then bill roggio discusses the consequences of using drugs by the cia to conduct strikes in yemen. and later, douglas g. douglas elliott, without waiting you best federal credit programs, examines the way the federal government provides grants and loan guarantees to private industry. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: the obama campaign has released a video featuring the killing of osama bin laden last year. we are going to show you that video. and that will be the opening discussion topic this morning. here is the front page of "the washington times" --

here is the obama campaign video. [video clip] >> one thing george bush said that was right -- the president is the decider in chief. no one can make the decision for you. look, he knew what would happen. suppose the navy seals had gone in there and it had not been bin laden?

suppose they had been captured and killed. the downside would have been horrible for them. but he reasons. i cannot in good conscience do nothing. he took about harder and the more honorable past and the one -- path, and the one that produced in my opinion, the best result. >> it is not board moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just try to catch one person, a reference to the hunt. it has generated a little controversy. given all some of it not possible and killing some 3000 americans on 9/11. >> he had it to decide. and that is what you hire a president to do. you hire a president to make a

call when no one else could do it. host: and, if you would like to comment on the killing of osama bin laden as a campaign issue -- you can leave a comment on our twitter page -- or at facebook. and you can send e-mail to us, if you wish. back to "the washington times." republicans are beating back those talking points from the video, senator john mccain --

ed gillespie, senior advisor, a longtime republican adviser to mitt romney was on "meet the press" yesterday. [video clip] >> this is one of the reasons why president obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in history. it took something that was a unifying event, an event that governor romney congratulated him and the military and intelligence panelists and our government for completing the mission in terms of killing osama bin laden, and he managed to turn it into a divisive partisan political attack that former defense secretary frank carlucci for president reagan called sad, john mccain called chaebol and i think most americans will see it as a time -- signs of a desperate campaign. host: the first call on osama bin laden as a campaign issue comes from dorothy on the independent line from little

rock, arkansas. caller: how are you doing? host: when you have a kind of etch-a-sketch president like mitt romney is, he could never make a decision like that. he has not built a core base for his candidacy. you don't really know what he stands for. he cannot believe in this country. we have to stick with somebody like obama who can lead the country. host: you see it as a legitimate campaign issue? caller: it has to be. it is a critical decision. host: connie is a democrat from chicago. caller: how are you this morning? thank you for taking my call. i want to say that this was a very tough call. the president made the right decision. i think that the president in his role is very well qualified to lead this country.

and mitt romney would never have the guts nor bang the fortitude to make the decision that the president has made -- host: go to our question. is it a legitimate campaign issue? caller: by all means. if it were a republican who had to do they would have -- they would have touted it from day one. they would have had a parade, they would have had all over the evening newspapers. they would certainly tell it everywhere. again, yes, it is, a very, very high issue. thank you. host: scott, republican in big sandy, texas. you are on the journal. caller: good morning. i believe the president taking credit for the killing of bin laden is sort of like an umpire taking credits for the home run the little leaguer hit over the fence. when all the empire did was say,

play ball. bin laden had nothing to do -- he had nothing to do with killing of osama bin laden or the training of the seals and certainly not anything over the operation itself. all he did was say play ball. and he had absolutely no choice in that decision. board would have gotten out that he put these -- on it if he had done it. he had no choice. coming out as some great hero because of this is just absolute nonsense. host: a viewer tweets in -- "the financial times" also talks about the issue. mr. romney hit back in spat over bin laden. the headline in the newspaper. diane from california on the

democrats' line. do you think it is a legitimate campaign issue? caller: absolutely. good morning, peter. and the thing is, what in god's green earth is the world try to tell us here or the united states? we can decide what we think as american citizen taxpayers. and, yes, what is in the issue is, is he has gotten bill clinton, who is backing him and really has backed him for a long time. that is the big issue. they can't handle it. and what i predicted on facebook and i am a psychic clairvoyance, everybody knows that, i predicted bill clinton's president in 1992 and i am written up in "los angeles times" and -- and in many periodicals. the point is, osama bin laden, yes, was taken out -- yes, it is a big, big, big deal.

host: would you like to make a prediction about the 2012 election? caller: i already have -- i think on january 20 at -- yes, obama will win this election. i predicted that on facebook and i also said that you might as was just a home because the republicans don't have anything to offer and it comes to to -- intuition because i said santorum and newt gingrich would not stay in the election, they don't have the clout, they don't have anything. host: that is diane from california on the democrats' line. john, a republican in maryland. caller: hello. i would like to say that i think -- it is absolutely laughable. i wish to day you could replace -- c-span, i listened it to bid twice each time you have peter king investigating how the recruitments in the united

states. if you listen to the democrats' standing in the way of any sort of investigation -- basically his party, his administration, every single one of them is obama and at every turn they have stood in the way and paved the way for the likes of osama bin laden. and we are in deep, deep trouble when -- host: we will leave it there. from "the new york times" this morning.

that's just a little bit from the "new york times" article this morning. steve is a democrat from chicago. caller: how are you doing? i think it is a fair political father -- fodder.

uh -- i'm having a hard time here. host: tell you what. why don't you try again in 30 days and we will get you back on. republican line. barney from maryland. -- bonnie from maryland. caller: this is almost laughable. clinton telling him. when clinton had a chance to kill bin laden and he didn't. is that political -- because he wants his wife to run for president in 2016. host: you don't think it is a legitimate issue? caller: he didn't get him. the navy seals did. he is taking credit when these men put their lives on a line to kill him, but the president is getting all the credit for it. he is sitting in the white house having his big parties and all and these men are getting killed. it is laughable. host: jim tweets in --

another tweet -- our next call comes from randy from chapel hill, republican line. caller: hello, c-span. i just want to make 10 quick comments. we got all the intel for bin laden from guantanamo bay, water boarding, and secondly, i want a democrat to respond and tell me that they now agree the afghan war was legal, which we heard for, oh, six years when bush was in the white house that it was bush's illegal war.

because that was an illegal strike in pakistan against a sovereign nation. host: kevin, independent, new orleans. caller: am i the only american out there who considers obama kaelin osama bin laden totally against everything america stands for as far as of the idea -- saddam hussein, we could have shot him down and that hole dead, and we didn't, and he killed a hot -- will let more people than bin laden. we brought him out and gave him a day in court and then we killed him. but the super seals could have gone in there and stunned him and all the rest of them but instead we went in there and literally murdered him, and we as americans never got to know exactly what was the story behind all of it. we are going to have to take the government's version of what the story was behind it. because one man who could have gone to court and had to answer

the question, we never got that opportunity. we did not portray what america stands for. and the whole idea of having your day in court -- we went out and we murdered somebody. i am sorry. that is exactly -- forget the party line, forget democrat republican, we were wrong there. regardless of how much we hate him for 9/11, if 9/11 was him, we don't know -- we never gave him his day in court. host: and we have some comments here on our facebook page --

that is from our facebook page. this tweet from joseph -- and this tweet as well from steve --

joan is a democrat from manhattan. are you with us? caller: hello? host: please, go ahead with your comments. caller: i want to go back when clinton could not get him. clinton tried to get him and he missed him. host: we are talking about it as a campaign issue. do you think it is a legitimate campaign issue? caller: yes, i definitely do. they were talking about clinton directing him -- getting him and the republican party was in charge of congress and they took his money away so he could not return and get him again. host: also from new york city -- republican line. caller: good morning. i think obama was invited to sit in, and why he -- while he may have given the green light, we tend to forget the groundwork to

kill osama bin laden was set by bush-cheney, and they had to fight for it would be interrogations'. i think this is a commercial to detour because obama cannot brag about energy, jobs, or anything else. had the that failed, i think everybody in that war would be sworn to secrecy and it would have never have happened. thank you. have a great day. and by the way, i was on hold before coffee, so, please, do the twitter later this time. host: ok. from "the hill" --

he said the push for the buffet role was a gimmick. and this article is also from " that bill" this morning -- "the hll" this morning.

both from "the hill close of newspapers. antonio from boston. caller: i think it is a very legitimate question. desperation. america, wake up.a we are in trouble. i am from massachusetts. romney did nothing. i like obama. obama will win the election. big one. american people wake up. [unintelligible]

i love america. host: where are you from originally? caller: how long have you been of the country -- i am from italy. host: how long been here? caller: 47 years. host: on "abc this week" they talked about the anniversary of the killing of some of bin laden. [video clip] >> the capability had been degraded significantly. we took out leading copper tubes, degraded their infrastructure, the capability to train and deploy corporative. our defenses have increase. but that not mean we will reston would arrest until al- qaeda as an organization is destroyed and eliminated from areas of afghanistan, pakistan, africa. >> can you say one year out how much difference the killing of

bin laden raid? >> i think it made a tremendous difference. it has taken away the founded leader of the organization who was a symbol of al-qaeda's murderous agenda worldwide. that has had a profound impact on the organization. his successor is somebody who does not have the same institutional support, does not have the same charisma. host: john brennan will speak at the woodrow wilson center today at noon eastern time and we will cover it live on c-span. he will talk about u.s. counterterrorism policy live today on c-span. a couple of more facebook comments on osama bin laden as a campaign issue. here is chris.

ted is a democrat from oregon. go ahead, 10. caller: good morning, peter. i definitely do think this is an issue. we would still be talking about it, we would still have more manpower out there looking for him, we would still be fighting the war on terror. as a highly decorated air force veteran i really find that most of america have no idea how a operatives were, how chain of command works, how anything really works. and if you are not a veteran you just need to shut up and listen. ok? have a good day. host: front page of "the guardian" out of london today.

we are talking this morning about the new campaign video released by the obama campaign touting the killing of osama bin laden, and whether or not you

think it is a legitimate campaign issue. bobby is an independent from arlington, virginia. caller: good morning. great to talk to you. thank you for c-span. i just want to say, to remind people that bush and cheney have a lot to do with obama's success. they laid the groundwork. what they did -- instead of going after people who attacked on september 11 and they created a straw man, $4 trillion in iraq instead of actually doing their job, therefore, having done their job obama would not have had the opportunity so thank you george bush and dick cheney for wasting $4 trillion dollars and murdering 4000 soldiers and as a non highly decorated army veteran i think obama did a great job. host: from "the washington post" this morning.

that is just a little bit from "the washington post" -- and you can see the author talking about his book on book tv in the near future. back to your calls about some of the law and as a campaign issue. orange, ky. .ennis, a democrat - caller: no matter how you think of it, he gave the green light or killed bin laden, however you think about it, there were ramifications that could have happened if something would have happened. if the pakistani air base

nearby, if they got wind of its , the pilot did not land his chopper with minimal injuries. a whole lot of things that could have gone wrong real quick. i know that the republicans would have been making hay of it. back when president clinton sent cruise missiles into afghanistan today accused him of wagging the dog. the seals carried out a broad and operation but it had to start somewhere and i think it was a pretty courageous decision. the information we got from the rate i am sure is still being looked over and acted upon. host: that was dennis. robert gibbs, former press secretary at the white house and now an obama campaign official was on the morning shows, also talking about this. [video clip] >> certainly, not over the line. look, just a few years ago president obama, then a candidate said in a speech that if we had actionable

intelligence of a high-value target in pakistan we would go in and get a high value target. mitt romney said that was a foolish. he would not do such a thing. he would not move heaven and earth to get a sum of a lot of. barack obama is our commander in teeth -- chief. he was brought actionable intelligence, directed the great men and women in our military to go in and kill some of a lot of, which is exactly what they did under extraordinary circumstances and osama bin laden no longer walks on this planet today because of that brave decision and a break actions by the men and women in our military, and quite frankly, mitt romney said it was a foolish thing to do a few years ago. there is a difference in the roles they would play as commander in chief and i think it is fair game. host: a tweet --

ed is a republican from hinesville, georgia. caller: i am a democrat. yes it is a legitimate campaign issues. i hate to say it, but it shows just how divided we are. and it is very sad. when george bush got bin laden -- excuse me, saddam hussein, the republicans were not talking about how despicable it was. they talked about it for the rest of his term. if this was not a good thing, the republicans would be talking about it. a man called earlier saying it is like in little league baseball player hitting a home run and the umpire getting credit for it and some lady caught in and said that bin laden -- that a bomb had nothing to do with it -- that he was not putting his life on the line. of course not. he is the commander in chief. george bush did not put his life on the line, either, when he got about hussain. but nobody was talking about that but it just goes to show

how the fight we are. it is very sad. host: the next call comes from albuquerque, new mexico. albuquerque is actually gone. we will move onto another democrat in pontiac, michigan. danny. caller: how are you doing, c- span? but hypocrites of republicans are. they had 10 years to get osama -- and he called and irrelevant. he was not relevant. this man was dangerous to our country and the republicans trying to make this a campaign issue. what a bunch of hypocrites? if those seals have got -- had gotten killed or one of those choppers got blown out for some reason, they would have been all over it. bush used the world trade center as the issue when he was trying to get reelected. what a bunch of hypocrites. thank you, c-span. you guys have a great day. you do a great job. host: this is from "the

washington post." bipartisan house hopeful about cybersecurity bill.

new hampshire's. jeff, republican. good morning, you are on c-span. what do you think about osama bin laden as a campaign issue? caller: no, it should be -- because i think it is a scandal of three presidencies. when president chasing teenage in turns instead of terrorists, the next president laid down the ground rules for obama to capture this man. the way i see it, he was elected on the flat screen like a super

bowl. we are not one iota safer -- regarding libya, the shoulder fired missiles could make their way into our country of shutdown an airport. host: gop to set up swing state victory offices. and from "the wall street journal" this morning is this article.

that is "the wall street journal" this morning. lancaster, california. you are on c-span. caller: good morning. i would like to speak about a couple of facts. instead of creating jobs and pushing the dream act, and they don't even belong in this country -- here's a couple of other things.

what about the reward -- though navy seals deserve a reward for what they have done. throw it into their budget. nobody talks about that. the citizens -- host: just to go to the question we're asking, is it a legitimate campaign issues. caller: they got the inhaler in chief on there, clinton, talking about it. how about having some american citizens talk about it is a campaign issue? host: we will move on to an american citizen from oklahoma. allen on the democrats' line. caller: i will be sure, no, it should not be a campaign issue. i am just seconded about what the democratic party has turned into -- sickened about what the democratic party has turned into. host: nathan on the republican line. what do you think about that as

a campaign issue? dimengo i think it is a legitimate issue as a campaign issue but i think this election is going to be about the future. joe biden suggested a bumper sticker and it goes like this -- bin laden, dead, gm, alive. i think we should add another line -- the economy is in a coma. we are more interested in working out of this bad dream and moving on to our future of a great economy. that is what this election is going to be about. ladent think the bin issue, even though it is legitimate, i don't think it is really going to sway voters. host: a viewer tweets in -- this tweet is from bill --

lawrence summers has an op-ed this morning in "the financial times." former treasury secretary and former president of harvard.

that is a little bit of lawrence summers's op-ed in "the financial times." this op-ed from seth jones in "the wall street journal" --

seth jones is an author and military expert and he has a new book out "hunting in the shadow -- the pursuit of al qaeda after 9/11," and he will be on the

book tv program this coming weekend. edward from illinois. independent line. caller: good morning. i think it is legitimate, but what about the oil that was promised us from over in iraq? nobody talked about that. they said after the war we were going to get paid back in oil. we don't talk about that. thank you. host: lisa is a democrat from sacramento. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is a legitimate campaign for today -- actually for this week, because of the simple reason, there are thousands of people's families who lost loved ones who have to relive this. every day when they walk in the new york streets. so, bin laden is dead. if president obama would not have gotten bin laden they would have had something else to say. he got him, bush did not.

oh, well. have a good day. host: "the washington post" this morning. a closer look at debt at three colleges. for university of iowa seniors and 2010 who took a student loans, the average debt to -- total was $27,391 --

student loan debt affects millions of people, even with a credit card debt. for the class of 2010, at least two-thirds of seniors took on some form of student debt. that again as from "the washington post." time for a couple of more calls on weather and not of some of the model is a legitimate campaign issues. sam, republican from oakland, california. caller: it is not a legitimate issue -- and here's why. the raid that killed all some of bin laden in pakistan did not happen. osama bin laden was put on a dialysis machine in 2002 and he perished in the early 2003. thanks for your time. host: finally, dave, independent

from a elizabethtown, new jersey. what do you think about some of bin laden as a campaign issue? caller: thank you for having me on. i don't think it is a very good campaign issue. i think it is very dishonorable and on presidential -- un- presidential for obama to use this. president obama was privy to a lot of detailed information on the missions and other options afforded him, whereas mr. romney did not have it to make any kind of logical decision whether to go in or not the wind. so, i think that is a big advantage. not a legitimate campaign issue because he had a lot more information to deal with the van anybody else. host: all right, dave. thank you for calling in this

morning. coming up in just a minute, we will be talking with robert draper, whose next book is out, "do not ask what good we do." it is about 100 intends converts, the house of representatives specifically, and after that, we will talk about drones and use of drugs militarily with bill roggio. we will be right back. >> welcome aboard. beautiful downtown oklahoma city. my name is capt. rick and i live in yukon, oklahoma. give me a big gold, howdy -- >> our local content vehicles exported history of literary culture of oklahoma city,

including the works of galileo at the history of science collection at oklahoma university. >> the most of what part is the focus on motion. when this book was published in 1632, the pope was angry galileo broke his promise to treat hypothetically, that the late's and in these joint together and the result with his trial. and this also was a topic that contains his own handwriting. this is like being able to look over his shoulder in the months leading up to his trial. >> all next weekend, but local content vehicles in oklahoma city on c-span2's book tv and on american history tv on c-span3. >> the aclu has believed for some time that police departments around the country are tracking people's itself owns on a routine basis, often without getting a warrant based on probable cause. >> should tracking a cell phone require a warrant? aclu attorney catherine krump on

police use of technology for surveillance and whether current law protect an individual's right to privacy. 8:00 p.m. eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: robert draper, who is jeff duncan? guest: jeff duncan is a conservative tea party freshman from the third congressional district of south carolina. it is a good question, i think, that you are posing because i think a lot of people even and house republican leadership don't know who jeff duncan is. duncan is really the protagonists of my book in a lot of ways. and on a couple of levels, i think he is worth considering. first, because as one of the more conservative tea party freshman, he is but straw that serves the drink in the 1121th congress, and also a guy who has learned how to make ends up known in an institution, a body of 435, clamoring about to be

more than one out of 435. i think that tension between being powerful as part of a group that tried to insert himself as an individual is present in the book. host: how did you hook up with jeff duncan? guest: by chance. right after the midterm elections, peter, i decided i wanted to do this book. and once i commenced my publishers to let me do it, i then showed up to the orientation meetings that the freshmen were having here in washington in the middle of november. i just grabbed the mountain in the hallway. i told them what i was up to. host: did you know who he was at the time? guest: i did not. i knew his name. he was one of the 87 tea party freshman but i knew nothing about him and he is one of the few people i talk to that day. but then we sat and talked in the coming days. what i liked about the bid is he is a very forthright guy, very

ordinary. i thought, this guy could be my every man, as i sort of -- sort of the vehicle through which we learn how a bill -- bill is passed, how one tries to assert himself on the committee. but then the addition of the mention of him being voted by heritage action as the most conservative member of the entire body of 435 house of representatives was an added bonus. host: did that surprise you after you got to know him? guest: not especially. he is from a very conservative district. and when he ran for congress, he ran on a set of principles -- all of these guys ran on something called a pledge to america. but his was ratcheted up. this was very specific in terms of the right to bear arms, the belief that god should not be routed out of government but instead should be an integral part of it. so, no, his conservative on a few days -- bonefides when not

-- host: what does he think of the process? guest: i think he was frustrated by it. he thought the republicans compromise too much. the debt ceiling bill, he did not vote for it. he did not vote for a number of the continuing -- continuing resolutions to fund the government because he believed the government was still spending too much and needed to be slashed more. he parts company with his leadership. what makes duncan relevant is that he is from a conservative district, and it is fine, he should represent and to the best of his abilities, but beyond that, he and a couple dozen or so very conservative republicans have succeeded in dragging his entire party to the rights. to the point where the bills that they have passed, had to

satisfy many of these conservative republicans and stood little chance of being ratified by the senate and sent on for the president's signature. host: what is his view and the view of the republican freshman class of speaker boehner? guest: i think they are ambivalent. now, duncan and a little more charitable toward speaker boehner and many of the other tea party freshman who i spend time with. don't and like the boehner personally, but he does not -- duncan blogs boehner personally, was not feel it particular allegiance. this is where the 112th congress is very different from the congress during the newt gingrich revolution. when gingrich came in with his 70-something freshman, these guy were utterly -- guys were orderly beholden. his contract with america, the tapes they would listen to to help fund raise or how to message, they were completely

reliant on gingrich. he was there fearlessly. boehner is not. boehner took note of the tea party wave, and knew that he could be crushed by a or service. serve it, he did. but the freshmen are well aware he is not of that movement and the tension has been present throughout the legislative session. host: we will put the numbers back on the screen. we are talking to robert draper, and this is his new book "do not ask what good we do -- inside the u.s. house of representatives." what is the role that allen west plays in the freshman class? guest: equal opportunity offender, i think, more than anything. west is, without question, the most famous of the 87 freshmen. he was a tea party sensation before he was ever elected

because in 2009 he gave this so- called bail net speech in which he did -- bayonet speech in which he exhorted his audience to pick up the bayonets and charge the enemy to victory but i think you opportunity offender because although qwest is a reluctant tea party freshman, i should mention he is from the fort lauderdale area of florida, he wasted very little time upsetting leadership. in fact, i met qwest on the sect of "meet the press" -- i met him on the set of "meet the press" and david gregory it asked him what things should be taught -- and he said everything should be looked at, include defense cuts. no sooner had we gotten off the set than his cell phone rang and it was the chairman of the house armed services committee saying, what the hell are you talking about.

and west wanted to be on this committee but he said, look, mr. chairman, i know it is a low hanging fruit, but there are things that need to be cut. as soon as he did get to town, west took one look at the calendar majority leader harry kantor -- eric cantor put forth that would involve congressman spending less time in washington and more time in their district and west announced that is exactly backward -- he said we have some of to do with it spend more time in washington, and cantor was offended, too. but finally, to your question, west plays a role, to surprise of many and made himself, to convince freshman there is no point of looking for 100% solution, that 70% is better than nothing. and he was instrumental in bringing freshmen on board for the debt ceiling bill, among others. host: a lot of sports metaphors,

moving metaphors and military metaphors. host: for him it is nothing whatever. he was lieutenant-colonel an army and was discharged after a harsh interrogation which almost led to a court-martial in prison. i noted in the book the time he was sworn in office, and fortune turned a different way he would just be winding down a multi- year prison term in fort leavenworth. who i think is a really remarkable guy -- some of the outlandish things he says -- nonetheless still sees everything through the prism of military. he still walks around with all of his information and all of this briefing papers and a helmet bags -- in a helmet bag, still has a bearing as someone with the army. and when he has had qualms with leadership, as often compared then, wantonly, to the military leadership that he himself experienced. host: why did you devote a

chapter to sheila jackson lee? guest: because congress woman jackson late is emblematic, first of all, of the progress of dynamic -- progressive dynamic of the democratic party. but the theme i pursued throughout the book, of how congressmen are all sort of entrepreneurs, all trying to get their piece of the pot. sheila jackson lee is a very controversial levy in washington. she is not even well liked amongst her own democratic party. in part because she insists upon speaking on every subject, insists upon amending every bill, be it republican or democrat, which infuriates democrats when they put their own bills out and are expecting full support in here she is fine-tuning everything. and also, she is pretty tough on her staff. and so, she is not well-liked. and so -- yet, she is a very

important spokeswoman for her district in houston and is beloved and has won by margins ranging from 50% to 70%. so, as she, to me, is a good case study in how you can be sort of effective at home and thus remain in the house of representatives, even as you rankle your own allies. host: politico this morning is reporting on speaker boehner's appearance on "state of the union" on cnn. guest: yes, there are a number of anecdotes and my book where boehner says that everything -- one of them to the oldest congressman, ralph paul, and there is a point in which boehner comes up to him and says, ralph, it is not the same without year marks.

we cannot heard the cats the way we used to. and senior members of the appropriations committee, registering their discontent because so many freshmen and so many more senior conservative members have been voting against continuing resolutions bill that the appropriations committee had worked very hard to put together. and these senior members, say to speaker boehner, we've got to do something about these guys. you can't let them get away with this. you need to punish them, strip them of committee assignments, you need that -- to take them off the list of delegation overseas trips. boehner says, no, that will only make martyrs of them. speaker boehner has an expression. he says, when you say follow me, and you had off, and you look over your shoulder and no one is behind you, you are not leaving -- you are just taking a walk. in a way, it makes boehner temporarily -- temperamentally suited, but it is also

emblematic of how difficult it is for him to lead this very, very rambunctious freshman class. host: how would you describe the relationship between speaker boehner and nancy pelosi? guest: they have a working relationship, but let's face it, things have been so divided right now that it is not as if -- there were times, such as during the shooting of debra l. giffords, when they were incoordination -- gabrielle giffords, when they were in coordination. and other housekeeping duties related to the body itself, there was communication. and this is evident throughout the book. the only time the republicans reach out to the democrats is when suddenly at the last minute they realize they don't have the votes, and then it is not boehner communicating to pelosi, it is house majority whip kevin

mccarthy communicating rather plaintively to house minority whip steny hoyer. host: what are the takeaways for people reading your book? guest: i was on election night so struck by these 87 freshmen that were taking office, 1/3 had never held elective office. i was anxious to chronicle in a mr. smith goes to washington kind of way how these guys would fare. so, i spent a lot of time embedding myself among the freshmen. but along the way, i covered the

more sweeping areas of the 112 congress and there's almost no way to interpret that in narrative as one of the than eight parable of dysfunction -- then a parable of dysfunction. i think the book is a case study and a pretty vivid narrative of all these congressmen who seek to put their imprint on an institution. host: the relationship between house democrats and president obama. guest: it is better. it was not a good relationship -- i should not say it was a bad one.

democrats felt he was giving away the store. the president in january gave the speech about winning the future and about investing in america. that was the narrative the white house was trying to paddle. - peddle. the prevailing narrative was cut, cut, cut. democrats felt president obama so quickly lost his edge. there was a push by republicans to roll back the government's. host: bill roggio is our guest. "do not ask what good we do: inside the house of representatives" is the book.

contributing writer to "the new york times." willie on our democrats line. caller: we have the worst congress in american history. ok? preceded by the worst president in american history, george bush. let's look at the congress' track record and the republicans track record. they, and with the grover norquist pledge -- they come in with the grover norquist pledge. they raised $4 trillion. what do we get? host: why don't you bring this

to a conclusion? where are you going? caller: they do not want to raise taxes. $5 trillion -- you're not going to cut that. host: anything to respond to? guest: as to the republicans, the argument that they were responding to a movement and to the will of the voters in the election. they had a mandate as a result of the voters turning the house back over to the republican party to roll back the obama administration. voters were saying enough.

too much government. the massive health care bill that the democrats cannot explain. economically difficult times. they have -- the problem is that it was a divided government. it is not as though the keys were handed over to the republicans. the republicans proceeded to, rather than government or pass legislation that likely would gain the approval of the senate and the signature of the president, they passed legislation far to the right of what democrats could stomach.

harry reid let those bills languish in the senate and paralysis occurred. host: do you leave with the same amount of respect, less respect, more respect? guest: i am as ambivalent as the average american. i like a lot of the congressmen that i spent time with on both sides of the aisle. i was dismayed by their performance and continued to be dismayed as most americans. i thought about what the solution would be. it is a paradox. the house is perhaps the most loathed institution that we have.

nine% approval rating. john dingell said i think even pedophiles' could do better. when the public registers such discussed at institutions and allows his behavior to continue when it has an opportunity every two here's to change the -- every two years to change the makeup, it is a puzzle. caller: hi, peter. it has been a while. i think these millionaire t. party members will not change anything -- tea party members. i think the american people have seen what the corporate agenda is. i think they will have a difficult time going for their re-election this fall.

i think they have been working against the average american citizen. they have been legislating for the !%, 2% as far as their tax policies and everything else. guest: you may be right that some may be voted out of office. the republicans got lucky. the elections coincided with the national census. congressional redistricting. most states are controlled by republican state legislators and they got to redraw the congressional maps and did so in ways that would benefit some of these republicans, including the so-called t party freshmen -- tea party freshman.

one win in a district that had been -- had a democratic representative, ortez, for something like 28 years. the district is 70% hispanic. the hispanics largely stayed home in 2010. he prevailed by something like 800 votes. but now, they have to figure of how to repeal these voters. instead, redistricting to place and he's been handed a different district. the hispanic portion has been sliced away. a republican can comfortably in habit for the next 10 years. this is an example of what a lot

of republicans may stay in office. >> markus in a florida. caller: hogood morning. listening to mr. draper's comments this morning. i think the tea party has gotten a bad rap. my question -- in reference to congressman west, do you feel congressman west would be a good running mate for mitt romney? why this democratically controlled senate seemed to have for gettingaranbhorence

the house in order. they seem to vote down every good built the republicans, along with. >> west is not going to beat mitt romney's running mate. congressman last and i have talked about this. he is not interested in being president or vice presidents. he is still learning the ropes, legislatively speaking. west is from florida and florida is a battleground state. he tends to say things off the cuff that may more news than the romney campaign would like to suffer from a running mate. the other question about the senate. the senate has been in fear

rating to the -- infuriating to the republicans in the house. harry reid said rather than negotiate, he was largely going to let all the bills languish. he believed there was no point in negotiating with them and that there were intent on dragging america much to the right then americans could abide. it made more sense to leave the republicans out there and frame them as extremist rather than dignify them by negotiating. i understand the frustration of members of the house and americans as a whole for that strategic decision.

it seems very cold. we will see in november whether it is effective. stiff-arming house legislation or whether that effort to repay the republican legislation as uit.emist will bear fori host: where did you get the title of your book? guest: he served four terms overall and is from massachusetts and craft of the final language to the first amendment. he was in failing health. after four terms he decided he would not run any more. he wrote a note to a friend of his talk about partisan

disagreements in the house. he wrote, "do not ask what fair we do." partisanship and division have always been with us. they manage to overcome these divisions. they stood up to the executive branch, to pay back the war debt, and to annex a few states. they could get a lot done. host: we have a tweet from joseph. guest: that is a good question. that is central to an anecdote about the debt ceiling standoff. a number of allies of john

"you needy to them, him," to be careful with your negotiations with obama. there is a good chance there could be a mutiny against you." is spreadings staff rumors about you. it only takes a dozen or so. they have been lockstep on legislative matters. i think eric cantor has watched himself a great deal more since the miserable approval ratings that the house has accumulated. he has been far less aggressive. does boehner know eric cantor is

an ambitious guy? absolutely. host: what about kevin mccarthy? he spent a lot of time with him. guest: the whip is the guy who tries to get people together to vote on republican legislation, to try to get the requisite 218 votes to pass the bill. they do not have the carrot and stick of earmarks and things like this to move people. mccarthy himself is an ambitious guy. hard to say what his end game is. he only served in the house two terms before he became the third most powerful republican in the

house of representatives. i was interested in his letter climbing -- ladder climbing and his struggle to convince -- host: how would you describe his relationship with speaker boehner? guest: he has worked hard to cultivate that relationship. and john boehner is well aware that mccarthy knows the freshman better than anybody else. mccarthy recruited a lot of these freshmen and has used his office as the unofficial flophouse for the newcomers to hang out in. so boehner takes the temperature frequently of

mccarthy to find out where the rest of the conference is. host: dave from little rock, arkansas. caller: the aspect of grover norquist. eric cantor is all lies. newt gingrich -- these people were meeting at the time that president obama -- to me, what looks like is they are a bunch of angry white men. they used to be in lockstep. this was from day one. all the lies they have been telling on president obama.

they were so angry that a black man became president. grover norquist is their leader. host: we got the point. guest: you are alluding to the meetings that took place on the night of barack obama's inauguration. this was a meeting of about 15 congressmen, senators, and other republican leaders, and the unofficial leader of the meeting was newt gingrich. this is not meant to be a dark conspiracy. it was 15 republicans licking their wounds. westruck andl stro devastated.

"now we control nothing. what are we going to do?" they went through denial and recognize that they have lost their way. they had been and principled. -- they had been unprincipled. they needed to be unified in their attacks against the obama administration, to attack vulnerable democratic congressman and to attack vulnerable cabinet matters -- cabinet members. with the hope of taking over the house in 2010 and using the house as the pitch fork against the obama administration. that is what came to pass.

grover norquist is key because of his "no new taxes" pledge. nobody had to put a gun to their habit to sign the pledge. -- nobody had to put a gun to their head to sign the "no new taxes" pledge. grover norquist was in lockstep with them. i don't think he had to be coercive. host: you describe the three types of congressman. guest: one is a congressional leader like john boehner or cantor or mccarthy. another is a committee chairman.

the third is a congressman who is content to represent his district. that was given to me by tom delay, who himself had been in leadership guy. i use it in the book to apply to john dingell, who would been the most powerful democrat on the energy and commerce committee and had used energy and commerce to build up one of the committees into a great fortress of power. he was kicked out of leadership by as fellow democrats, by nancy pelosi and henry waxman. he had to content himself with being a congressman in the third category. john dingell at 85 still knows

how to get things done. host: mike is our next caller. caller: you guys to a wonderful job. good morning. i wonder if you have a opinion of my representative in arizona. guest: i do not know him well. i did not focus on him. he was a thorn in the side to house leadership and has been on whip team and was kicked off because he voted one way even as the majority whip was asking him to convince people to vote the other way. i mentioned in the book that he

had gabrielle giffords got along well. her last acts as congresswoman, she gave him a tour of the capital. the next day the terrible tragedy occurred. those are the only mentions that he gets. host: isn't he in a primary right now? guest: ben quayle said barack obama is the worst president of my lifetime. nobody thought he would be thrust into a primary where he would find myself having to defend his conservative credentials. it is pretty clear this guy is conservative. that has been one of the more emotionally racking for the

republicans with in the house primaries that we will be seeing. host: here's the cover of the book, "do not ask what good we do: inside the house of representatives." robert draper is the author. caller: good morning. i want you to comment on my assessment of the current house. the republicans have shown they have no idea about how to govern. you did speak to senator reid's position on how to deal with the house. they created a debt ceiling crisis. they could not carry a vote to bring it to a resolution. the democrats had to carry the vote on the crisis they created.

you have a republican house that cannot get legislation passed. they have no accomplishments for the time they have been there. i know that you disagree. you have to be able to get things accomplished. they do not have a clue how to do that. guest: the debt ceiling illustrates the quandary that the republicans are in and the desire on the republican leadership to get things done. when these freshmen went to their orientation, the pollster happened to ask for an informal show of hands. "how many of you would raise the debt ceiling?" four people raised their hands.

the leadership knew this was a problem. they knew that as john boehner said it would be armageddon if economically speaking if they fail to raise the debt ceiling. it became a matter of great exertion on the part of kevin mccarthy. he had these listening sessions where he would try to explain to the freshman republican with the debt ceiling was and what concessions they could extract from democrats in return for voting choices. it did not take. two weeks before the deadline,

the republican leadership was concerned that a lot of the freshmen and some senior conservatives were not get the 8ughught in the broad ban jay powell about what would happen if they fail to raise the debt ceiling. he took them through the narrative -- all of the federal prisons would be closed and mortgage interest. rates interest. 1/3 of social security recipients would not receive their paychecks. people stood up and began to scream at him. "you should be talking about the evils of spending and the need to live within our means, not talking about all this stuff."

this is what the republican leadership had to deal with. speaker boehner would be a minority leader if it weren't for these freshmen that won. these guys were much farther to the right a much more extreme in their thinking and leadership did not know what to do with the debt ceiling. it took heavy lifting to raise the debt ceiling. host: robert draper writes --

guest: yes. that very series of questions became a plaque you'd find around the capital in republican offices and it would say above it, "cantor rule." cantor was more hot wire to the sentiment of the tea party than boehner was.

he recognized this was a conservative movement and a tiger they had by the tail and something they could exploit. boehner did see the debt ceiling as a moment they could extract concessions from the white house. he could play the tea party freshmen as a bargaining chip. "i got a bunch of hot-blooded guys. there will let us default. you have to give us some things if you want us to vote for i t." during the biden talks, cantor says that is not something we're prepared to do at all.

biden says, will we get out of this/ "you have to vote on the debt ceiling." this is exactly what we need. "we're working to educate our guys." host: judy? caller: the idea of compromise. i would like to use a mental image. if you have a plane and i want to go east and you want to go west, where is the compromise? we are best to land where we are until we can figure out where we can work it out. compromise is not a good thing if it gets us going to the wrong place where nobody wants to b e. i see that when they talk about

legislation. if everybody needs to compromise, you probably have the worst elements instead of the best that might have made both sides a little bit happy. a do-nothing congress is not necessarily a bad thing if it stops us from doing the wrong thing. guest: the analogy up to a point may not apply. people refer to the craft of legislation as akin to sausage making. the nation's business has to be tended to. the house controls the power of the purse. they have to decide on a budget.

they have to pass a continuing before. half have faugve to pass coninug resolutions. it costs money to run a country. one of the branches and the other party controls the other, they have to compromise. i do take your point. there are a lot of people who believed it is the kind of

compromise that is endemic to a good, ol' boy system. "too bad about the public." i think a lot of freshmen believe this, as well. one of them said to congresswoman emerson -- she was upset by this attitude that the debt ceiling didn't have to be raised. "what is this about? explain the tea party position on the debt ceiling." "we have spent too much money." is that sentiment there -- there is that sentiment there.

that sounds like teaching us a lesson. causing us to the fault is maybe not the prescription -- causing us to the fadefault. we should be focused like a rule., is the cantor w that is all we should be doing. what are we up to? that is the cantor rule. legislation was put on the floor. allen west talked about it. he was the third five that -- he was perturbed by that.

nine. something unemployment. why bother with a law that would -- west gave a speech in which he apologized to his constituents and to the nation for the lethargy or the lack of focus that his leadership was expanding. host: charles from louisiana. robert draper is our guest. caller: god bless c-span. $16 trillion. we have got to sit down together and get it worked out with this with the downfall of this country.

are we going to have a follow-up book on the people leaving the democratic party? he could not be a democrat anymore. i would love for you to write a book about that. let's get that out there. guest: i am a registered independent. you could argue i am a hack. as for heath shuler, i'm not sure he said he could be a democrat anymore. the democratic party wasn't as hospitable as it once was to blue dog democrats. shuler was the co-chair of the blue dogs.

he was chagrined that nancy pelosi remained the leader of the house democrats and registered his protest to her on the phone. he ran against her. he is not running because he got redistricted by the republican- controlled state legislature in north carolina. his progressive crown jewel of his district, asheville, has been stripped away. shuler would have had a lot of trouble gaining re-election. he recognized the going impotence that moderate democrats have had in his own wing. he has other things he can do in this time and he decided to bow out.

host: do you see a follow-up to this book? guest: i have become interested in the institution and did a lot research for that, some of which did not make it into the book. as engaging as i found a lot of these characters, it is dispiriting to write about a body that does not function. with these 87 republican freshmen coming in, there would be an element of attacking the obama white house and the house might come to resemble the world wrestling federation than a legislative body. i do not think it would be a body of stalemate to the degree that it has been.

the characters are colorful but the outcome is a tough one to cover. whether i could stomach another marriage of on that remains to be seen. host: ann honor democrats line from north carolina. caller: thank you. i think we recognize the significance of a meeting that the top 15 republicans had during the inauguration of the president. i think they met to plot ways to make the president fail. there one goal was to make this president fail. one of the things they decided to do -- they were going to vote no on everything the president

proposed, not looking at how that would hurt the american people. if people did not -- it did not make any difference to them. guest: their goal was to regain power. this is a distinction may be without a difference. there have been other reporters who ever written about this before. i interviewed most of the 15 participants and got a pretty granular sense of what happened. it was a this nefarious meeting with the great powers behind the curtains decide what will happen in america. this is a bunch of guys who got their butts kicked. "we are irrelevant now and we

should be irrelevant to gather." these guys began to talk about how they can get their power back. nowhere in the conversation was, "let's find ways to work with the president." one thing that was not mentioned during the course of this dinner was the state of america at that time. the democrats in many ways behaved as if they did not care in 2009. passing a cap and trade bill out of the house. it was destined to fail in the senate. "people were worried about the job situation and the economy. what is passing this bill have

to do with any of this?" the democrats seem to suggest that they did not carry either. they will overplay their hand. the democrats do not care about you and struggling americans. they care about the big- government agenda. host: we have a tweet from jim. guest: assuming that all -- i would give him a c-minus, maybe. he tried to fashion deals with speaker boehner.

there has not been as much outreach with other democrats. he even has upset progressive democrats we think would have been in line with him. the chairman of the congressional black caucus has dealt with a lot of frustration during the course of the 112 congress. the republican made offensive comments about keith ellison, who happens to be a muslim. the obama administration, even without the explicit probing of the republicans, was cutting back on committee block grants that he felt were important to

minority communities. there was a program that chairman cleaver was instigating along with several republicans to address areas of persistent poverty. he took this to the president. speaker boehner was on board with this. paul ryan was on board with this. the president tried to dissuade cleaver from passing the poverty initiative. so there were problems with obama. it shows how difficult it is to the president. there are a lot of elements within congress you have to deal with. host: the manual lever in jeb hensarling -- emanuel cleaver

are good friends. guest: he sat on the super committee. emanuel cleaver growth in texas, 40 miles outside of dallas. he and jeb hensarling were very close. jeb hensarling was in agreement with a cleaver that it would be a good thing to flows of money to persistent poverty regions. host: this is the book, "do not ask what good we do: inside the house of representatives." robert draper is the author. thank you for being on the program. guest: my pleasure. host: we will discuss the use of

military drones. then the federal government as a bank. >> mitt romney will appear. he kicked off his general election campaign. today the campaign stops off of the fort smith ship pier. the first lady will deliver remarks in arizona as part of the day four-state push in the west. other stops include in mexico. president obama meets at the white house with the japanese foreign minister. they will hold a joint news conference today at 2:00 p.m. and you can watch it on c-span.

those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> four years ago i was for washington outsider. four years ago, i love oked like this. today i looked like this. four years from now i will fight thlook like this. [applause] [laughter] that is not even funny. >> mr. president, the remember when the country rallied around you? that was hilarious. that was fear that if one yet.

50 the thrill to the head of the president. he paid a heavy price. there is the term for the guy's .ife terms.y knot two >> you can watch the red harvard and behind-the-scenes -- even behindhe fat profired carpet ad the scenes. host: this is bill roggio and we have often that the use of both drones.ary

guest: the program has increased over the years. pakistan.cus on fat his stahav f there was a strike in yemen. alot of this is due to the drones.expanded fleet on rmede are the unamre

drones. they are effective for the of the federal neff of off. pilot.on't have a fil remotely operated. manned cruise strkes inside yemen. the fifth half of them live on 10 strikes in somalia. host: how high up do they fly? guest: there is a bunch of

different models. the two main ones include the predator. th model.a steal whole slew of smaller drones, about the size of a small airacraft. they fly for several miles. the main drones could fly for 12-18 hours over a target and

hover 10,000 feet over the battlefield. several have been shot down or crashed. the taliban claimed to of shot some down. >> the cost to be of to $81 million per drone. do you know where they are built? $8 million or $9 million. that is one of the benefits of the drones. if you lose the aircraft, you do not lose the pilot.

the avionics on the aircraft. that is one of the benefits. all the major defense manufacturers are putting drones out there. host: "the wall street journal." was the policy change -- what was the policy change/ guest: this has been relaxed well before this article came out. there was writing about this back in march. the administration appears to be targeting top level al qaeda leaders, but they are targeting foot soldiers and local

commanders inside of yemen. there have been a 13 drone strikes this year. they have ramped them up. there was only 16 strikes prior. other conventional aircraft as well. the administration is saying that it appears al qaeda will conduct attacks in the united states. the united states is taking sides against al qaeda. a provincial capital in yemen. host: in your view, what is the

downside of the increased drone use? guest: if we are not honest about how we are using these, if we're conducting these strikes are trying to conduct these strikes overly -- whenever there's a strike, it appears in the media almost immediately. there is a bad will in the muslim world. the drone strikes have had low civilian strike a numbers. these are military operations. a group in a country that we are not at war with. there's been under the table approval. i think the problems are

mitigated. this is a public-relations nightmare. the u.s. will not talk about the program but everybody knows we're idoing it. even the parliament is asking us to halt. there was a strike yesterday. you have the pakistan government feeding the negative propaganda against the united states. it is a real nightmare. the administration is taking credit for strikes they kill al qaeda leaders. crowing about these strikes are refusing to comment on these strikes except for on their terms. i think the american public should have an understanding of what we're doing.

these are real military campaigns that are being conducted in foreign countries. host: we begin on our democrats line from georgia. caller: good morning. the drones -- are they manned- operated from a computer? how are they operated at how do they do their reconnaissance? have a good day. guest: yes. they are operated from control centers. they have video uplinks. the drones are being used by border patrol and by some local police departments and federal agencies. not a lot usage in north dakota

where they use a drone to help get a family that was stealing cattle. a lot of controversy over this. this is not a revolution in military hardware. it is just the next evolution. in the case of conducting strikes overseas, you have a manned strike with a pilot flying over the battlefield. he is pushing a button and conducts an attack. it is remote-controlled warfare. the case of drones, the pilot this happens not to be in the aircraft. they are 9,000 miles away. again, they are pushing a button and connecting remote control warfare. this is a natural evolution.

i think it is more an issue of fear of the increasing surveillance by the government on americans. that is not a problem with drones. the drones are not a problem. if you have a concern, if you have to take that up with your government as far as how they are conducting surveillance. host: the next call for bill roggio is from reno, nev., on the independents line. guest: i was wondering about the legal justification we use for these and other countries. i assume we would not let these countries use drones productivity in the united states. i am worried about the consistency. guest: i want to be clear and i am not a legal expert. i think it is a valid concern. we are setting an example.

we should be more open about what we're doing. we should be making the case as to why we are conducting the program. this is part of the problem. this administration and the bush administration wanted to conduct these strikes in the shadows. the reality is the results are available for the public to see. they have a responsibility. in the case of yemen, pakistan, and somalia, the local governments approve of it. illegal is for us to be carrying out -- how legal is for us to be carrying out operations in other countries, i think the case becomes more difficult in yemen, somalia, and pakistan, and wherever else we plan on

using the drones. that is why there is a lot of animosity for the program and a lot of suspicion. i think a lot of it is warranted. host: i want to go back to a comment he made at the beginning that currently the u.s. is building more drones than fixed wing aircraft. guest: this year or last year was the first year they produced more unmanned systems than manned systems. they're cheaper and easier to maintain. they are not as technologically advanced. when you compare a drone to an f-15, there is no comparison. the drones go slow at several hundred miles an hour. they have limited defense. i believe on some versions you cannot stinger missiles. that is nothing like the other weapons systems. they do not have stopped capabilities.

you can shoot down a drone with a debbie debbie -- with a world war ii aircraft. it is used when the enemy does not have a robust defense system. if you want to fly drones against any modern nation, odds are. they will be shot down -- the odds are good they will be shot down unless you are using the still version. we lost when over iran late last year. -- we lost one over iran last year. chances are they're sharing it with the chinese. >> cents general petraeus has taken over the cia, is he recommending relaxing the use of drums?

someone develop the technology. they could use it against us. >guest: any technology can be used. i think you will have more americans killed by fire arms or automobiles than by unmanned drones in the next decade. as far as the first question, general petraeus has advocated relaxing the drone strikes in yemen. the program is primarily operated by the cia. in yemen, the program was operated by the cia and the joint special operations command. that is where you had manned strikes as well with cruise missiles launched from ships. there have been reports of naval bombardments as well. the reality is the program was

at its peak two years ago with 117 strikes in pakistan. that went down to 64. this year, we are on pace to conduct about 50 strikes in pakistan. the program is in its twilight or winding down in pakistan. officials will tell you is because of card it is defeated. i will tell you is because of the political problems with pakistan. the drones are being used as a tool by the pakistani government to get the supply lines back up. they have continued if we continue the drone strikes, the supply lines will not be reopened. the program is expanding in yemen. i do not see expanding to 170 strikes -- i do not see expanding to the high of 117 strikes in pakistan.

caller: i am concerned. i was reading an article about the 30,000 drones been ordered five -- for the united states, authorized by obama between 2015 and 2020. they want to have it so they can fly into your backyard to see if you are growing a garden that might be used for illegal activity. this is draconian. this is part of the danger ron paul has been warning us about. the border fence might be used to keep the american people in. ron paul is really getting up there. he won alaska. he is doing real good. guest: the drones are just a piece of technology. the issues of surveillance of

american citizens is an issue the citizens have to take up with the government. the government can tap your phone. they can read your e-mail. they asked people over the summer to observe crops in new jersey. surveillance has been occurring by the federal, state, and local governments on american citizens for years. drones is just another tool that will be put in the toolbox. i am not here to comment on how the government should or should not be conducting surveillance of american citizens. people are fearful of the drone itself. if you have a concern with surveillance, you should look to your government. host: the next call for bill roggio comes from wisconsin. terence is on the independent

line. caller: do we coordinate with the other countries to get air space approval before there are any attacks? could you talk about "the long war journal"? guest: pakistan agreed for the u.s. to conduct drone strikes. they have set up a pillbox -- a kill box over to the districts where the drums can operate unfettered. the u.s. rarely strays outside this area. the problem is al qaeda is not just located there.

as we can tell by where we killed osama bin laden and -- we dosenior leaders o have agreements. is the same thing with yemen. they know the aircraft are operating in these areas. they have threatened to shoot them down but that has never happened. i established "the long war journal" in 2007. we have imbedded reporters in the war zone. we're trapped in the war. -- we are tracking the war. we try to be a political and explain what is happening in the major theaters of war and in the shadow war as well against al qaeda and terror groups. host: on its web site, you can

see charts about airstrikes. this is the number of air strikes in northwest pakistan. the red area is the number of airstrikes. this is from 2004 to 2012. 199 airstrikes in waziristan. jodie tweets in. you have some billion versus taliban deaths. the red are al qaeda and taliban casualties. 30 civilians killed in 2011. 405 al qaeda and taliban. in 2012, 77 militants killed. zero civilians.

newport, north carolina, and james on the democrat line. you are on with bill roggio. james? caller: the information gathered, how does it get sorted out? how high does it go to get briefed? guest: the information i am gathering? host: maybe if you talk about the decision making process militarily for sending the drones. guest: before president bush expanded the program in august of 2008, the approval process had to go to the president himself. he loosened the reins on that and allowed the decision to go to the secretary of defense. that has been loosened even further now.

i believe the cia now does have the approval process. my guess is the director probably has a representative that closely watches this and would be able to approve or disapprove for the director, particularly when the strikes are happening every one or three days. i cannot imagine the director in broke in such a tactical issue. intelligence gathered through a variety of means. it is going through the process. they're trying to pick out top al qaeda leaders, taliban leaders, leaders of other groups like jihad, a terror group in china that closely works with al qaeda. the leaders in these groups have all been targeted in starts. there have been signature

strikes as well. they're far more controversial. they are looking for patterns of behavior. they will say there is a bunch of guys meeting at night. this is done in the home of a known of local taliban commander. we will hit them when they get into a pickup truck and start driving toward the afghan border. those are very controversial strikes. you mentioned casualty numbers. i want to discuss this briefly. i think the civilian strikes are between 5% and 10% of overall casualties. that number could probably be doubled. i am basing that number on the pakistani reports out of the area. that is the most reliable information. pakistan is have the most incentive to properly report casualties. i often get criticized for

reporting the numbers. the administration claims it is zero. they have for a long time. i think it is nonsense. you could easily double or triple the numbers i have for civilian casualties and that probably would be right, but that is the best attempt to describe what is happening. we have to remember these strikes are occurring in an area where there is no government control whatsoever. you cannot just walk in and assess the casualties. a lot of information comes out in different ways. host: alabama, darrell is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: you mentioned you are concerned about the transparency and propaganda nightmare with respect to pack a stand -- with respect to pakistan. are you suggesting pakistan would have a veto power? is it more the one is to say

we're doing it and continue doing it -- is the more that you want us to say we're doing it and continue to do it? guest: we're rapidly poisoning the pool in yemen as well. what would have been proper years ago would have been for the u.s. and pakistan to have come to agreement and an honest about what is occurring with the pakistanis explaining the reason why the strikes have to occur. the u.s. would explain to the public that it is working in conjunction with the pakistanis. you still have anonymous officials say yes or no. pakistani officials are saying yes or we looked the way sometimes. others say we never approved these. it is a game of smoke and mirrors. unfortunately, it plays into the enemy propaganda. the proper thing to have done would have been to come to agreement with the host country

and be honest about it. that does not mean you have to be detailed about when you are striking. just be honest about the program and occasionally give a briefing on the status of it. we have had this effect. we will limit civilian casualties. the reality is war is not bloodless. there is no such thing as having a war with no civilian casualties. i think the drone program is the best attempt to limit those. when we conduct strikes and pretend they are not happen, we're not taking responsibility and ownership of the failures of the program as well. host: the last call for bill roggio comes from richmond, virginia. caller: i have a question. the innocent people that killed -- it killed by the drones, will they have the right to sue?

as a yemeni, i know for a fact the issue in yemen is strengthening the central government. basically you have people disagreeing with their own government, not with the u.s. do they name the terrorists? do they tell you this person is a terrorist before the strike them? are the striking a village? it makes no sense. guest: thank you for the question. to answer your question. as far as the legality, there are some attempts to sue the u.s. and british government as well. there were british terrorists operating in pakistan. i do not know if there is any standing in the courts. there has not been a ruling. whether a court will look at

this, i would say is suspect. i know the aclu has filed a lawsuit to get basis information -- basic information on the program. they have not been successful. my guess is there's little to redress for the civilians killed in the strike. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula open states it rules large areas, and it does. al qaeda has raised the banner in towns and cities and provinces. they are attacking in provinces. the yemeni government has come out and said a senior al qaeda leader was killed last week. he served as osama bin laden's bodyguard. we killed an american citizen

when he was killed in the drone strike. he was the head of the al qaeda propaganda efforts as well as an operational commander trying to inspire a tax in the united states. -- attacks in the united states. the strike in 2009 was a horrible mistake that killed 41 if not more civilians. when they did target al qaeda on the arabian peninsula, they occasionally get that information. a lot of the strikes are conducted against legitimate terrorist target. even al qaeda in the arabian peninsula last night released a statement saying he killed one of our senior leaders. last week, the city killed an egyptian jihadist the fraught with us. you have to look at what they are saying, what we're saying as far as the targeting.

the strikes are occurring against those targets. the question is whether the united states wants to become embroiled in the yemeni civil war. these are issues that should be discussed in the public square. host: longwarjournal.com is the website. we have one more segment coming up. this week we will be looking at the federal credit programs for private industry with douglas elliott of the brookings institution. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> consumer spending numbers show americans increased spending last month, but at a slower rate than february. the commerce department says spending increased 0.3%. the numbers are closely watched because consumer spending accounts for 70% of economic growth.

turning to international affairs, bob foo says china and united states are trying to reach agreement before the talks with secretary clinton and other officials in beijing u.s. and chinese officials are trying to find agreement on asylum for the blind chinese activist who fled house arrest over the weekend. secretary clinton and defense secretary leon panetta are holding a joint press conference at 4 >> 15 eastern time. c-span radio will be covering the event. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we have believed police departments are hacking cell phones without probable cause. >> should it require tonight the civil liberties attorney on the

issue. that is on c-span2 tonight. "washington journal" continues. host: doug elliott is an economic studies fellow at the brookings institute. he has written a book. he studies the issue. here is the book. mr. elliott, thank you for being with us. what is a federal credit program? guest: the federal government either directly loans money to the private-sector or more often guarantees the loans. people will lend you money to buy a home. the fha will provide insurance to protect it.

host: what is another example? you have the fha, farm programs. guest: fha, fannie mae and freddie mac, the veterans administration. housing is very popular politically. almost every department does something for it. the next biggest is student loans. that is done through the education department or guaranteed by the education department. that is big, too. as you mentioned, farm programs. you will notice a pattern. there are policy reasons for these areas. every area that gets support is politically popular. small business is the other big one. host: how much money does the government have out in the system? how much is it guaranteeing at this point? guest: when you added up, it is about $8 trillion. the bulk of that is fannie mae and freddie mac, the government

sponsored enterprises that have essentially been take it over. that is about $5 trillion or a little more. the traditional programs for student loans and the small business administration at up to about $2.5 trillion. one thing i find fascinating is we have this ideology in this country that the government stays out of business. in fact, the federal government is the largest bank in the country by a considerable distance. that is what got me interested. host: how much of that money is risky investment? guest: it is all risky in some sense. the problem when you loan money is that they do not always pay you back. a housing part is probably the least risky. we just went through the housing crisis. renault -- we know mortgages do not always get repaid. host: we're talking about federal credit programs.

we have a number for republicans, democrats, and a number for all others. our guest is doug elliott of the brookings institution. when it comes to student loans, i just read an article this morning that they are now at $1 trillion outstanding. what is the return? is there a return on that money for the federal government and taxpayers? guest: it is one of the better programs when you look at the benefits versus the cost. we know as a country we are better off if we have a highly educated work force. this is an area where it is hard for private industry to make the loans. banks are not used to making loans to people that could stretch out 30 years to people who have never had a job before. this is a natural area for the federal government to come in.

we tend to lose a small amount of money on the loans. that is delivered. we have a good guess on how much we will be paid back. there is a subsidy, but it is clearly worth doing to put out a large amount of loans. we just need to do it better. host: in which of these federal credit programs is there a return for taxpayers? is there a profit to be made? guest: the way the budget reports the numbers, which probably overstates the benefit to the taxpayer, some of the programs including the student loan programs, we actually make money. i would not take that too seriously. in general, i think we lose money, but it is delivered. we're trying to provide help to those sectors. -- in general, i think we lose money, but it is deliberate. we're trying to provide help to those sectors. the tarp program is the best federal program ever to be despised by the public.

there is a tremendous misunderstanding of the program. i would have been willing as a taxpayer to pay my part of a couple of hundred billion dollars in losses to achieve what we achieved, which was to keep the banking sector from melting down and putting millions more in unemployment. instead, we broke about even. host: is this tax mayor. the taxpayer money loaned out reported in the federal -- is this taxpayer money loaned out reported in the federal budget? guest: it is reported on a good basis. i have quibbles about how some of it is done. but from the point of view of your viewers, this is solidly done. the estimates of potential losses have been pretty accurate. host: doug elliott is our guest. we're talking about federal credit programs. joshua from oregon, a democrat, your first up. please go ahead.

caller: you spoke about student loans. i would like to have you elaborate on federal student loans and what you can tell me about -- i am on ssi. i have been trying to go back to school for a while. people have been telling me about pell grants. supposedly i am being told you do not have to pay those. . guest: there are two ways we can help people when we want to encourage something like college education. one way is to give the money. the pell grant is one of those. it is a grant. the federal government takes taxpayer money and just gives it

to somebody to encourage an activity. the other way we can do it is to say what is really blocking is a difficulty in borrowing the money. a college education will help someone earning have to pay it back over time. that is a hard thing for a private bank to do unless somebody or their parents are wealthy so they can count on money already there. in general, these programs work best when they do something that is difficult for the markets to do. student loans are a good example of that. host: what is the downside to having the federal government be the largest lending bank in the country. iraq guest: -- guest: 1 is obvious. if things go badly, taxpayers could lose a lot of money.

there were not traditional credit programs that we have to take over. we could lose a couple of hundred billion dollars on that. that is one thing. the other thing is we are a country that believes in private enterprise. the government can borrow cheaper than anybody. if we wanted the government to take over any loan sector, it could easily do it. we want to be careful. we want to have the government making or guaranteeing loans in sectors where the private enterprise system does not work well. host: david tweets in. guest: excellent question. the bulk of that is fannie mae and freddie mac, about $5.5 trillion. for complicated reasons, that does not go on the federal

balance sheet. not that anybody much looks at the federal balance sheet. it does not tend to be there. when you look at the straightforward loan programs done by traditional government agencies, it does show upon the balance sheet. on both sides, you have a liability and an asset. the liability is we borrowed money to make the loan in the first place. the asset is the one. host: roy is a republican in richmond, virginia. caller: maybe you can explain to me why no one ever mentions the fact that the democrats were in control of congress from 2006 until 2010 when the financial crisis occurred. i believe in the way america is supposed to be. i would rather have someone borrow money from a bank and the

bank make a profit than have someone borrow money from the federal taxpayer, have the money confiscated from people, and given to other people, taking money out of the economy. i wondered if people could make the connection between the fact we have a president who hates fossil fuels and capitalism and we now have continual high unemployment and high gas prices. america, be careful what you wish for. four more years of this and we will all be bankrupt. host: anything there that you would like to respond to? guest: there is an underlying point you are making. the lending programs are inherently political in nature. we as citizens have to come together through the political process and decide how to allocate benefits. it is helpful to have the government provide these loans. we have to decide which segments

to help. there is a limited amount we can do. it will always be a political issue. it sounds like you prefer us not to do it for anybody. that is a balanced position. maybe other people would like to see is doing more than we do. we have to work it out in the political process. i happen to be a political independent. i try to stay out of the political side of this. there is a decision when we decide what tax levels to charge or what grants to make. almost everybody who looks at this seriously and neutrally would agree with one of your points. that is that the government ought to only do this if there's a reason the government would be better at this. i go back to student loans. prior to the government providing loans for college education, there were not many loans in the private sector for this. if we're going to continue to have college that is expensive,

there's got to be a way to get money to students to go to colleges. you either give it away, which is even more confiscation of taxpayer money as you put it, or you make the loans and generally get paid back. host: you wrote an argument -- article recently. what are the changes you would support? guest: the one i was writing about in particular to its technical. the essence is this. right now for the budget, we act as if we do not care what the level of risk is. we make the best estimate. the government banks have been good at this estimate of what the losses from a loan program will be. some loan programs have a much wider range of potential outcomes. with tarp, it worked out well. it could have been disastrous.

a very wide range. with other types of loans, there is a narrower range. in the private sector, uncertain outcomes mean you charge more. you are going to love somebody and do not know if you will be paid back, you charge more. i would like to see the budget reflects the risk. host: st. louis, missouri, douglas, a democrat. good morning. caller: i want to address something the last caller just said. we are producing domestically more oil than we ever did under the bush administration. when you talk about taking money out of the economic system, i would rather it go to a government program with a lower cost overhead than a private. the social security administration charges about 3%.

private industry charges about 18%. i have a son who qualified to get into usc. the bare bones minimum charged to my wife and i were $57,000 a year they looked at our income tax and determined how much we have in our retirement. when my wife question to them, the city of retirement money you could use to pay it off. being 53 years and having been to college and the the va program -- under the va program, a look at the cost of school and it is insane. normal people cannot afford it anymore. we're losing a generation of children to economic conditions. people keep saying austerity, but it is not working out.

we have a terrific map of this in europe. host: we have your point. any response? guest: i am from st. louis originally. it is good to hear a local voice. one thing you have implicitly pointed out is an issue with the student loan programs. you have heard me say many positive things about the program. but there is a negative for all of these programs. any time you make it easier to buy something, you end up raising the price of that thing. we provide generous student loan programs. those programs have made it possible for traherne -- for colleges to charge larger sums of money. if these loans were not available, colleges would charge a lot less. they might put out worse education. they might provide your other benefits -- fewer other

benefits, but you do have an effect on price any time you give a grant or loan. we have to find some way to deal with the soaring cost of college. host: according to the congressional budget office, it included $706 billion for student loans last year. there are reports it is not over $1 trillion. -- there are reports it is now all over $1 trillion. other, 3 and $39 billion. what is in the other category? guest: there are still parts of the tarp still rolling off. other emergency programs would be in there. you have other types of business loan programs. we have the export-import banks.

you have a lot of miscellaneous things in there. a fair amount about was due to the financial crisis. that number should get smaller. then you have the energy loan programs of course. host: how much are involved in the energy loan programs? guest: should not have brought it up because i do not have the number. it is a significant number but not the largest category. host: a guaranteed loan is not an actual loan. does it make the budgets an illusion? guest: i should have been more precise earlier. guaranteed loans do not show up on the federal budget as an asset or liability. it is fair in that sense. the bigger question is, do we account for the cost approach. the -- do we account the cost appropriately?

this is an area where the government does a pretty good job with the budget rules. we look at the cost, basically the cash flow. we put money out as a loan. when they get cash in the future in terms of repayment, we take all of that and put into today's dollars and compare. if we're going to put back less in today's dollars than we're paying out, that is the subsidy cost that shows up as an expense in the budget. for a few programs, we expect to get more than we put out. that shows up as a-subsidy, but it is like tax revenue. host: emma tweets. you mentioned energy. we know about some of the solar programs. anything else? guest: the government does not

do a huge amount of lending or guarantees in the business sector. there is a belief small businesses are unusually hard to borrow money. it is generally true. it is harder for a little business to show a bank that information they need. energy loans was mentioned. there is a little we do on the technology side. most of that will be through things like the sba. the truth is much more of the money goes to the real and popular things like homes, college education, and small business. host: as a former investment banker, would you recommend j.p. morgan by the student loan debt? does the government sell portfolios of death? guest: they have not been selling portfolios of student loan debt. the small business loan administration guarantees loans

that are often packaged together and sold. it depends on the specifics. they can be good deals. if their price to high, their bad deals, like almost anything. -- if they are priced too high, they are bad deals, like almost anything. host: go ahead. caller: i have been studying the housing markets. i personally believe there are a lot of sectors that played a specific part in the downfall of the housing market. is there any way you think the government should be regulating the banking systems as far as how they lend money? some people cannot afford to own a home. guest: this does not have to do with federal credit programs, but my other area of expertise

is the federal regulation of the banking industry. in terms of that, absolutely. we have learned a lot of lessons from the financial crisis. if you look at dodd-frank, there are many things in there specifically intended to deal with these kinds of problems. basel 3 is an international treaty. it is intended to make sure banks have more capital from shareholders to back up any potential losses. this could be another show. i would be happy to do it sometime. host: "uncle sam in pinstripes" is the name of his book. the government has four ways of

helping credit markets. they can work three partnership between the public and private sectors such as a government- sponsored enterprise like fannie mae. can you give us an example of creating a market and purchasing loans already made? guest: there is a u.s. government body called jenni mae. it guarantees packages of fha and veterans administration loans. the idea is if somebody making a loan knows that they can quickly sell it on to other investors, they are more willing to make a loan. they can take the same money and keep turning it over. they can do a larger volume of business. reducing the risk allows them to use their money more

effectively and helps them. the reason the government does nnot to a lot of this is because private sectors are better at this now than they used to be. fannie mae and freddie mac were set up to provide this kind of support. is not really necessary now in the new markets. they are. imbedded in the markets they are in. it is difficult to pull back as we should. the private market is good at setting up these markets. host: why did you leave investment banking? guest: this is a washington setting, i can confess. in fifth grade, i subscribed to the "wall street journal" and "the congressional record. " it lists what congress did in the speeches given each day. i was hopelessly in meshed in that. it is not surprising i am doing

what i am doing now. host: please go ahead. caller: how could we arrange to have student loans on basis points just like the federal reserve loans money to banks question mark right now, it is a 1% interest rate. how come we cannot do that with student loans? why can we not borrow at the federal reserve interest rates and pass it on tuesday loans -- on to student loans? guest: we could. the problem is the loans to banks are very safe. the loans you are talking about are heavily collateralized. the banks take u.s. treasurys were something like that. it brings them to the fed's discount window. because it is collateral, it is able to borrow almost no cost. with student loans, you are

lending against the potential future income of someone who has not even graduated college yet. historically, many people do default on student loans. if we decide to lend at the government's borrowing costs, that is a decision taxpayers will adore the losses that occur. we could do that. we do to some extent. generally, we have tried to run most of the programs so they are closer to break-even. host: we have this tweet from matt. host: it would be a large number. if the taxpayer were paying, -- guest: it would be a large number. if the taxpayer were paying, we

would probably pay professors less. here, we violently disagree. i am a political independent. the reason i supported the tarp and still do is it was intended to keep the banks from completely melting away. if they had, you would've had the mother of all credit crunches instead of about one we have. millions more would have lost jobs. businesses would have found it hard to borrow money needed to keep going and do what expansion they have done. the ordinary taxpayer would have been badly hurt. the ordinary taxpayer would have been badly hurt if we have let the financial institution meltdown. it is available as an e-book and paper version.

it is too long to be directly available online. that is a great question. you are really talking about a cost-benefit analysis. you are saying these programs have societal benefits and direct costs as well as indirect costs. it turns out to be hard to balance. part of the problem is it can be subjective. i have gone on and on about why i think student loans are a natural federal loan program. i do believe that. trying to figure out how much better taxpayers are 50 years from now because of the loan programs is very hard. i strongly believe it still loans will more than pay for themselves. on the other hand, you pick a different one. i am sorry if i enrage part of the country. i am not an expert on this particular expert. it appears agricultural loan

programs do not have a good return to the taxpayer. they were put in place at a time when it was hard for farmers to borrow because the financial system was structured differently back then. the studies i have seen say it is easier for farmers to borrow than for non-farmers on average. this fuelled land prices. it makes it hard for farmers except for those who already own their land and are looking to sell. host: you are on with doug elliott from the brookings institution. caller: i have concerns with the government loans. whenever there is a subsidy, it seems like the college itself knows it is out there and is available. the next thing you know, tuition goes up. you are in the same situation. my second comment is, all money

in the united states comes from the federal reserve, which is a private institution. it is non-governmental. who is getting the return on that money? where does it go? i think that is why ron paul wants to audit the federal reserve so we really know what is happening to that money. it could go overseas. guest: let me take your second point first. any profits made by the federal reserve goes to the treasury department and reduces the need for taxes on taxpayers. it is not that the money secretly goes somewhere else. i am in favor of appropriate auditing of the federal reserve. i worry about auditing that would be used as a tool to intimidate the fed in its monetary operations, but that is

a separate matter. on the first point about student loans, i mentioned this problem earlier. anytime you help one sector, whether it is grants for students or loans, you encourage the demand for that. we're in a bind now. we could step back and say federal grants and loans have helped to inflate the cost of college to an unreasonable extent so we're going to stop doing them. but if we stop doing them, there would be millions who could not go to college. we do not want that. we end up providing assistance either through outright grants or loans. loans are probably less damaging than grants in this respect. host: another call from your hometown of st. louis. jeff is on the republican line. please go ahead. caller: they got all of these

big companies. they are giving these guys these big paydays. i am trying to figure out, where is my million dollars? i would like to go to the red light district -- >> host: we will move on to david on the independent line. caller: i am concerned we're having the wrong conversation about student loans. we're not talking about the real cost to educate someone. we're talking about the price for a loan. we could do things like provide online education so people could learn on their own for next to nothing and apply some standardized testing that confirms they have mastered the material. nearly every american to get a degree. we do not talk about costs. we talk about the prices of loans.

the guest did talk a little bit about that. i was hoping to continue the conversation. guest: you bring up a great play. one of the fundamental things i would like us to do better with the programs is to focus on what we're attempting to accomplish. for example, we should look at education and say, what do we want from it? what is the best way to get there? then look at the more technical part that i deal with. that is the best way to finance getting there. can the private sector provide the landing? are there reasons the government should step in? you are right. the most fundamental thing is what we want and the best way to provide it. that this happens to be outside of my expertise. -- that just happens to be outside of my expertise. host: two tweets from jean.

guest: i think you have got a couple of different questions. i am not an expert on the legal side of fraud. i will skip that one. in terms of the aid provided to corporations, sometimes it is pure pork. sometimes it can be sensible. we have the small business administration because it is apparent it is harder for small businesses to get loans than we would like to be. it is a well-known fact at this point that most of the job creation in this country, the net job creation, is from small

businesses. one problem we have had in this terrible recession is that small business has been especially hard hit because this recession came out of the credit crunch that made it difficult for small businesses to get the money to start up and hire people. i do think there are many cases where federal and state aid of some kind is useful for taxpayers. other times, it is just a political payoff basically. host: as an expert in the regulation of the banking industry, the you believe the dodd-frank law -- do you believe the dodd-frank what is a positive thing for our banking industry? guest: i do. i am a political independent. this is not a democratic knee- jerk reaction. we had a terrible financial crisis. that led to an awful recession. the cost of that ever happening again is extremely high.

we also know we got there in part because we had 25 good years before that. the dow jones industrial average was 800 in 1982. it is hard to remember now. it went up by a factor of almost 20 times. any risk you took seemed like it made money. people to excessive risk. we got to the point where people. banks did not have enough safety margins on capital and liquidity. they were taking too many risks. dodd-frank works in the other direction. host: we have about one minute left. caller: i was wondering what happened to the old savings and loans that use to make loans on houses. fha used to build very conservative houses. you have to have 20% down. the only allowed so many square feet.

i do not know if that program is still around or not. guest: we are much more flexible about the loans will make now on the mortgage side. it is partly a problem and partly helpful. in terms of savings and loans, a number of them went out of business in the crisis 1520 years ago. others are still around. host: doug elliott of the brookings institution and the author of this book. he has been our guest for the last 40 minutes. thank you for being on the "washington journal." pink you for joining us today. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 -- thank you for joining us today. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] national captioning institute]