest: well, what i would guess representative issa imagines and desires is an entirely new pay system that doesn't cost any more than the current pay system but that would impose pay cuts for those tat bottom in order to pay for pay increases for those at the top. that's certainly how the national security personnel system that the department of defense experimented with a few years ago. that's how that worked. you call it pay for performance but inevitably it has nothing to do with performance and you've got a very special situation in the federal government where it's very important given that we're compensating our employees with public money that no

corruption, no favoritism, no croneiism, no subject tivity really enters into the determination of pay. and once you from -- creative system with lots of discretion, that's what you get. one of the great virtust of the federal pay system is we don't pay by individual, we pay by the job. and the result, the wonderful result of that is that we don't really have much pay discrimination against women and minorities in the federal pay system. and once you introduce the kind of pay system that issa would like to see i imagine, you've got a lot of opportunity for the kind of mischief that occurred in the couple of years that the department of defense had a chance to experiment with that. host: the federal times had a story taking a look at promotions within the federal system and how they're evaluated and they came up with this. a story that came out. the number of so-called career

ladder promotions which can boost an employee's pay by more than 10,000 a year guest: federal times is owned by the u.s.a. today and gamet. federal times reprints the outrageous kind of stories that u.s.a. today beats up on us with. second of all, there's an important sort of historical context to all of this which is we are at a moment right now where there's sort of a generational shift in the workforce. baby boomers are reaching retirement eligibility and retirement age. with a pay freeze there is absolutely no reason for them to stay on. there's no benefit to them of staying on. so they're retiring. they're retiring in large numbers and they're being

replace bid a new generation. and the way the federal pay system and the federal classification system works is that you have an opportunity, a career ladder, in the early years of your career if you -- as you train, as you gather more expertise and experience, you're eligible to be promoted to the next level within your career path. there's nothing wrong with that. federal employees have very, very modest entry selve salaries but they are told ok if you do well here's the career trajectory that's available to you and a federal managers are doing a poor job of evaluating people, that's their problem. but the fact that promotional opportunities exist is certainly a positive thing. we want to be able to attract and retain high quality employees. and certainly we want to encourage people to make their careers in the federal government because let's face it maybe this is my perspective as a middle aged person but i

know i'm better at my job than i was 20 years ago and you want to be able to reward people financially for the increased skills they have on the basis of their increasesed experience. host: our guest, jackie simon. jeff, republican line. go ahead. caller: caller: my question is this -- or my statement is this. i think that the unions have taken too many liberties with the people's money and too many liberties with our voting, too many liberties with a lot of things that they did not have mandates to do that would put the unions as a whole in the back like to the american people because we see unions -- afmc or whatever it is -- out there beating people up. we see all kinds of things that have put the unions out of favor with the people of america.

i think that is the biggest overall problem that the unions face at this point. they were good when they started, but i think they have outlasted their welcome, and i think they could be a horrible watchdog over work forces and get out of the sector completely and do something that way. i will listen to what you have to say of air. thank you. >> -- guest: i am not sure what you are referring to, but poll after poll of american workers asking them if they get have union protection and this they could form a union without fear of having their jobs moved overseas or fear of some kind of retaliation on the part of their supervisors and managers, what they have a union, an overwhelming majority say yes, they want a union. at this point in a world of global competition, unions are not able to provide a tremendous

economic benefit. what unions really do provide for their members, certainly in the federal sector and in state and local government, is due process, and that is absolutely important in a public sector context. it is important you do not have any kind of spoils system when it comes to public employment. when politicians or political appointees can hire and fire at will, as happens in a private sector, non-union situation, you run a tremendous risk of corruption. if employers cannot take their case to a third party, which is what a union contract allows someone to do, to grieve personnel practices that are not in line with the merit system principles, for example, and the federal government, you have opened the door to corruption. sometimes -- if you imagine a

federal work place without the protections of a union contract, without the opportunity for employees to hold management accountable for following the law, for implementing rules of fairness, especially when it comes to hiring and firing of employees, then you have got a mess. be careful what you wish for. you do not have the discipline of the market, as you do in the public sector. in the federal government, you need an independent voice, an opportunity to take your case to an independent panel that will decide whether or not rules have been followed. guest: that was a very nice comment. thank you very much. i do not know how representative you are, but i hope you are

representative. when you take a look at the right and budget, the house republican budget, which essentially zeros out everything that is not department of defense, social security, medicare, medicaid within the next couple of decades, you wonder -- who want an america without the environmental protection agency? who wants an america without anybody watching to make sure our food is safe, the development of pharmaceuticals is safe? who wants a federal government that does not provide any benefits or health care whatsoever to our veterans, no federal prisons -- i do not know what we're supposed to do with the federal inmate population. just let them go? nobody policing our borders? nobody making sure that the pension system works, that wage and hour laws are upheld? what kind of america do people who hate every function of government really imagine? are they all anarchist's? do they what appear anarchy?

>> -- host: florida, democrats line. caller: i really appreciate the postal service. i have a lovely ghost worker would delivers my mail right on time. i think they do a great job. i think that the republican party has reneged on the benefits that they promised these people. i think they are a bunch of communists. --t guy -- what's his name erick kanter -- cantor, he has a very deep voice. maybe he could sing a couple lines of "suwannee river." caller: good morning. very clever tactic these people use. use it a try to pick people against each other, and that is

absolutely correct. i am retired state police with a defined pension and medical, and it is surprising how many police agencies will no longer provide medical after you retire when you need it most, and most people will need it. they just have not been sick yet, but they will be. like you said, be careful what you wish for. unfortunately, i believe, no matter how hard we try, unions are on their way out because we have very wealthy people telling people they can do it on their own, to have freedom. freedom to do what? to get sick? what else do we have left? but never let people think that we have not learned what we have. thank you. guest: i think we do have a reasonable middle ground. the extreme -- the shocking extreme -- is reflected in the house republican budget. when you sit there and read it

-- of course, as i said before, the numbers do not add up. when you first asked me how the budget affects federal employees. only a small -- not a small, but one portion of the harm comes from the $378 billion in cuts -- job cuts, pay freezes, retirement cuts. it is also -- you know, you look at their tax plan. like all other working and middle-class americans, federal employees will lose their mortgage interest deduction. they would lose the exclusion from taxation of their benefits -- medicare benefits, social security benefits. forget the child care tax deduction, charitable giving deduction, mortgage interest deduction. i mean, forget it. we would have massively higher taxes even at these lower rates for working and middle-class people. the extremism is absolutely on the part of house republicans. host: george on our republican

line, lancaster county, pennsylvania. caller: i think the lady does not realize that federal workers have been basically immunized from the effects of globalization over the past 30 years. the private sector has not. that explains the fact the -- that people are not too sympathetic with the cries of federal workers who do not want to see an adjustment in their benefits and pay and expect the private citizens who have already sacrificed to continue to pay taxes. thank you. guest: i am sorry, that is just not the case. i sit on the federal prevailing

rate advisory council, a body that provides input to the office of personnel management on blue-collar federal pay. they are paid on the basis of prevailing rates in very small local wage areas. it is a hands-on pace system where local management goes out and collect data from local employers on wages in the skilled trades. if you look at that data, which i do all the time, you can see the effect of globalization, which is basically the closure of auto plants, electronic manufacturing plants of all kinds. as all those good union jobs have disappeared overseas, wages have fallen across the board for blue-collar skilled trades. consequently, the data used in the federal pay system reflect

that, and those reductions from globalization get translated directly into the lower wages for federal blue-collar workers. host: delray beach, florida, is next. this is roger on our democrats line. caller: you were talking earlier about private contractors. that made me think of -- you know, there is a lot of outsourcing of federal government work to private contractors. would there be an economic benefit to in-source this work, to increase the amount of work that federal workers do, as opposed to outsourcing to private contractors who do not have control on their salaries? guest: that is a tremendously valuable proposal, and it is something we have been pursuing. the department of the army has certainly been pursuing it. the most recent large-scale comprehensive study of the benefits of in sourcing versus

outsourcing produced by the project of government oversight, a sort of independent good government group in d.c., shows -- they looked at hundreds of up occupations that the government purchases contract services for, and in all but maybe two instances, contractors charge taxpayers more per hour for labor, including but the wages and benefits when work is outsourced. in sourcing has the potential of saving tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars annually, certainly in the department defense, which is the agency that does the most service contract in, outsourcing. in sourcing is a tremendous opportunity for savings. unfortunately, almost no agency in the federal government is in compliance with the law that would require inventories of all the service contracts they have

so they can actually start to take a look at what kind of savings opportunities might be available. if the department of the army gives any indication of the kind of savings that could be realized if in sourcing would be pursued government-wide, there is tremendous opportunity. host: a few more minutes with our guests. southern maryland, independent line, dave. caller: i want to make a point about the pay freeze we are under. not all of us are under this theory the folks on the pay for performance plans. only part of us are carrying the load. the other point i wanted to make is when you had your article up there about the increases -- a lot of that is attributable to when they pulled a bunch of us out of nsps and put us back in

the gs, and now, all of a sudden, grades are due. >> the number of federal employees under these so-called demonstration projects that have to pay for performance -- individuals might, i imagine, get a small pay increase under those systems, but again, that is a 0 sum game. if anybody got an increase, it came at the expense of their co- workers because the total sum of money available for paying salaries in any work unit is frozen. host: one more call, new york, republican line. caller: good morning. i had a few comments to make. i hope you'll bear with me. i am a centrist republican. i feel there has been an anti- union movement in this country, which has grown in strength since 2008, due to the stock market crash, which is directly attributable to derivative plays

that the private sector undertook. since the 401's were decimated by the near-depression caused by the stock-market crash, we have a lot of displaced anger towards unionized workers in this country. unfortunately, i feel for the private sector, but it is not the fault of the public sector. you should look at your own house and get it in order. joel klein wrote an article about the perils of defined benefits, but, of course, he has a defined benefit. he had his hand out readily after several years. he was an inexperienced chancellor -- host: caller, before you go any further, could you relate this to the topic at hand? caller: yes, i feel that the

government workers are getting a raw deal, that they are being used as scapegoats. guest: i think that you make a tremendously important point. the war against the last remaining defined benefit plans started to be waged right when we have the financial crisis caused by speculation on wall street. suddenly, they took a look at public pension plans and found them underfunded and said, "oh, my god, this is a horrendous crisis. look at these plans. they are unavoidable. you look at them when they were at their weakest point because the investments have declined so dramatically because of the decline on wall street. it was not that the benefits were too generous. they suddenly started to look weak because of the fiscal crisis. so the facts were twisted in

such a way as to make it seem like a crisis caused by overly generous benefits rather than the prices on wall street that depleted the assets of the defined benefit plans in the public and private sector. host: now that the budget is out, what is the next step for your organization? guest: we will continue to talk to lawmakers and make the case that it is ridiculously unfair to make this small portion of the american population shoulder almost all of the burden of deficit reduction, and we hope that at least members of the senate will listen to reason and realize that these kind of draconian cuts are necessary, actually not good for the economy or anyone, and we will reject budget cuts of this magnitude. >> -- host: thanks for your time in. in our last segment, we will look at benefits when it comes

to same-sex benefits for military employees. we will have the discussion with andrew tilghman of "the military times" when we come right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on monday, the supreme court start hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral argument as the court releases are deal at around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c-span 3 and c-span radio. listen and add your comments. our coverage starts monday morning live on c-span with "washington journal" in the oral

argument on c-span 3. >> as middle and high school students from across the country showed which part of the constitution was important to them and why. we will air the top 27 videos, mornings at 6:50 eastern on c- span, and meet the students who created them. for a preview of the winning videos, go online, and congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's competition. >> this weekend on american history tv -- >> think of the fdr memorial. it was not just three redesigns, it was 3-plus designs before they got to a final plan. i think that we should not be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the centuries, and we want to get it right. >> with the eisenhower memorial designed by frank garry opposed

by the family, a house subcommittee discussed the planned memorial to our 34th president. watch this sunday, part of american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is andrew tilghman of "the military times." welcome. how does the defense department trade benefits or the offering of benefits for same-sex couples? >> -- guest: as you know, six months ago, the part of defense finally lifted the ban on gays serving openly in the military, which eliminated the long standing rule allowing service members to be involuntarily separated for being gay, but because of the existing federal defense of marriage act, the department of defense did not have to answer a lot of 40 questions about what kind of benefits to extend to potentially same-sex couples. the issue has been on hold, just

like any other federal agency right now. the department of defense does not recognize a same-sex marriage, even if it is a legal marriage in one of the state's that recognizes them. that means they do not get additional housing allowance, which is several hundred dollars a month. they do not get extended health benefits. they cannot live in base housing. there is a range of things right now that are very much on hold because of the defense of marriage act. host: when it goes to -- comes to the reasoning behind it, what is the thinking with secretary panetta and others? >> -- guest: right now, the thinking is that there are some fundamental benefits that the law does prohibit them from offering. health benefits. other federal workers do not get health benefits for same-sex marriages. but the question has arisen in

that the department's defense has a lot of gray areas that are not quite so clear cut as health benefits. a question of whether a spouse can have access to a military base. the question of whether a same- sex spouse could have the right to be notified in case of an injury overseas. there is a question of whether a same-sex spouse could participate in various family support groups, deployment preparation groups and things like that. right now, critics say they are dragging their feet, but they have not really carried the ball forward in terms of extending some of these more incremental and perhaps legally and the u.s. benefits. host: is there a concern about public opinion if those kinds of benefits were offered? guest: i do not think it is a question about public opinion. i think it is a concern of reaction within the force. military tends to be a little more conservative than the population at large. military is a very family-

oriented community in a lot of ways, and i think there is a concern that maybe this is moving a little too fast, that the force is just culturally acclimating to the idea that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. that was just six months ago. by opening up base housing and these other sorts of things, that that might be moving too fast. it is worth saying that since the repeal of don't ask, don't tell itself, there have been basically note issues, and a lot of people have raised questions about whether all these senior leaders that had said for years that there would be this great source of tension and this outpouring of protest and people leaving in droves -- none of that came to pass. it is -- it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. host: the numbers are at the bottom of your screen. we have set aside a special line if you are a member of the military and want to weigh in on this issue for the benefits of

same-sex military spouses. 202-628-0184. e-mail us and tweed us as well. has the president weighed in on the issue? guest: the president was obviously a very strong supporter of repealing the don't ask, don't tell law. the president is in some ways the source of this current tension between the department of defense and the department of justice. right after don't ask, don't tell was repealed, on what seem to be at the time a separate track, the president and attorney general said they would not defend in court the defense of marriage act. there had been a series of lawsuits of people challenging whether this is a violation of the equal protection clause and unconstitutional discrimination. in a pretty unusual move, the president and attorney general said they would not go into federal court and defend this law. you get into some strange legal

technicalities. republicans from the hill will have to defend those laws, but in short, the president has been very clear on his stance on these gay rights issues. he has not really weighed in specifically on the matter of military benefits other than to say he hopes the department of defense will, you know, i in good time address these questions. >> attorney general holders saying the same thing? >> yes, even more forcefully. there was a lawsuit early last year. the president and attorney general said they would not defend the lawsuit, and in october last year, there was a specific lawsuit that challenged the military component by former service members and current service members say they went to court -- they are plaintiffs in the lawsuit saying, "we challenge this law as it applies to the pentagon began the attorney general and president said they would not be then that

either. the past that to the republicans on the hill. i think the supreme court is going to probably have to take that up and resolve the issue in the next year or so. >> this is andrew tilghman. miami, florida, on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a comment. when they went in to lift the ban on don't ask, don't tell, which i think was a good move because i think in good faith, bill clinton put the law in to protect people at the time. i think it was time for it to be lifted, but i think for him to make the decision on the benefit package about the same sex is a little premature simply because in every state, they do not have the right to be married. i think people should vote

publicly about it. even though they are in political office, congress and the president -- they do not want to have to go in and voice their religious beliefs as well. i think it should be the people's choice on whether these people should be married or not and whether they should have a package when it comes to the military. host: we will leave it there. guest: she makes a couple of interesting points. she makes the point that not all states allow group gay marriage, but on the day don't ask, don't tell was repealed, you had a couple of sailors who traveled to vermont where same-sex marriage is allowed and got married. even though they continued to be stationed in virginia, they are married under state law. service members that trouble to a state that would allow this would be just as mary, as far as the federal government question

is concerned, it does not matter where they get married. but monica also talks about it being premature, and i think that is what the pentagon is concerned about. this is a big cultural transition in the eyes of a lot of people. they would rather take this a lot slower. host: louisiana, republican line, james. caller: how're you doing? here is my concern. i served in the military for 20 years. i am retired navy. here is what the deal is. we had this don't ask, don't tell law in effect. it was pretty simple and straightforward. then they rebuild it, and now they are saying benefits for same-sex military spouses -- i think they are going overboard with this, and i do not think they are -- they know what they are about to open up. more can of worms then they can

imagine. i am saw it when i was in. i am glad i retired and i do not have to deal with it. guest: james knows that he is retired navy, and i think that he is sort of illustrating in some ways something of a generational divide. i think a lot of the older service members and retired community have much stronger views about this than the younger people. to be honest, i have spent a lot of time with young service members in their late teens and 20s, and it is funny -- this is really not an issue for them. in some ways, i think that is what is going on here. you have the senior leadership from a totally different generation viewing this very differently than the vast majority of the list of force, which is well under the age of 30. host: next, gregory from cross well, independent line.

caller: how's everybody doing today? i am assuming you are doing fine. as far as this military spouses -- if they are gay, you know, whether they should get benefits, i say yes. give them everything that any straight, bisexual -- i do not care who they are. if they are going in harm's way fighting for this country, defending us against full like some hussein and of some of the lot and and that, yes, they should be treated. i am not gay or bisexual, but i have been around them at different times, and if somebody wants to do that, fine. when it comes to the military thing, if they go over there and they are putting their lives on the line for this country, they

should get everything that everybody else -- anybody that does that, you know? host: -- guest: i think he raises an interesting point and i think in many ways that is how a lot of younger service members feel. a lot of these guys -- the truth is, they know who might be gay or lesbian. they live with these guys in close quarters. they know them very well. when they are going to deploy to iraq and afghanistan in a tough environment, they are primarily concerned with how that body is going to look out for them in a tough situation. i think that a lot of the younger service members feel exactly the way the caller did, in the sense of the issue is pretty peripheral to the important aspects of military service. host: washington, d.c., republican line. caller: how are you? i am calling because i am

concerned. how any politician could endorse a proposal when it seems no politician has any kind of financial impact statement on what something like this would cost. they are trying to find money to pay vietnam veterans for injuries and so forth that they have received. it appears that every time one of them tries to submit something about their injuries from the vietnam war or afghanistan or iraq, it is always an issue of we have to find the money, but here we are coming up with this new proposal about how we are going to do something for military people. everybody has got to stand in line. i think this is something that needs to be given a little more clear thought, and we need to do a financial impact statement to see how many people would be affected by this. i just think it is unfair that we take on new issues for the military and not resolve issues that are already there.

i know people who from the vietnam era are still fighting to get their money. they just keep submitting documents over and over and over, the same documents, and they are not being taken care of properly. guest: i think that joyce, when she talks about the frustrations of the veterans have been getting veterans -- and getting benefits, that is something we hear a lot. that is an issue for the department of veterans affairs. that has been a challenge for a generation. host: she brings up sustainability, though. as to whether the resources are there to accommodate. guest: she does. in the whole scope of the department of defense budget, you're probably not talking about a huge amount of money. estimates show there's probably between 2% of 5% of the force is probably gay or lesbian, so you're probably talking about not much more than 100,000 people. i have not heard people inside the pentagon articulate that

financial concern too much. to be honest, people from the pentagon are pretty quick to point out financial concerns if they have them. it is a good point, but i do not think that is something that the pentagon leadership is really focused on. host: charles in south carolina. tony, democrats line. -- charleston, south carolina. caller: i think anyone who is willing to serve in the service should get all the benefits that everybody else does. when you start saying, "we will give this partner some money or some health benefits, but we will not give this other partner anything," that is wrong, and that is the way i feel. thank you. guest: i think that the caller -- several of these callers have pointed out that people have pretty strong opinions about the topic. i think that the pentagon has concerns both ways, that no matter what they do, they will

provoke a pretty strong response from either side, and that is why they are trying to tread cautiously. host: to be clear -- and it is probably obvious, if you are a heterosexual couple and not married, you cannot extend your benefits? guest: know, you cannot. it is specific to marriage. if you are engaged and living together, you do not get those benefits, but once you are legally married, you begin to increase housing allowance. your spouse has access to the base. your spouse has access to free legal advice or access to counseling, all sorts of things. the military is a very paternalistic institution in many ways. once you get access to these things, there is a whole array of things that you and i might not think of as civilians. but same-sex couples do not get that. the military talk about trying to create some kind of a distinction for same-sex

couples, but they feel like that is opening up a can of worms and then you have to offer some kind of benefit to non-married heterosexual couples, and then you get into, i think, some real cost. if any service member can point to a boyfriend or girlfriend and say they want extra housing benefits and what that person to have health benefits, you really open the doors to a much more elaborate, complex situation. >> regardless of heterosexual or homosexual, if you were in the service, you have a life insurance benefit, you are not married, can you deem your life insurance benefit to go to your partner? guest: you can hear a life insurance is not affected by the defense of marriage act. that is between you and the insurer, and you can name your beneficiary whether it be your spouse or your friend or father or uncle or whoever. host: are there any other tangential benefits that extend like that?

guest: i think there are some. i think you can have certain family notifications for a service member is injured overseas. they can authorize that one of contact to be whoever they want in most cases, and there are a few benefits and situations that have extended, but again, there is -- a lot of the advocates said that the pentagon could push that a lot further, and they really have not. there have not been a lot of major changes since the initial shift last september. host: we have a line for those of you in the military. fort meade, hello, david. caller: as wanted to talk about some of the things other callers are saying. gay, straight, lesbian, i agree that all the spouses should get equal treatment.

their spouses are all doing evil things. i do not agree that it is too early to enforce that. i am straight. i am in gauged and all that, but i have people that work for me that are gay, and i do not need the worrying about whether their spouse will be taken care of. even if we are only gone for a week or something like that. you know, it should be equal. everybody needs to be trained up on their job. having one less thing to worry about is what is important. the money -- i mean, the country -- finding money for everything is difficult right now, but i am street, and the second i get married, my wife will have all that stuff there, and it should not be any different for any one of my guys, and that is just my opinion. host: before you go, is this a generational opinion? do those higher up in the military have different opinions then you do as far as the issue is concerned?

caller: i would argue that for some people, yes, you'll find people with different attitudes up and down. some junior guys, very close minded. some people are worried about impacts. everybody can think of things that will spur out of control, but people tend to think of worst-case scenarios when the truth of the matter is almost everybody is okay with it. before the band got lifted, i could tell you everybody i worked with that was gay. everybody already knew. it really does not matter to us. that is just my opinion as well. guest: i think david raises an interesting point, and it is something i have been hearing a lot in the last few months. this is becoming kind of a command issue. one of the responsibilities of commanders is to maintain high morale and readiness and make sure everybody is feeling good and ready to get their job done, and when they have gay and lesbian service members saying, "i am having major anxieties.

i am having money anxieties because of not getting the extra housing allowance or my same-sex else is really stressed out about my deployment because he or she will not be able to access the kind of counseling that other spouses do." street commanders who may have been skeptical of the repeal are starting to say by opening this up and resolving the problems, they will remove some headaches for themselves. as this plays out in the coming months, i think in some ways, you might see a bottom up, movement from commanders on the ground, essentially, whether it be in the combat zone or hear back at home, basically signalling to senior leaders that it is really more of a hassle than it is worth and they should clear up what are essentially moral issues. host: you said that the supreme court could ultimately hear this. are there cases tracking in

lower courts that will eventually be making their way to the court? >> absolutely. yes. a case was filed in october of last year, so we are about six months into that. it involves several current and former service members, basically suing for back benefits that they feel like they should be entitled to. already, the attorney general has said basically it is a defense of marriage act lawsuit, and it will not defend it, said they passed the lawsuit which targets the secretary of defense and the part of defense, so they passed it along to basically the speaker of the house and said they won their attorney to handle it, which is an unusual legal situation. whenever you have a president and attorney general not want to defend a lawsuit, it signals to the supreme court that they will have to decide it pretty quickly. most legal experts think that within the next year or so, the supreme court will take a case on the defense of marriage act,

which i think will pretty much resolved one way or the other these issues for the defense department. host: georgia is next. may, and attend a line. -- independent line. caller: [inaudible] and spouses receiving benefits. being a straight parent, i would say -- and a mother -- i am if former spouse. that 20/20/20 means you have to be married over 20 years to really be a beneficiary. but if you have a person of interest that you can leave benefits to, i have written letters to senators and congressmen, and that is

something the military does not have. and i think before they can move farther, they should have a call for disabled former spouses. there are a lot of spouses that are disabled that are not able to receive any kind of disability benefits from the military, or if you are eligible to receive any type of retirement pay. host: thanks. guest: i think she raises another interesting point, which is why this is particularly sensitive in the military. military service members get injured and die in the line of duty. there are really significant benefits that exists to essentially reassure the service member that if something happens to him, that his family will be taken care of and he does not have to worry about somebody taking care of his family. that is not something that the

employees of the department of education or epa have to really worry about. as i said, it gets back into a moral issue. if a service member says, "we are all going to afghanistan, and my buddies families are taken care of, and my family is not," it really strikes a really big chord in the military community. >> in congress, has a but expressed interest to expedite or be allowing of same-sex couples to have benefits? guest: for the most part, you come back to basically the way things played out for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell in december 2010. that was a really close vote. for the most part, democrats were supportive of it and republicans were not. you still have some movement in congress to try to roll back even the don't ask, don't tell repeal. basically, when this particular topic comes up, you hear the

same divisions. there's a lot of conservative lawmakers that are opposed to extending these benefits, but they are opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the first place. host: virginia, thanks for holding on. james, republican line. caller: i want to go back to something you said earlier. you mentioned a couple that with from virginia to vermont, but my understanding was two things -- that it allowed the states that -- to opt out of recognizing same-sex marriages. from what passes it and va does not, va does not have to recognize same-sex marriage. in the setting is at the federal level, it prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. you said the military is thatrvative, but isn't it they are in a deep legal pickle because they cannot act if something is legal the federal law specifically says is not legal? is this one clarification -- i

just wanted clarification on this point. i will take the answer of there. guest: the caller is right. right now, the defense of marriage act is on the books and it is a federal law. it prohibits the federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage. this is not a policy decision for the pentagon at this point. it may be in the future, but the fact that this issue is probably barreling toward the supreme court rapidly is why everyone is discussing this. there are certain cultural and political ways they can make their views known. the state of virginia does not have to recognize the same-sex marriage, but the military is an institution, it is a better law that applies here. if and when the federal defense

of marriage act might be lifted and the federal government is allowed to recognize the same- sex marriage, it does not matter where a service member got married and where a service member lives. the federal government will look at this situation and say, "is this couple married under state law? if yes, it does not matter where they got married or where they live. they are married for federal purposes." host: are there other federal entities that allow benefits? guest: know, and that is a concern for many people, but when we talk of the civilians working for the post office, it is really a question of health benefits. talking at the defense department, it is a much deeper and complex issue. host: macon, georgia, democrats line. since the program does not that

-- caller: since the program does not cost that much money, why can the federal government not write a new program just for same-sex marriage. it will come out almost the same as being married, but there should be no discrimination whatsoever. if they go into the military side by side, you should get the same benefits side by side. thank you. guest: i have heard from the pentagon's top lawyer. it is their understanding the current federal laws prohibit them from creating some kind of parallel benefit for same-sex couples. some say they could probably be more creative, but right now, they're trying to do some sort of work around.

it is not something that the pentagon says is really doable. host: north dakota, aubrey on our independent line. caller: thank you. i just wanted to say that equal rights for everyone is in our nation. it is time for everyone in our nation to have equal rights. it is progressive and reasonable. have you been covering the reason rally today? host: don't believe so, actually. caller: that is to that. i think our country needs a little bit of reason. that would cut a lot of these issues at rest. getting back to the way things were is just a diversion of

people who do not want to be progressive and look towards the future. host: ok, next call, phoenix, arizona. george on our military line. caller: i have some inside knowledge of what goes on. if you allow same-sex marriage couples to have the same benefits as traditional married couples, what about the brothers and sisters -- the brother and sister that live with me? should i also give them benefits? if i am deployed overseas, for example, in germany, and applied for base housing, it takes eight or nine months. if they have that other same-sex marriage couple in the same queue, it will add an even longer time. with the country running with a $16 billion deficit -- or trillion-dollar deficit, to add that much more expensive it does not make any sense to me. guest: the caller raises the

point of whether we should offer the same benefits if you have a brother or say -- sister living with you, and i think that -- you know, at the heart of the issue is the institution of marriage and the fact that the society views marriage as a very unique and distinctive thing. at this point, the federal government and defense department policy tracks with that, and marriage is different than any other kind of roommate or family relationship. so, i mean, i think it is pretty clear at this point why you would not be able to get housing allowance and other types of health benefits for a brother, just because your brother did not happen to have any health benefits himself. as far as the idea that this will somehow create a greater backlog, i did not think that the numbers really bear that out. this is a very small percentage of the force the we're talking about. i did not think it will really have the substantial of an

impact on the wait times the service members might have to deal with for various bureaucratic process. host: alexandria, virginia, republican line, james. caller: my, it was related to one of the previous military members commons, where he was talking about it could be a command issue and a readiness issue. i just wanted to point out the maybe it is his true assessment, but those kinds of feelings can reside with people that are engaged, and a young servicemen wondering about with his fiancee is going to be doing or anybody that has a close relationship, a sibling or something else. those kind of thoughts do not go away just because the government allow same-sex marriage partners to have it.

i think the whole issue is about marriage having its roots going way back and reporting to family and fostering the raising of children and what not. and if a same-sex serviceman wants to serve in the military, he understands what he is getting into, and he understands what is benefits are, and he enters in if he wishes, or he does not. guest: i think that morel is a very difficult and sometimes ambiguous issue for commanders. i think this is just one of many that they will have to wrestle with, and it is just a question of whether this could potentially be resolved in the legal policy sense, and some commanders might like to cross it off their list, but to be sure, this is not going to be a cure-all for all family problems.

host: about five more minutes. alexandria, virginia, on our military line. caller: captain john kirby, a pentagon spokesman, and i think this is a very important conversation you are having, and i appreciate andrew posey coverage. i did want to make one point, and that is the we are working very hard on a comprehensive review of benefits that can be extended to same-sex partners. in the fall, we announced 14 new benefits, including survivor benefits for retirees, the ability for service members to have whoever they want picked to be notified in case of a casualty. the veterans' group life insurance benefits, so we are working hard at this. as andrew pointed out and some of your colleagues, a large part of some of the benefits are, frankly, the law, and we have to

follow the law, and we must obey those, but i can tell you, there is no dragging of the feet in the pentagon. secretary panetta has been very clear and very firm with his staff about the need to continue to review benefits. we have an active team constantly going through it. it is not something we do just in cycles. it is something we do every day. we expect to announce even more the same-sex benefits that we cannot allow, again, under the constraints of the law. host: what kind of timeframe are we talking? caller: i cannot give you a deadline now, but i can tell you that the work goes on. as we uncover and are able to reconcile these benefits, we will certainly keep announcing them. host: could you give a general sense of what types of benefits we are talking about? caller: these are largely administrative benefits that do not violate the law. the law principally prevents us from allowing gay service

members to have things like medical and dental care, basic allowance for housing, family separation benefits, burial benefits -- those things are governed by the law, but things that are short of that, more administrative, like things i just mentioned, are the kinds of things we are looking at. host: with secretary cannot endorse the line the full benefits at some point in the future? caller: he has made it clear that he wants to remove as many obstacles to service as he can. he also wants to offer support for families and spouses and loved ones as much as he can. there are some constraints in the law. we have to follow the law. we are, as andrew said quite rightly, a federal institution. guest: i just wondered, do you think at this point, that the pentagon will wait until some of these legal issues are resolved, which some people suggest might be within the next year or so, or do you think that we will be

moving forward to further expand the potential benefits available to same-sex couples ahead of the timeline? guest: -- caller: as i said, we are working on this all the time. we cannot expand the on the constraints of the law. we will certainly try to be as creative and permissible as we can be, but again, there are certain limits that would just cannot break right now. obviously, it was up to the congress and the american people to decide, not us. there is not a lobbying campaign on our part to influence that one way or the other. this is a discussion for the american people to have with their representatives on the hill. >> i think that is a really good point. a lot that i hear a run the pentagon, a lot is this is a federal law, for congress and the president and the courts to resolve. a lot of people on the pentagon will be quick to point out that

it is on some level of their pay grade. with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, everybody understands that the mission shifted a little bit, and they carry on. caller: that is exactly right. we not only uphold the law, but deep in the law, just like don't ask, don't tell when it was the law. we answer to the american people and to congress and the administration. that is our job, but inside of that come to the degree that we possibly can, secretary and that has been clear he wants to make as many benefits open to same- sex partners as a possibly can, and we are working on that pretty hard. host: thank you for your input, sir. final thoughts? guest: i think john makes a good point. secretary panetta has been a strong advocate on this. what you heard from some of the joint chiefs several years ago was some resistance to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell,

but you do not hear too much concern about that anymore at this point. i think that, you know, the transition has gone better than many people expected, and i think that the military is by a large waiting to see how this plays out in the courts, and i think that that will answer a lot of the questions that are floating out there today. host: andrew tilghman is the pentagon bureau chief for "the military times." thank you for your time. not forget, monday, three days of coverage on the health care act being debated at the u.s. supreme court. we will provide the oral arguments of those debates about 1:00 in the afternoon. i would advise you to stay tuned to our website, c-span.org. as far as the arguments, you can see it on c-span3, c-span.org, c-span radio, and our website. we advise you to go to a special

section of our website. everything you need to know as far as the players involved, some of the things we have done previously on the supreme court, all types of information, and not forget, on this program, "washington journal," we will offer three days devoted to supreme court coverage. for our show tomorrow, and the roth, the government affairs vice president, will talk about involvement in campaign 2012, especially as we come to look at certain candidates. we will also get reaction to the right and budget that just came out. the author of "showdown" will be our guest coming up at 8:30. then, at 9:15, the center for naval analysis stability and development program director will talk about doing more with less in afghanistan. all that, your phone calls, and a look at the papers, too, starting at 7:00. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]