bill horn will take your questions about the sportsmen's heritage act which recently passed the house. and we'll discuss trends in wages and benefits. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--] >> the names of the two secret service members have been revealed. and this morning as well as a picture of the woman in question. a cnn o.r.c. national poll touts three women for mitt romney. condoleezza rice and state tax collection rose 4% in the fourth quarter. $184 billion were collected. yesterday, it was the commerce secretary who made positive

comments about what he feels is a return of american manufacturing. we'll hear what he has to say but we're interested in hearing from you about your optimism or maybe not about the future of american manufacturing. here's how you can reach out to us this morning -- host: let's start with commerce secretary's remarks. during a hearing which he was asked about the future of american manufacturing, here are his thoughts. >> after a decade in which we lost six million manufacturing jobs as you know and some of you touched on this, we are now

seeing positive momentum in u.s. manufacturing. over the past 25 months, our manufactures have created nearly half a million jobs. so that is the best streak in the united states since 1995 and 120,000 of those came just in the last three months. host: can that's the secretary making those remarks. if you look at the bureau of labor statistic which is keeps information on the creation of jobs, for the march 2012 employment break do you think, it shows that the manufacturing sector, 37,000 jobs were added, topping a list of those jobs being created, leisure and hospitality with health care, financial services and professional and business services. there's an opposing viewpoint in the fiscal times saying lower on in the piece, he says minor

gains come out of nowhere replacing the 5.6 million manufacturing jobs lost during the last decade which is nearly one out of every three. the wholesale abandonment of entire industries to china, india, and latin america raises serious doubts about whether the manufacturing sector can ever again be a major driver of renewed job growth in the united states. so with those thoughts in mind, we're interesting in hearing from you about your thoughts on the state of american manufacturing and if you're opt might have been about it. again, we've divide the lines regionally this morning. they're divided the eastern and central time zones, mountain and pacific. the number of social media platforms for you as well. you can reach us on twitter, e-mail and facebook. we've posted the question as our question of the day and about 13 comments as a part of the start

of the show. here's one. adam beckett weighing in this morning saying as long as consumers keep the pressure on corporations and politicians, manufacturing will rebound. we have to start saying no when it's practical and sometimes when it's not -- to non-u.s. made goods, especially when corporations are breeding us dry and paying executives huge salaries. just one thought this morning. and you can share yours about how you feel about american manufacturing. to the phones, pete on our eastern and central time zones in new york. caller: good morning and thanks for c-span. but, you know, 30 years ago, they talked about how the japanese manufacturers especially automobiles were dumping -- it was actually -- had a specific meaning where they would sell products below their production costs and overseas here in the united states and jacked up the prices

domestically there back in their home country, and they basically targeted our autoindustry and -- auto industry and put a huge dent. and, you know, and the koreans shortly a couple of decades later imitated the dumping techniques mastered by the japanese and i'm not you know, i'm not a racist guy, talking about a practice that's been well-documented by pat choate and his book "ages of influence" and all that. host: do you think we're still feel the effects of that practice if caller: now, we have the chinese that are dumping product in this country and have just wiped us out in all different -- i'm not the expert, but, you know, in iran countries, they sell oil to their own people for extremely

low costs. i mean, i've heard stories where they're paying 10 cents a gallon or 20 cents a gallon. there's been no congratulation -- investigation on all of these dumping fronts whether it be automobiles, whether it be oil -- host: you made those points. before we leave you tell us about if you're opt might have been or not optimistic about the future of american manufacturing? caller: i'm optimistic about the future of america but i'm not optimistic about the justice department and republican or democratic administrations are going to follow through and make sure that the playing field is level. host: salt lake city, utah, joe. hello. caller: yes, sir. yeah, i'm a guy who knows a lot about manufacturing because i picked it up in all of 35 years coast-to-coast. there's a lot of people that need manufacturing in their

communities but the administration that we have and the world climate now has -- you've robbed the american people of all their manufacturing basis by plowing over selling companies out and it's because of our tax structure and greed amongst these corporations and exacerbated, make it worse. you've got the administration with the high corporate taxes and look at this tax on the wealthy. if you tax the well, this is where do you think the wealthy are going to go go? they're going to take them and go right overseas with them to a climate like mexico or ireland or somewhere where they can operate cheaper. host: so you said you used to haul goods. what types of goods did you haul? caller: everything. produce, downtown new york city every week with produce. then we hauled all the food went

to east and the manufacturing foods came back west. host: so you're doing less of that? caller: i'm disabled now, but for years, -- see, there's certain of people -- we know where things are made. i've hauled birdcages out of montreal, candice. and then they used to restrict the birdcages because the border would give them a hard time and stop saying one piece of the birdcage is manufactured in candice or america, so they would restrict it at the border and they would pay extra to go through the border. host: so sum up what you think about the future of manufacturing. caller: i hate to say it, but it's gone. it's gone and i don't know if we'll ever get it back. host: missouri. james. hello. caller: hi. good morning.

host: you're on, sir. caller: oh, thanks. first of all, i like to say thank god for c-span. i've been watching you guys for at least 25 years. and i'd like to say as far as manufacturing goes, recently relocated from the michigan area and actually, the bailout did increase employment opportunities up there. this time i'm in cape girardio and i also find the manufacturing job. the economy is picking up. middle age. i've been in the workforce for over the last 30 years. host: what type of manufacturing do you do? caller: well, actually, we make home products right now. i rather not say the name of the company. but we do deal with paper products. in michigan, we were making some car parts. some components that go into vehicles. and there were a lot of small manufacturers who also increasing their business. host: so tell us a little bit

about as far as the current work that you do. is the work steady? are you seeing orders come in? are you seeing orders increase? that kind of thing? caller: well, actually what's missing is jobs where employers will actually invest in their employees. because there are so many temporary agencies going around it's a constant flow of the workforce. so they'll hire you at a small wage. they don't give you any benefits. but it is an opportunity to at least earn a dollar and pay a couple of bills. host: john bryson is the customers -- commerce secretary. another story following up on reasons why he believes manufacturing does well. mr. bryson was testifying yesterday on the state of manufacturing. the story by the associated press talks a little bit about the reason why as far as he sees

them. manufacturing rebound is the title. this is found in the cleveland banner by the way. he said bryson pointed to two new strategies intended to boost american manufacturing further. one is the national network innovation. proposal to bring local manufacturers together with students, researchers and community leaders. we want the best minds to develop best practices forgetting ideas from the drawing boards in record time. and that's according to the cleveland paper. in the "wall street journal" in their marketplace section, we'll dive into the story in a little bit. but there's a profile of south carolina as a state and so it says the headline -- this is the business section by john busey saying what's going on in the state of south carolina where larger companies especially along this corridor are developing and increase manufacturing jobs.

we're talking about your thoughts on the state of american manufacturing. give you a chance to weigh in via the phone, social media, what have you. chantilly, virginia. good morning. this is john. hello. caller: good morning, c-span. i'm very opt might have been about the american manufacturer. as an american, we can do better than this. but the reality of it, usually every -- every 10 years, the economy goes up and down. and i really think that people should focus how can we bring jobs in this country rather than exporting jobs to countries like china and india. and i believe the future is a lot better. i mean, i cannot think that as an measure, we cannot -- american, we cannot complete in china or india. we have to bring the jobs back in this country and we can do better. host: is there a specific thing that you look at to determine in your -- to your opinion that things are getting better?

caller: well, let me say this. what we say that the car manufacturer we should shut down and just close it. and look what happened when we invest our country. if this country get tax breaks, they can bring those jobs back in this country. the reality of it, i agree the previous caller. government, if you keep taxing the companies high level, they will take their jobs somewhere else. but if this president keeps saying any companies will brought jobs in this country, they get better deals than where they are and that's a good deal if they can get it. but as long as we're attacking each other between democrat and republicans, we will forget the focus because this politician, they want to divide the people. that's how they're going to stay in that position they're in. host: that's john -- caller: and that's all i want to say. thank you for taking my call. host: he mentioned tax issues. taxes being a topic in the issue in the "wall street journal."

this is connor daugherty saying state tax collections grew 3.6% from a year earlier. thanks to the economic recovery and tax increases and have now been rising for two years. that's according to a report issued yesterday. at $184.1 billion, total fourth quarter collections were 3% above their peak reevened in 2007. the -- reached in 2010. tax revenue continue to grow from january to february for the year end period. new york. good morning to jeremy. huh. -- hi. caller: my comment is about manufacturing in united states. i don't see why it couldn't bounce back. if you take american apparel for example, and one of those things that pop up in every corner.

maybe if there -- is there a conflict of interest like maybe where the campaign, maybe something like i love new york along those felines is that a conflict of interest with our overseas manufacturers like china? host: why would you think it is? caller: well, i mean, it seems like it's such a simple thing. if every person would became trendy, for example, to purchase things and manufactured in the united states, i could see it doing every great things for the economy. host: cleveland, ohio. this is john also. good morning. caller: good morning. host: how are you doing? caller: fine. just wake up and see your show. let me say something to you right now. it's never coming back. i'm going to tell you why. 40 years ago, i'm 66 years old. 67. 40 years ago, i worked in a

steel warehouse in cleveland. you had public steel, all the steel milne the world right here in cleveland. these people do not want to work. the owner of the steel company i work for and my job was to strip all the -- off the steel, he would fly to china. he would fly to russia. he flew all over the world and had his steel shipped back here. people here don't want to work. i own 20 pieces of property. and i cannot find nobody to come to work. nobody. host: what kind of jobs are you advertising for? caller: well right now, you know, i own real estate now. host: right. caller: you know, a lot of real estate. don't nobody want to work, man.

nobody. host: so it's a problem the labor force in your opinion? caller: yeah. they don't want to work. so what are you going to do? take your things overseas? i'm going to tell you a story. i haul steel. into these plants. these cats would sit on their behinds, man. and i had a place i used to haul steel in in ohio, a steel company, i put a load in there one morning. i had trademark trailers, man, and the cat was sitting on their butt reading the paper. i get off, unload all -- you know, take all the stuff i need to get the truck unloaded, change and stuff, i walked in his office and i handed him the invoice and i said good morning. you know what he told me? it was a good morning until you brought that load of steel in here.

and i say the day is going to come where you're not going to have a job. these people paying you $40 an hour and you don't want to get off off your behind. host: so john, you're living in ohio. you own real estate. what's the state of your assets there? caller: man, it's gone to garbage. it's nothing. i gave most of it away. don't nobody want to work. two weeks, i've had two weeks, i had people that's supposed to show up, not even show. host: we'll let you go. another john in new canada, maine. hello. caller: good morning, pedro, how are you? host: i am well, thank you. caller: this is a transition period going here. if you go back -- let's go back in history. we look at the industrial revolution when things were made by machinery and then there was

mass production and it put a lot of people out of work. now what do we have today? we have the computerized age today, ok? now for me, i'm one of those where the guys said i was a hard worker, i was a labor, tradesman, did things with my hands. so computer come into play and what happens? you're talking to a guy that -- who lived in the dark ages, the crusades, you know? i crawled out from underneath the rocks. i only know how to do things with my hands. i don't know anything about computers. if i look at a computer, i get a mental hernia. this is a transition period. i'm optimistic. i believe this country will get back on track again. this country has gone broke before in 1835 with the sandrops everything like that. and another time in the late 1870's, it happened again with the bank.

we've come out of it before. i'm optimistic about the future. except people are going to -- my children know computers better than i do. that's what the future holds. there's going to be more computerized than anything is. host: so as long as people like yourself remain flexble and learn new skills, that's where your optimism lies? caller: yes. if somebody wants to learn about the computers then you know, if they are open-minded, yeah, they could probably pick up on that. for me, it's too late for me. i'm 66 years old. i did everything manually and i did things by hand, craftsmanship. so computers date -- i can't use them. but the future goes with the younger generation. thanks. host: this is monty weighing in on our topic on if you're opt might have been about manufacturing on twitter. he says the situation will

remain dim as long as we think we're the strongest industrial power. we should go back to the drafting board. secretary bryson speak about his thoughts on manufacturing. there was an exchange between him and the congresswoman about california, about when it comes to manufacturing issues, the exchange delve specifically with regulation and how that deals with manufacturing. >> we have to reduce regulation to the maximum extent we possibly can and what the president has repeatedly say is we will throw regulation only to the extent. it is essential to our economy, the growth in the economy to national security and to education. so those are the criteria and as a consequence, for example, it's pretty widely known that the level of regulation and new regulation is less than the first three years of this

administration and the comparable three years in the prior administration. but we have to keep working very hard on that. host: here is wardensville, west virginia. this is rich, hi. caller: yes, hello. host: good morning. caller: yes. until we repel nafta where these companies and corporation can only ship 50% of their business overseas, we're going to be without industry. only a fool would ship all its industrial base outside of the united states. i mean 50%, that gives us a good diplomatic relationships and that keeps an industry based here in the united states. these national -- like nasay have governed america. now we wonder where all the jobs are. they're overseas. i would not start a business in the united states. you wind up paying 40% of your

profit in taxes. you know? host: portland, oregon. john is next up on -- believe our first call from the pacific area of the united states. hello. caller: yes. i want to thank you for c-span. i live in portland, oregon. and the company that i work for, i work for 32 years. it was a large trucking manufacturing. about five years ago, they picked up as they went to mexico . my neighbor, he is a -- and he travels around the united states and he is in oregon back in oregon now and in oregon city. they're tearing down a mill that's been there for 150 years

and shipping the machinery over to china. over in albany, oregon, they're tearing down a mill and they're shipping it over to china. he also told me there's about five other pulp mills in the united states that he's going to be going to that they're going to be tearing it down. one of the problems is labor has been asking for too much. these unions -- i was a union employee and i made good money, but it has come to the point where manufacturing has to pay all these big benefits and everything else and they're just plain tired of it. they're just moving out of the

united states. we have -- i was a tool and dime maker. we had no machine shops in this country anymore. what would happen if we had to start making like ships and planes and everything and yes, we have -- in washington, but we -- if we had to really hunker down and start making war products for national security or anything, we don't have industrial power like we did right before world war ii. host: ok. john, we'll have to leave it there. thanks for calling in. we have calls from arizona and georgia on the way. this is a story focusing on the veterans department. the national section of the "new york times." saying that the department of veterans affairs announced thursday it plans to hire 1,600

additional psychiatrists, social workers and other mental health clinicians in an effort to reduce long wait times for services at many veterans medical centers. the hirings would be augmented by the addition of 300 clerical workers and that would increase the mental health staff by nearly 10%. the department's own inspector general is expected to release a report as soon as next week asserting that wait times for mental health services are significantly longer than the department has been willing to acknowledge. the senator who was a chairwoman of the committee has also scheduled hearings about the delays. here is mesa, arizona. kenny, hi. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: are we still on the topic of american manufacturing? host: we are. caller: ok. so yeah, a couple of the

previous calls kind of really hit the nose. first of all, you kind of have to look at it from sort of an economic development issue. like as far as the united states goes, a lot of things are being made from other countries, typically because the technology and the productivity in other country are a lot higher than the united states. and you can atribune that maybe to education. -- attribute that maybe to education. and and the last caller brought up the whole union and how it's really difficult given the restrictions and stuff, but if you look at the united states right to work and non-right to work states and right to work states typically in the southwest, you see lower unemployment albeit you see lower wages because they're not paid as more but you see lower

unemployment and if you look at the manufacturing in particular, it's even lower. if you look at a state like michigan, one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. so if you want, you know, look at something, you can look at it maybe in forcing a national right to work law while at the same time increasing technology and productivity via education and stuff like that. host: the "wall street journal," there's a story looking at south carolina as its manufacturing base and an increasing one. saying for a hopeful look into america's future, just visit the greenville spartanburg corridor powering growth throughout the united states can. drive by the b.m.w. plant, michelin's north american headquarters and fabricators, observe the close coordination

between these companies and the colleges that have supplied the engineers. in march, the i.s.m. manufacturing index indicated expansion for the 32 month nationally and it shows here the greenville area of adopt corporation are working with 30 companies expanding into the area. it includes a map in the paper version this morning that shows spartanburg and greenville and some of the major businesses that are located along that corridor. as you look at that, we go to atlanta, georgia, getting thoughts on if you out there are optimistic about manufacture manufacturing. this is eric. caller: hello, pedro. hi, i'm very optimistic about the manufacturing in the united states and the policies. if we let a democratic senate --

the part is this -- host: what policies do you mean about? caller: if prices are fuel need to go up. this will stop and put the manufacturing base more on the -- left for the united states because it will cost more to ship these products overseas and to bring them back to the united states. also the democrats are trying to put in a tax policy. well, you will not get tax credit for jobs overseas but actually for doing this job home. the united states does not need to let the rich people take that money because they're not going to hire. you have few people doing more work in the united states. so instead of hiring and spending, these people are getting money through taxes which they normally would be getting and putting into workers paid and benefits. the health zri. if the universal health care, these companies would not be

having to provide health care for these employees. host: and that's eric from atlanta, georgia. this is the associated press saying that 2011 was the worst year for measles in the united states. there were 222 cases of measles. a large jump from six years ago. it was by foreign visitors or resident who is got the virus overseas. u.s. children have been getting vaccinated for about 50 years but low vaccination rates in europe and other places result in large outbreaks of overseas last year. maryland. this is dave. hi. caller: hey, how are you doing today, pedro? host: i am well, thank you. caller: i'll give you a little bit of dose of reality. some of the callers in the past have hit some good points. first of all, the loss of 6

million jobs, two bookends of recessions. we had job losses and big losses in the most recent recession. and in between that time, manufacturing tried to increase in 'tween. now, manufacturing in the united states, we are the largest manufacturer in the world. we're about 20% of manufacturing global g.d.p. and that is constant for about 20 years. at the same time, we reduced employment. the thing that's important to keep in mind is that it's not a u.s. phenomenon. it's a global phenomenon. if you look at the manufacturing powers in the world, the united states, britain, france t china, korea, italy. they all reduced manufacturing in decades. it's a natural phenomenon the fact that especially in the united states. productive growth has been growing much faster than output growth. and when productivity grows faster than output, companies don't need as many workers.

it's justs a natural fact. we have seen an increase in employment recently because we've had somewhat of a cyclical rebound in manufacturing. and we've been having employment. my thinking is that the long term in the best circumstance, if we get the best tax policy, we'll have modest increases in manufacturing productivity going forward but manufacturing is not going to be the hub of a huge surge of unemployment. it hasn't been in the last two decades. and even with the best policies, it's not going to be a huge employment gainer. imagine the fact that productivity growth has been so strong. at the same time, keep in mind that the face of manufacturing, what industry is composed manufacturing has been changing over the last couple of decades?

pharmaceutical, aircraft, machinery. these areas are technologically intensive and why we've maintained and increased our base. host: dave, we'll have to leave it there. thank you. kathy off of twitter this morning adds this. my father worked in a factory from the early 1950's until he righted if in the 1990's and provided for six kids. she adds it will never happen again. the "financial times" takes a look at rising fuel prices. this takes a hit at u.s. airlines. this is jeremy laemer saying fuel is the single largest expense for airlines and analysts estimate that to off-set a $5 per barrel must boost fares by $6 per roundtrip and international fares by $19 per roundtrip. observers remain optimistic given the resilient amount of air travel. the growth of bags and other

fees have increased price and power and restrain capacity. orange park, florida. this is frank. hi. caller: hi. host: you're on. caller: hello, hello. host: you're on, sir, go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. the truth will set you free. number one -- host: caller, keep going. don't listen to yourself on tv. caller: 40% or 50% on oil import make exporting oil, american oil illegal. and al also put a no tax on social security medicare. thank you. host: raleigh, north carolina. hi, kevin. sorry. i have the wrong punch line. this is ivan. good morning. caller: good morning. basically, i've been wanting to go back on the subject you're talking about manufacturing. i do believe it's going to grow

some. but -- saying extraordinary and also going back to what some of the callers have said as far as people not wanting to work and all, i think in the labor force, it's true because i've seen it plenty of times now and as far as steel manufacturing jobs and general labor stuff, i think a lot of people don't want to look for those jobs. tharpe not really high paid and it's a lot of work. and people just don't want to do it anymore. but i don't think that's the issue that's really that we should be looking at. i think as one person commented, you know, they're dividing us within ourselves. it's not about republicans or democrats or anything. it's about america. and what good americans are for our country and for ourselves and i think that we should really look at what the real issues are at hand, which is as far as you know, the national debt and i think one of the bigger issues to come will be as

far as the defaults on the school loans and -- host: but how does that relate to manufacturing? caller: no, i mean, it's not about manufacturing. i mean, it's simple. i think there will be some growth in the u.s. but it won't be anything major. i think a lot of people overemphasize how much it's actually going to go. i hope there will be some growth but it's not going to be anything extraordinary. it's all -- everything else happening to other suns and once it's gotten to the point where it has, there's not going to be a lot to change. it'll be minimal. it's not the real issue. it's the bigger picture. host: do you have a sense of what manufacturing is like in north carolina there and how things are progressing? caller: like i said, as far as -- obviously, i'm from raleigh and it's not a big city, but i would say mid-level city and as

far as manufacturing, the only places that have been going off pharmaceutical companies, bayer, glaxosmith-kline. those are not really -- i consider them pharmaceutical protect jobs but as far as manufacturing and such, there's really haven't been much, at least around this area, the wake county area. there will be some growth but it'll be minimal and i just want to stress the real issues. we are all americans and we should really look at the real issues. host: you made that point. thanks for calling. the "new york times" has a story looking out of boston taking a look at the future of mitt romney's campaign and how he's gearing up. says his staff of 87 will balloon to more than 400 people in the coming weeks. aides said his convention team of 55 will triple to 150

full-timers by in late august. richard again knell -- agree knell will be the spokesperson in foreign policy. and the campaign identified -- host: mr. romney knows he must shore up his base and he will deliver the may combhensment address at liberty university. also a story in the paper looking at potential v.p. nominees. this one looks at a poll which

highlights women according to the poll that could serve as potential. among them is the former secretary of state condoleezza rice. they add two first-term governors, susannah martinez and mary fallen of oklahoma. and that is in the washington times this morning. dallas, texas. hello, kevin. caller: yes, sir. host: hi. caller: how are you doing this morning? >> i'm well. caller: first of all, the jobs are not going to come back. it's out of money and us as citizens of american, we demand, respect and we have a lot of demands. we're not going to work no labors for no cheap price where they can take some jobs overseas and work them half to death and pay them little money. we don't want benefits. they're going to take them jobs overseas. they're not going to give them benefits. you have city jobs that are going to contract workers because they cutting people out on benefits or they're laying

out city workers so they can undercut on benefits. it's all about money, man. them jobs aren't going to come back. us as americans, we have too much respect for ourselves. we're not going to let nobody pimp us or hustle us on them making billons of dollars and they want to pay you dirt money like wal-mart. wal-mart need to give them folks a union. that's bull crap. well, that's it. oh, and another thing. that obama care, y'all better get smart on that obama care. them insurance companies are pimps and hustlers. five years from now, you're just waiting to see what's going to go down on the insurance stuff. you have city jobs that saying they're not going to hire smokers. it should be a person's choice if they want to smoke. host: we're running short of time. this looks at the international

monetary fund as it's attempting to raise $400 billion to help offset cost related to the you're don't this is claire jones saying that the i.m.f. looks set to reach the target of $320 billion secured by yesterday's lunchtime in washington. many economies yet to contribute. the floodgates open after japan pledged $60 billion yesterday. it is intended to shore up confidence at a time when spain's fiscal woes threat on reignite the market's turmoil. and even its new resources could be stretched by huge programs needed should a larger notion -- nation such as spain or italy get into difficulty. a few more calls. this is austin, texas. joseph, hello. caller: hello. first, i'd like to say with the assertion that the problem is americans don't want to work is

absurd. 20% real unemployment. the whole idea is preposterous. one caller mentioned something about oil prices and all i have to say about that is if we end the oil speculation that is driving oil over $100 a barrel, that will help the global economy. so the real problem is the trade with china. it's trade with politically repressed nation which their workers are not able to organize. we're not looking at a global economic downturn, we're looking at a western economic downturn, countries where people are free to organize union and to fight for labor rights are at a disadvantage against countries like china which have events like tiananmen square who are afraid to organize. people are afraid to stand up for themselves. until americans in general understand they have a say in the free trade policy that

define our trade with countries like china and other asian countries, other countries that repress systems that don't allow their labor to organize, we're not going to see manufacturing come back. but we do. and as soon as we do, i mean, we can see this thing turn around. thank you very much. host: ted nugte in the "detroit free press" about statements that he's made. this is the headline. nunlte tells secret service i'm no motor city bad man. a statement met with two fine professional made secret service agents in oklahoma where he was playing thursday at the two frogs grill in ardmore. he called it a good solid professional meeting con cluggede i have never made any violent threats towards anyone.

nick in oregon. go ahead. caller: yes. i was told in some of the manufacturing subject -- excuse me. ok, my bad. host: nick, are you optimistic about american manufacturing or not? caller: i am. host: why so? caller: we can pull together and learn about -- without the government intervention. that would be the best. because [inaudible] i just wanted to thank c-span for sharing information and

communication. it's a good way to get all opinions out there. i'm learning a lot about stuff and excel, microsoft, stuff like that. thank you again. have a good morning and a good day. host: well, nick, tough. thank you for watching and i'm glad you're learning things that we are providing in the network. hartford, connecticut, jonathan. hi. caller: hi. host: it's harper county, maryland. my apologies. caller: that's ok. first and foremost, i've been trying to contact the energy commission and to let them know that -- and also our congressman and our senators that we can become energy independent. we have the oil right here in the united states.

we can bring it out of the ground cheaply and safely. and secondly, if we built our government, built our own refineries in the united states, i mean, brand-new refineries, we could be paying penneys on the dollar for gasoline. -- pennies on the dollar for gasoline. we only sold that gasoline to american manufacturers and the american people. and the other thing is -- first and foremost, american manufacturers are the best manufactures in the world and we have a good reputation for having good products around the world. i have been over to europe. i have been -- and everybody who says this is an american product, they love it. and they'll just buy it up just because it's an american-made product. now that's pretty much what i wanted to have to say today. have a good day. host: thank you. the "new york post" have a picture of the woman in question

regarding secret service. donya suarez is her name. you can find her picture on the tabloids. there's stories looking at the two agents that were let go. names connected with that via the "new york times." coming up next, ken dilanian from the "los angeles times" will give us the latest on what's going on with the secret service especially with its investigation. later on, a bill specifically aimed towards sportsman in the house this week. we will look at that bill and get perspective of bill horn. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪

>> two things. one is this is such a complicated conflict that we have never ever fought a war like this before. it is really complicated. the second thing is that what's referred to back here in washington as nation building really is very, very targeted war fighting. >> david wood has spent decades covering u.s. military operations for various news organizations. and this week, won a pulitzer prize for the huffington post. he is wouldn't the winners named this week that you can watch online at the c-span video library including john lewis and manning marable. find over a quarter of century on your computer. >> this weekend on book tv on c-span2, live coverage from the "los angeles times" festival of books. coverage starts at 2:00 p.m.

eastern, saturday and sunday. saturday at 3:30 p.m., biographers john ferrell, jim newton and richard reefs. and at 7:30, call in with your questions for stephen ross, author of "hollywood left and right." sunday at 2:00 eastern, watch for eric alterman and his take on liberals in the cause. and at 5:00, a panel on surveillance and secrets with lawrie andrews, annie jacobson and michael schumer. the entire schedule it on line at book tv.org. >> from the colonial era, problem hixon to today, drink has always been a part of the american landscape. saturday night live on american history tv, a history of alcohol in america. watch our simulcast of back story with the american history guys. hosts ed, peter, and brian regal with tales of beer and spirits

in america, saturday night at 8:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is ken dilanian of the "los angeles times." he serves as their national security correspondent. thank you. so we have two names out there connected with what happened in clufment what's the message behind the release of the names as far as the future of what happens? guest: the message is the secret service is trying to be transparent about this. ordinarily, you don't hear the names of agent who is are disciplined in a garden variety in a misconduct case but this has gone so high profile. normally, they would be concerned about the privacy of these individuals but the names are out and one of the guys according to reports this morning, you know, had a facebook page where he was talking about standing behind sarah palin on details between 2008 campaign and she's already commented on that.

so things are moving quickly. host: so what happens to those in question now? what does the secret service do with them? guest: well in the case of these three people, two of them are going to retire. these are two supervisorers and an agent and a third person is in some kind of administrative process where he gets to have a lawyer and dispute the allegations. and there's another eight that are on administrative leave so they're not allowed in the building. and they go an adjudication as i understand it. it's a process. and it's not clear dish mean, not all eight of them may be implicated. so they may not be fired. they may not be disciplined. the issue though is will they lose their security clearances and even if they're not fired, would that precedent them from doing the their zobs host: would firing from the top result in what happened? caller: well, mark sullivan is getting good reviews for acting quickly to address the scandal and bring some accountability. but you know, a lot of people

are talking about is there a larger culture here and they're going to have some work to do looking at the culture and people are talking about should there be more female agents? that's a long process. host: and is this a specific incident or a culture thing? guest: you get different messages on that. i've talked to a lot of retired agent who is insists that prostitution is generally out of bounds particularly at this scale, we're talking about 21 women alleged. but, you know, there's definitely cultures of wheels up party after the president leaves a party. there's been investigative stories in the past 10 years ago that talked about extramarital affairs. there's people who say there's a management problem issue here. a series of lapses and not enough accountability. at some point thrshes will be an outside body that looks at this. host: is there an inspector general for the secret service? guest: i'm not sure of that.

i think it's the inspector general of the department of homeland security that will have jurisdiction. but i've heard talk of an outside panel of advisors being appointed to look at the culture of the secret service. host: from those you have talked with, do they look at this as a secret c.s.u. concern? are nor -- secret service concern? guest:. there was no security perimeter here. there were no guns or equipment in the rooms. i mean, there's a potential security concern. horn intelligence services could be targeting people with prostitutes and that's been going on for hundreds of years but one agent said bring these women into the rooms or the hotel is no different than the housekeeper coming in. they're not going to leave stuff lying around. so in that sense, there shouldn't have been a security issue. host: are there rules that governor how an agent should act? guest: there's a code of

conduct. i have not gotten clarity on whether patronizing prostitute, there's an outright prohibition there. there is in the military who are implicated somehow. there's a military -- a 2006 order that prohibits prugse. -- prostitution. it was apparently prostitution is legal in some parts of the country. so that may be a defense by some of the agents. and of course, we're also hearing that some of them are saying to investigators i didn't know any of these women were prostitutes. host: over 6800 secret service employees according to the secret service of the "baltimore sun", 38 special agents and then in the yuremed division, there's about 1,300. and yet, the actions of 30 men overshadow as far as behavior is concerned? guest: that's the really sad thing about this. right now, it is, of course. and you know, the agents i've

talked to are just in agony over the embarrassment as one put it and the disgrace of this. the last thing they want to do is being be in the news. they're quiet professionals and these are individuals who want to take a bullet for their rocketties. it is shattering their image and will they will able to take action? host: the latest with ken dilanian of the "los angeles times" national security reporter joining us to talk about it. if you want to ask him questions . for republicans -- 2k >> our first call from you is from minnesota with denny. caller: good morning. i guess i'm sitting here as a

retired person but i can remember my younger days. and after all, they are young men. and they have their natural desires and wants and needs or whatever. and if they're married, that should be between their wives and themselves and it's not anything to do with the public scrutiny of what they've done or what they did down there. they were down there having a good time. i know they were down there on business but they were still down there to have a good time. so that's my comment. thanks for c-span. bye-bye. host: mr. dilanian? guest: i've heard that perspective from others. the counterargument from that is this was before the presidential visit. these guys were down here to staff an advance and ensure security for the presidential visit. it's viewed within the service as unacceptable to have gone this far. of course, they're going to have a few beers but to gone this far

and they're down on the taxpayer's dime and the other issue is of course the public embarrassment this has caused. there's just -- you know, nobody would have wanted not happen within the service. pretty much everyone agrees that bad judgment was used here. host: bel-air, maryland. john on our republican line. go ahead. caller: ok. one thing is 11 -- what was it? 11 guys? host: yes. caller: 11. 11 of me and my friends, we couldn't spend $1 million in one evening having a party if we tried to. and then, you know, the thing is, you know, when we go out to have a little drink or you know, do what we've got to do, we don't send our bill to united states taxpayers. so that's my comment today on that. guest: well, that's a good point of clarification.

i don't believe there's any evidence that that the taxpayers were paying for prostitutes or paying for the celebrating. this is not the g.s.a. scandal. and these guys were down traveling on the taxpayers' dime because they were working for the government but there's no evidence that the taxpayers sub didse -- host: the names are greg stokes and cheney. the column has this. the woman is also looking to taking legal action against the secret service personnel in american government because he said an agent acted aggressively towards her, yelling and using an expletive to describe her. that's according to mr. betancourt. as far as legal concerns from the woman herself. caller: looks like our curblings american culture has been trance plantsed to colombia. he seems to be implying because she was yelled at and called a name, she's got a legal action. who knows? i'm not familiar with colombia

law. but that's -- host: oregon. caller: how are you doing? host: well, thanks. go ahead. caller: i'm just tired caller: this is a total abuse of power. everything that we do, we consider a scandal. it is not a scandal. it is an abuse of power. host: how so? caller: you are using our resources and for your personal gain. that is an abuse of power. its start with your city level, to the state level, all the way up to the federal level. it is an absolute abuse of power. guest: we covered the fact we do

not believe taxpayer money was used, but he is speaking to a larger issue. this scandal and the gsa thing has a chance to undermine government when it is at an all- time low. the secret service has a reputation -- they have had problems, but they had a reputation of quiet professionalism and were well regarded by other law- enforcement agencies. host: so we had this incident back in 2009. how much of that carries over? guest: nobody covers the secret service without watching a few -- i have been learning about this. they mentioned a litany of incidents. a guide through a chute at president bush. there was a grenade incident.

and author wrote a book about the secret service, arguing there is a resource issue, that there is not enough money. there is definitely a cadre of retired agents and outside observers who say there is a problem here. that is usually are doing something is going to happen and we are going to look back and say they were under-resourced. he talked about agents out of shape unable to open the president's limousine. host: as far as concerns within their ranks itself, do you see that? guest: it is hard to tell. many have said it is not a big deal. host: if this happened after the president left, would this be a story? guest: the prostitution sting

would probably make it a story. they would not have evacuated -- if these agents were forced to leave in the middle of their job -- a special agent in miami ordered this action. it would not have happened if the president already left. i think things will have been different. host: david on the republican line. caller: good morning. when are we ever, ever going to get rid of this insane phobia of sex? who was harmed? who was endangered? it seems to me these people did their job the way they were supposed to.

if it had been something -- maybe it was not even a legal. we make such a to-do about anything that has to do with sex. it is utterly ridiculous. the media frenzy over something like this. hey, guys, the world is coming down around our heads and this is what we have to talk about. it is stupid. guest: i think it is a really valid perspective. the frenzy over this story has to do with there is a huge public interest in it. there is huge readership for these stories. people are fascinated. they are fascinated by it. i have heard that perspective from retired agents including a female veteran.

she said agents are people, too. what if they had met these women at a bar and they were not prostitutes. would that have been an issue? prostitution was legal in this part of the city. i think most people can agree at this point that it is been bad for the agency and the country, the embarrassment that this thing has cost. that is a reason that refutes what the guy is saying. host: and independent from oregon, hello. caller: hello. i am a retired postal worker. there is a clause in the contract that i signed that says all i have to do is have the appearance of doing something wrong. i wondered if it was the same with their contracts. guest: i am not familiar with

their code of conduct. they do not have a union. there is some kind of due process that agents would get before being fired. would seem common sense that there would have to be something more substantive. host: like a moral cause. guest: there may be a moral cause. i have heard it called the code of conduct. host: ky, joe is on the line. caller: i agree with the previous caller that it is an abuse of power. if you use your position to have a sexual relationship with anybody, maybe you work with or outside of work, one of the people coming in for your services, you can get fired for that.

i believe these people have done something wrong. they make the whole country of the united states look really bad. guest: there have been allegations and histories of infidelities in the service in the workplace, and that is an issue. i do not know if that applies here as an abuse of power. prostitution is legal in parts of columbia. there is a huge trafficking issue. some of these women are not there by their own volition. that is an issue. the woman interviewed said she was doing it voluntarily for money. the fact there are trafficking of women in these situations, that is another thing that reflects poorly on this conduct.

one issue is the military has not said that any of these guys or expected of patronizing prostitutes. they are investigating. there is something about -- i feel like the secret service -- no one would be shocked if military members patronized prostitutes. there is something about the secret service on a protective detail on the presidential visit that i think captured the public's imagination. host: is that because they are so close to the president? guest: i think they have the perception of being straight laced guys in suits with earpieces who are monks. host: new york, good morning. caller: good morning.

i just want to make a comment. it is really not the taxpayers' money. everybody is paying taxes. these guys are working. they are at a hotel. they probably got a couple of beers. they did whatever they did. how many guys are on business going out and doing this type of thing? people saying they are on the taxpayers' money. they had some girl in the room. big deal. host: so it does not bother you? caller: it never bothered me at all. i never done something like that but we are all human. big deal. that is like saying let's go out and have a couple be used together in our hotel room and everybody turns around and --

let's go out and have a couple of years together in our hotel room -- a couple of beers to gather in our hotel room. guest: if this was one or two people accused of doing this, it would be a much smaller story. 21 women allegedly brought to the hotel. the allegations that these guys went to these sex clubs in a back alley in advance of a presidential visit distracted from the presidential visit. one guy tried to offer a woman $30 and it was actually $250 to $300. of the guy tried to staff the woman and she ended up going to police. -- the tried to stiff the woman

and she ended up going to the police. all of these guys are being asked to take polygraph tests. one has agreed to do so. all security agencies use the polygraph as a part of their investigation. host: north carolina, good morning to the republican line. caller: good morning. i cannot believe the comments i am hearing this morning. first of all, this man, sullivan, need to go. a 30-year veteran. he needs to go. he has been there too long. these people i really do not think should be out partying and drinking before the president gets there. they need to be at their post. i do not know if any of them are sharpshooters'.

i am not talking about paying for the prostitutes or anything like that. this is not party time for men in our government. i cannot believe i am hearing all of this. thank you, president clinton. if you are in a position of authority and something that means something to this country, people need to wake up. host: lisa, before you go, lay out your reasoning why mark sullivan needs to go. caller: because it had been under his watch. -- because it had been under his watch. he has been there too long. -- because it happened under his watch. we need better representation for our country than this man.

have a good day. host: she put out aa lot out t here. guest: i have heard the other view is that he has responded quickly to this end has been trent. . we will see. -- has been a transparent. host: public perception of this? is it reflective of what we have heard this morning? guest: yes, i think it is. this is a very divisive issue and there is a lot of perspective on it. host: hello to the democrats' line. caller: good morning. our government and morality is just lost in this country. from the congress, fbi, gsa, you name it.

it is all morality. voting party lines. our leaders are showing no leadership whatsoever. what do you expect from fellow citizens in america when you are not showing leadership yourself? guest: that is a tough one. which leadership are you talking about? what is on display here is human frailty. people have been pointing out that this has happened, will have been in every agency of the government. not to this scale obviously. there is a series of events that has made this a huge story for obvious reasons. host: what kind of activity goes on when the president arrives pre his arrival when it comes

to the secret service? guest: a couple hundred people will advance. the secret service jump team -- there were apparently two members of the secret server counter assault team. -- secret service counter assault team. former military, former swat. some of these guys would have been involved in security sweeps. not in the protective detail but working with local law enforcement and creating parameters to secure the president's visit. host: the secret service -- do they decide where they stayed? guest: i do not know the answer to that question. i believe it has to do with security.

host: because that is where the activity took place. guest: i did read this morning that the hilton is now the subject of further inquiries. they are looking at whether any women were brought to that location and basically interviewing everybody. host: frank is from falls church, virginia. caller: the guy didn't want to pay the girl. simple. number one. number two, it clearly shows these guys in the secret service have no street savvy whatsoever. you do not have a couple group

leaders who could give these guys some pointers? there is no coordination or anything. i have traveled overseas. tourists, sports teams, secret service -- come on. they are out of touch. there is no scandal here whatsoever. you have one guy who messed up. thank you. guest: the implication of sand was not paying the prostitute enough. that is one -- the implication of sin was not paying the prostitute enough. that is one view.

i am sure they are deeply regretting that moment. host: the democrats' line. caller: yes. first of all, all of this stuff going on about secret service. so far, the whole conversation this morning -- i have not heard why the president was actually going down there. this was a very important conference. you have a good many of the countries down there in south america wanting to decriminalize drugs or legalize marijuana. i think they need to look into how this involvement set it up because i think it is a cover up to distract from the

president's actual visit down there. we have service members on down to where prostitution is not that big of a deal. i think it is pretty much kind of a set up. a conspiracy theory or whenever , basically to draw away from what the president was going down there for. i have listened to a half hour of what happened to the secret service and not a minute of why the president was down there. guest: it is certainly true it distracted from the visit. there was an important development of the u.s. allowing latin american countries to air

the issue of decriminalizing drugs that completely got obliterated by this thing. that is why the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff weras so apologetic. host: has there been any indication from the secret service that policy changes are forthcoming? guest: no. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: i have three questions. when where they are off duty? was this a drunken orgies with many people in one room? thirdly, if they were drunk, do they ever reveal secrets of the first family? this is very much more important than just a few people having

individual indiscretions. thank you very much. guest: those are good questions which i think we do not know the answers to. there have been reports that some of them went to a club. there were initial reports that the whole dispute with the woman took place at a club which does not appear to be the case. we believe we know that a number of women were brought back to the hotel. we do not know if this was one group that happened or whether it was individual agents meeting individual women. you can meet women on the street there. all that is unclear. apparently some of the agent saying i did not even know they were prostitutes. the question of when they are off duty is a good one. i think it seems by judging from the conduct, their work was done

and they were off the clock and able to relax. the security perimeter had not been created. host: and the individual files and equipment that they use? guest: yes, the itineraries were in a safe and there was no sensitive equipment in the hotel rooms. host: jeff is on a republican line. caller: listen, i was down there with george bush during his term. air force one has their own personnel. you are going to work throughout the day to wherever the president is going to go. at night time, they're done.

if they want to go to a bar and drank, that is what they do. however, if any one of those military members gets to a point where they do something to lose their clearance, that is the point where they are no longer with the presidential detail. marines and air force knows that. the secret service personnel -- they are on the clock the same as the military, but all of us on those details, if you lose your clearance, you are done. period. host: secret service agents to protect the president, vice- president, and there at immediate families. -- and their immediate families. and anyone designated by the

president as well as national security events. from twitter -- guest: the question is worth day on the job. the perception is if they were not on the job in the sense that it was in the middle of the visit. there were no protect ees. some people think maybe the president was there when this happened. that is not the case. host: illinois, good morning to bill on the democrats' line. caller: i am appalled that this guy did a story and he does not know what the moral clause is. number two, that one agent who made comments that he was checking out sarah palin should be appalling. if any of these guys are married, you do not think that

any of these women could have blackmailed them? come on. what is your problem? this is a moral issue. this is what is wrong with the government today. there is not enough people taking responsibility for this type of action? host: a picture from the posting of a gin david chaney when he was -- of agent david chaney when he was covering sarah palin. guest: i have been asked about the specific rules on prostitution and we are not getting a clear answer from the secret service. what i think what we are seeing is a divide between the view of the morality of prostitution with this behavior. others think it is perfectly fine. host: good morning to john on the republican line.

caller: to me, it does not matter whether you are republican, democrat, or independent. these men and women that work for the secret service are supposed to be professionals. they take an oath. i cannot see how in any way that anybody could find this acceptable. they are protecting our president, senators, congressman and women -- men and women. how can we say this is acceptable at all? i do not understand. these people are professionals. they were hired on it to do something. when you are working in that high of a position, you have to take everything serious. i do not understand.

it is not acceptable in any way, shape, or form. guest: i spoke to one former agent who was married and said if it can do that -- he was suggesting to me that he did not have a problem with prostitution when it is legal. he said he would tell his wife because he would not want to compromise national security. there is an issue here. former intelligence service agents have used these tactics for decades. people with security clearances are required to report this conduct. to what extent is that honored? they get a five-year security clearance reviews where they are asked significant contact with

-- what i have been told is basically you will report its if you think you are being targeted about your job. host: what has been the stands from officials at the secret service? guest: they have been fairly transparent. i was not sure what that was going to get. host: georgia, good morning, steve. caller: the last guy sort of stole my fender. i have been really appalled by some of the comments i heard this morning. you know, i think the president of the united states -- i cannot think of a more important individual of protecting. for an advanced team to have drink and sex on their mind when

they should be making sure the president is safe -- we are in the midst of a very contested election. there have been presidential assassinations in this country. secret service individuals saying i will tell my wife if i am ever blackmailed, that is nonsense. with your wife leaving with your property in a divorce, you can not be blackmailed to reveal certain secrets when you are supposed to protect the president of the united states. for these individuals to have sex and drink on their minds when they should be concentrating on their work that they are supposed to be out there doing, it is ridiculous. guest: i agree with everything he is saying. the potential is there. that is what members of congress

are concerned about. of the reality is there is a pretty remote possibility. who would do it in colombia? there is this issue of the potential. you never want to allow that to be a possibility. host: we heard additional reaction from the white house. has there been further reaction? guest: they are staying away from this question of whether there is a cultural problem with the secret service. they have expressed confidence in mark sullivan. host: one more call from massachusetts. caller: i am compelled to say somebody said there was a superiority complex in government in all agencies. i feel that is true. bill clinton said i did what i did because i could. all of those guys did it because

they could and there was no one to stop them. what is $30? these guys are making huge salaries and they are quibbling over $30. that is my point. host: tell us what is next in this story. guest: i do not think they are making huge salaries. we have been told that more resignations are expected. there is a question about whether others were involved. you have reporters calling around. host: ken dilanian is with the "los angeles times" and serves as a national security reporter. coming up later, we take a look at figures. we are going to be looking at wages in the united states. up next, bill horn from the u.s. sportsmen's alliance about a bill passed this week.

we will pick up that discussion when we return. >> when i was in eastern afghanistan, the soldiers began telling me to the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on logistic contracts. >> douglas follows the money in afghanistan and fines corruption from top to bottom right into the hands of the taliban. >> the brigade commander, a

colonel -- this was not long after president obama took office. the state department was saying we are going to give you a whole bunch of development money. win hearts and minds, nation build. the colonel said do not send any more money. send me officers to oversee this stuff. "i need people." >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on may 6, look for our interview with robert caro coinciding with the release of his multi volume biography of the 36th president. from the colonial era, prohibition today. drinking for better or worse has always been a part of the american landscape painting

saturday night at 8:00 p.m., a history of alcohol in america. tales of beer and spirits and america saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern this weekend on c- span3. >> this weekend on c-span2, live coverage from the los angeles times festival of books. coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern saturday and sunday. biographers on clarence darrow and dwight d. eisenhower. and call in with your questions to steven ross. at 5:00, a panel on surveillance and secrets with these book authors. the entire schedule for the

weekend is online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us right now, bill horn of the u.s. sportsmen's alliance. hello. tell us a little bit about what the alliance does. guest: it is founded in the mid 1970's to come that the anti- hunting, anti-fishing movement and protect the rights of sportsmen and women to engage in these activities. host: when it comes to the activities, what is intersecting with federal policy? guest: the federal government has different areas of land. in the u.s. forest service, the wildlife refuge system, and even

within the parks system, there are elements that are expressly open to hunting as well. all of these provide opportunities for fishing and hunting that most of us are committed to protecting their rights to continue to fish and hunt on those lands. basically, you have a group of organizations out there, radical animal rights groups, anti- hunting groups, some that are committed to basically running hunters off of lands. in a washington context, it is the intersection of federal public lands that we care about in this legislation. host: this is the sportsmen's heritage act of 2012. what is the purpose? guest: is an amalgam of four different bills to fix different

problems. title one started out as a separate bill. essentiallytially establishes a law that lands are open to hunting and asian. that does not exist in present -- hunting and fishing. that does not exist in present laws. the concept that someone would be opposed to those activities was off of the radar screen. this establishes that those lands are presumptively open until the agencies can exercise their discretion to make closures as are necessary if those restrictions are based on evidence. host: some of the democrats say there are already laws that

mandate whether they are open or closed already. guest: the law does not provide for the type of access for an inkling and hunting. we have finished and hunted on these lands largely as a matter of tradition. not so much as a matter of expressed law. the second part of the bill codifies recent decisions and determinations that the toxic substances act of 1976 does not authorize the epa to ban certain lead lures and ammunition. epa said no, they have now filed suit in federal court. these provisions codified their recent determinations that they do not have that authority. host: to allow the lead products

to be used. does it hurt animals? guest: in some cases, it has been determined that it does. when i was assistant secretary to the interior, we took steps to prohibit the use of lead shot shells for hunting waterfowl, ducks and geese. it has been replaced in that context with other types of non-toxic material. in other circumstances, there is no science demonstrating the use of a fishing sinker is causing problems. so, there is that policy issue. the other side is the lega one. -- legal one. saidadministration's epa this position in the bill would confirm it. there is a section involving

recreational shooting on certain lands. this is a provision determined to be necessary because at the bureau of land management has taken a series of steps against traditional recreational shooting particularly in the west. this is not structured. this would basically be recreational shooting. you go someplace far out of town, put some tin cans on a rock, and do some target s hooting. the provisions in the bill are designed to overcome some of this activity. even though the agency backed off on some of that, the conclusion was we need to make this fix in statute. the fourth feature is a very specific fix. canada for many years has

allowed as the hunting of polar bears. outstanding the fact that they have been deemed it threatened, the present population is at a record high. can adapt allows hunting. various americans went up there, took the bears, and when the listing occurred, they imported 41 of these trophies. this allows them to get out of the legal limbo and red tape. host: if you want to ask questions of bill horn of the u.s. sportsmen's alliance, the numbers are on the screen. republicans, democrats, and independents. you can send us a tweet.

what reasoning would you give up about the need to make sure these lands remain open? guest: one, it is a long time traditional activity that people have engaged in and there is no reason not to continue this. we adopted in this country under the leadership of teddy roosevelt what we refer to as the north american wildlife model. most people do not appreciate the vast bulk of funding comes from anglers and hunters in the form of license fees, duck stamps, and very specific excise taxes levied on hunting equipment and fishing gear. if you go by a fishing rod, and there is a tax that goes into a special fund that is later dispersed for restoration projects. this mix of fees and taxes

exceed $1 billion a year which drives wildlife funding. it does not come in large measure from the general tax revenue. if you begin to restrict access and opportunities for tangling and hunting, the license sales drop, the docket sales drop, the excess revenues drop, and the money begins to dry up. we are fearful that we live in an ever increasing urbanized society. most are not going to want to pay extra taxes directed to wildlife conservation which has been paid for by the angling and hunting community. caller: how are you doing this morning? guest: fine. thank you. caller: i live in the state of oregon which is owned by about

60% of the federal government. they are constantly, constantly shutting down roads, blocking roads, digging ditches, putting gates up, restricting our access on public lands for hunting and fishing. what can a person do -- host: what reasons do they give, sir? caller: because they want to protect the wildlife. or the trees or the drainage or the river system or whatever. but it's like you have some chief bureaucrat in some area that just decides, hey, i want to block off this area.

what do they want to do? make a park? where you can look and not touch? guest: that is one of the reasons and part of what has driven this bill. there has been levels of increased hostility from the federal land agencies and a lot of frustration has boiled up. i think the caller is an example of that. rather to sit and wait for these problems to build, let's take a preventive action right now and begin to codify a law that hunting and fishing are very important on these lands. agencies are supposed to provide for these activities. you can make the restrictions where appropriate, but the presumption is they are opened first and closed second. we hope this will send a clear signal to land management

agencies to take steps to maintain access. host: as a guaranteed only to recreational hunters? guest: this is a bill for fishing and hunting. the bill was very carefully put together in cooperation with the hunting and angling community. it is a hunting and fishing bill. host: ohio on the republican line, karl is next. caller: bon jour. i have a few questions. yes or no responses. have you ever shot a polar bear? guest: i have personally not.

caller: have you ever shot a wolf? guest: i have not. caller: have you ever shot a snow white mountain goat? guesthost: tell us why you are asking. asking these you questions? give us the reasoning. caller: i am trying to establish the credibility of your guest as a hunter. guest: i have been a hunter for probably 40 plus years, primarily a bird and duck hunter mostly out here in the western mountains of virginia and west virginia. duck hunting, quite a bit. i do not do much big game hunting. an avid fishermen to boot. host: one more follow-up. caller: do you own a bumper

sticker that says "save a buck, shoot a -- host: we will leave it there. where do you mostly hunt? guest: mostly on public land. we pay special fees to do that. i am really interested in making sure that we maintain access to public land so we can continue these activities. host: what kind of oversight would keep you from a shooting or capturing it endangered animals? guest: that is heavily regulated by the state's. they established the methods and the means. you have to have the requisite licenses and fees to go on to those public lands. you have to comply with the regulations that are enforced by

game wardens, fish wardens, personnel. it is a very heavily regulated activity. i think we have found that the vast percentage of hunters are law-abiding citizens who live by these established rules and regulations. host: on the democrats' line, john from north carolina. caller: good morning. you mentioned the humane society was mislabeled. i think when it comes to your organization, it might be mislabeled because, to me, it is an unfair business. you walk out there with high- tech gear. you have night vision, a tree stands, a computer engineer devices. that is not hunting. that is just the pure murdering of animals. where is the fairness? when you talk about teddy

roosevelt, they were actually hunters. there was a level playing field. now you can be 100 yards away and kill an animal. guest: i would simply say that not everything is a high-tech. we have legions of both hunters that go out in the field and hunt with bows and arrows. most of us who do our bird hunting are using a shotgun technology, effectively the same of 1880 that has not changed in the last 120 years. i reject the notion that this is a high-tech killing exercise. it is difficult. you spend a lot more time in the woods and do not bring home as much as you would like. a lot of folks spend a lot of time not bringing home a deer, turkey, or duck. host: what is the difference

between -- a lot of people who hunt for recreation who hunt for food? guest: the only parts of america where you have subsistence hunting anymore in america is remote parts of alaska with they do not have access to other forms of food stuffs. for most, this is a choice. obviously, you can augment your diet with venison or ducks. a lot of folks catch a lot of fish, put them in the freezer, and provide an important part of their annual sustenance. most have a choice. it is the ability to engage in this traditional activity. there is a long heritage of its. most find it is the interaction with nature, connection, you become part of the process. you are a participant. we have discovered that level of

interaction and commitment breeds a commitment to conservation. you look around and look at the wide array of organizations that are supported by the sportsmen community for conservation. the laundry list of organizations that make a commitment to conservation supported by the community are as long as your arm. host: california for bill horn of the u.s. sportsmen's alliance. caller: yes, hi. i was curious on how come -- ok, we pay big money for our licenses and our game stamps. ok, when it comes to california,

we are limited in the number of furs that we shoot. when they get to mexico, there is no limit. how do they figure that out? host: how much do you pay for stamps? caller: probably around $100. host: that gives you access for whatever the season is it? caller: yes, it does. guest: if you want to go duck hunting, you have to have a bird stamp that now costs $15. there is a proposal to raise it to $25. you have to have in your possession to hutnt ducks or geese. in mexico, that is a different sovereign country. we can make suggestions to the mexicans about what the limits should be on hunting ducks that

might start in the united states and end up in canada but those decisions are made by the mexicans and not our personnel. host: virginia is next on the democrats' line. caller: i am a democrat publicly simply based on economic policy more than anything else. i am an avid hunter and fisherman. sometimes the democratic party poses way too of an opposing view to these activities. i do have one comment to make about just hunting ethics. you know, my family -- we harvest probably eight to 10 deer a year and we do eat them. the rule i have taught my children is if you are going to

kill it, you have to eat it. from my perspective, i do not understand why -- you can certainly eat bear, but the guys who went up to canada who shot polar bears, they did not eat that meat. the specific law to get the polar bear's back in the united states seems to be directed at individuals who are obviously very wealthy to go up and do a trip like that sounds ridiculous. they should be used in the way that they were. i understand why that provision is there. it always seems like some of these organizations are tailoring their laws -- anyone who can go hunt in africa for a lion hunting, to me, it is

unnecessary. they are just doing something to hang on their wall. that does not go with what i think the original tradition of hunting and fishing is which did start with sustenance. host: we will leave it there. guest: he raises a good point. people make ethical choices about whether they want to hunt or fish or not. i think we respect those people making those choices. one, in most states, there are want and waste laws. if you take a deer, moose, or elk, you are under an obligation to take out the meat and put it to use. you cannot just leave it there to rot in the woods. the second aspect when it comes to the trophy hunting exercise particularly and some of the overseas countries, it is the dollars that come from sport

hunting that support the conservation there. and a lot of these places, the animals are a nuisance. whereas if they are subject to a regulated program, and folks from europe and america are willing to pay to come to it, those dollars provide bonafide, on the ground conservation benefits that otherwise would not be derived locally and there was not a hunting program. host: are polar bear pelts strictly trophies? guest: i would suspect that the meat was donated to some of the villagers of there from where the bears were taken. and frankly part of the canadian hunting programs are operated by local, native hunting groups. they established the hunting levels and are the recipients of the license fees and they derive

benefit from allowing hunting to continue. host: this is richard from milwaukee. caller: good morning. i have a question. a couple years ago, i was a deer hunting with a friend of mine. we parked in a national forest. two othe rguys showed up. the peta op bped by people because they did not want to hunt on the land. there was almost a fight. we would like to get rid of those peta people because they are completely dumb. in our annual meetings, and they tried to get on the board and everything. they are completely off-the-wall about a lot of things. during fishing, they try to stop

people on landings. how can we get rid of them? thank you. guest: we would agree that certain groups really are pushing a very radical, animal rights agenda. i think the level of public support would drop substantially. they really do not support humane activities or take care of local cats and dogs. for the caller, i would say that virtually every state has harassment laws. there are federal laws that make it a crime for folks to interfere with people trying to go out and go fishing or hunting. you can stand there with a sign but you cannot physically interfere or prevent them from exercising their privileges. host: two tweets.