discusses drones. later, we speak to harvey pitt on the role of the fcc. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, june 11. here are your headlines. it is been revealed that obama's role is coming under scrutiny. new restrictions on the use of air strikes. in washington, the house is a way but the senate is then. there waiting for a decision on the health care law that could come as soon as today for the supreme court. we'll get to all that this

morning. first, we want to get to you on the issue of political spouses. a first lady, michelle obama and ann romney are stepping up on the political trail. we want to get your opinion on whether or not spouses matter. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. you can also catch up with us on all the social media websites, twitter, and facebook. the spouses on the presidential campaign are stepping up their role on the campaign trail. i want to take to restore from "the washington post" recently.

at the same time that michelle obama was on the campaign trail, ann romney was on the campaign trail. she hit the trail in florida last week so low. she answered questions about a breast cancer treatment center.

we want to hear from you on the subject of political spouses. do they matter on the campaign trail? you can start coming in now. i want to take you to one of those headlines. the supreme court is weighing in on whether part or all of the health care law will be overturned. it is announcing its decision on monday in june. the opinion could, as early as

this morning. we're joined now by daniel newhauser from a roll call. what side seems like it has more on the side politically with this health-care decision that will be announced? guest: certainly, barack obama has the most a politically -- has the most on the above line politically -- on the line politically. host: it may not come out today, is that correct? guest: yes. some people say it is today. certainly, it is coming out this month. host: are they talking about what they are going to do after this decision does come out? guest: both sides are sort of

talking about it. here is what is clear. there will not be any comprehensive legislation to the health care. the american people do not want it. democrats basically say, why rush? there is no reason to rush when they should wait and see what the affects of the health care bill could be as struck down. [unintelligible] republicans are saying that if the district on partially or fully, they will start voting on some of the popular amendments. some of the stand-alone bills.

[unintelligible] health insurance, covering preexisting conditions. things like that that have proven really popular. host: before it to go, what is the white house doing? of staying silent are bracing for an impact? guest: most democrats that the executive level [unintelligible] there have been some press reports saying that obama has been looking at other ways to make the health care bill workable, even if it struck down. basically, it makes it pretty tough. host: daniel newhauser, to write

for joining us this morning. stay on the subject of political spouses, we want to hear more from you. we want to read you one more story. talking about political spouses in march, first lady michelle obama polled more favorably than ann romney.

regardless of her ratings, her husband won the election and reelection. that is from "the daily beast" on the subject. we will first go to barry on the independent line. caller: well, dolly madison was

one of the first really great ones. after that, it is a case by case basis. a lot of the times it just does not work. host: duty it will matter this year? caller: no. it does not matter in the election. what it does is show how things are run throughout the white house in the diplomatic sense. host: thank you for giving us a call down in florida. a few comments on that facebook, to read to you. he writes, absolutely. ann makes mitt presentable socially. another comment on facebook and twitter. want to ticket to that campaign of then we told you about earlier with michelle obama

appeared give you a sense of what she was saying. [video clip] >> we know what we need to do, right? we simply cannot afford to turn back now. we have to keep moving forward. keep moving forward. and more than anything else, that is what we are working for. all of us. that is what this work is about. we're working for the chance to finish what we started. the chance to keep fighting for the values we believe in and the vision we share. we all share this vision. this is an american vision. that is what my husband has been doing every single day as president. virginia, let me ask you one last question. are you in? [cheers}

no, no. are you in? [cheers] because i am in. i am so fired up. host: that was michelle obama in virginia last week. we will go to new jersey, a student on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i, of course, admire mrs. obama and mrs. biden for their efforts toward the veterans. we cannot forget about our veterans and the ridiculous war that there were sent to and the families that have suffered. the one thing i have to say, and i do not know that mrs. romney and knows about this, but there was a very short commercial by one of her sons who said our

mother has raised five of us with no help. i think it also said that maybe someone came in once a week. sure they lived in a 20-room house. don't tell me she scrubbed of the bathrooms by herself every day. if she knew about that, i think she should come forward and say that her son was mistaken. if she didn't know about it, of course, it is not her fault. but i cannot believe she had no help. host: thank you. this morning, jan writes on twitter. ronald lauder out there. she appears more normal and a likable than admimitt. one other comment from joe on twitter.

thank you for the tweets. keep sending them in. of tissue in the the the from ann -- i want to show you a little bit from ann romney's parents' restaurant. [video clip] >> this will be a very important election. this is a very important county. [laughter] it is important that people understand why we are running and what we see as the future for the united states of america. and how much we care about making sure that we bring back a strong economic vitality. that we bring back jobs, i hope, for people that are struggling. host: that was ann romney. your thoughts on political spouses in this 2012 election

cycle. caller: i have a question to ask. after the 2008 election of barack obama was elected to president, she was quoted as saying [unintelligible] i wonder if she loses, or if obama loses in november. i'm sure there will be part of the country. host: ok. thank you for calling in. let's go to mary in virginia. your thoughts on whether or not political spouses will matter on the campaign trail. caller: in 80-something years old. i know house -- i am 80- something years old. i know how to spell potato. i am from idaho.

i know history before world war ii. if you did not raise food in your own backyard, it was weak. my favorite former first lady was eleanor roosevelt. she said, i could never run for president after her husband died over the job. my motto is to not leave and asking anybody to do something i'm not willing to do myself. i cannot travel on the world to kill people did not know during wartime spirit of that was a smart statement. i think michelle obama has tried to teach the stupid people, complaining about the price of food and everything. they dig up their parking lot and golf courses we can all have a food. i think it is a selfish attitude. looking out for

number one. just like michelle obama did, particularly when jimmy carter was running for president. i was trying to tell people that this is the kind of president we need. we cannot even other eisenhower or government. we not need that. as americans, we have an image to perform. i am very proud of the accomplishments i have made in getting my friends and so forth into planting gardens, just like michelle obama is doing now. i think she is a great first lady. she is the first wife of the president, not the fourth or the fifth wife. host: thank you for calling in to talk about 1 michelle obama's key initiatives, the garden that she helps planted the white house to talk about growing food for yourself. again, give us a call in on this.

the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. we will give you a little bit more of michelle obama from one of her appearances last week. we will listen in now. [video clip] >> we want to restore the basic middle-class security for our families. we believe that here in america, folks should not go bankrupt because they get sick. [cheers] they should not lose their home because they lose a job. not in america. we believe the responsibility should be rewarded. that hard work should pay off. we believe that everyone should do their fair share and play by the same rules. you know? the thing that we know -- these are basic american values,

right? these are values that so many of us were raised with, including myself. host: that, again, was michelle obama at a campaign event last week. we go to thomas. what is the role of a political spouse on the campaign trail? is it to talk policy? the likable? what do you think? caller: it is to be honest. she is not honest as her husband is not honest. and of that lady prior to me -- and if the lady prior to me had all of her marbles, she would understand. i planted a garden. it is true. but they are giving away money for people that dislike us. we do not need that. the spending must stop.

and this man is spending and his wife is spending more in the background. host: you think that michelle obama is playing a role in his decisions on spending? is that what you are saying? caller: yes. host: your thoughts on ann romney? caller: that woman is a lady. host: all right. thank you for calling. in richmond, virginia, deborah is waiting on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i am not good. thank you for calling in. caller: if we had already had women's presence, " if we had women in charge of the country, there would be no war. but, of course, the women had to

know who they were. and as far as the lady who called that said she was from idaho and knew how to spell potato, i want you to know you're a beautiful person. a beautiful lady, ok? i love you. and i do not even know you. the man who just called, you know, he is a little off. ann romney, she does not know who she is. she goes along with her husband who wants to take medicaid and things like that from children. you cannot be a mother and not think about other children. host: thank you. one more comment on twitter. actual or potential for sleighs

don't get candidates elected, but they can sure turn people against them. ill., foro chicago, the independent line. mike is waiting to talk about the role of first ladies or political spouses on the campaign trail. what do you think the role is? is it to talk policy? or to be more likable? caller: to be likable. i think michelle obama is likable. just like laura bush was the biggest asset for bush in the end. i do not know if i will vote democrat. [unintelligible] i tried to get my pension and retirement. we get half as much.

it seems like this is the way to go. money goes to the banks and helps the city out. ron emanuel has a new trust fund. we do not get new pensions. they put less money. i think the democrats have a lot to do with my pension. host: thank you for the call this morning. i want to show you one morphemes from a one the campaign appearances in from bambinn -- out to show you one more of the scenes from one of the campaign appearances that ann romney and peered at. [video clip] >> those are going to be tough times and tough decisions. you want someone with character who will do the right thing. i know that about mitt.

but then you look at his experience in the real-world experience of job creation and turning things around. i saw him, always, just being the most, as bill clinton said, stellar businessman. [laughter] i am so glad we heard that from someone else besides me. [laughter] host: one more comment from twitter for you on this subject. political spouses should stay out of politics and was elected by the people. out to point out a few other headlines going on around the country for you. some news just coming out today on commerce. the secretary john bryson being accused of being involved in a

hit and run. authorities are investigating a series of collisions in the san gabriel valley. he was driving a lexus shortly after 5:00 p.m. saturday when he allegedly and rear ended a buick while waiting for a train to pass. after briefly stopping to talk, he left the location. the man followed his car and called 911 to ask for police assistance. authorities said as drugs or alcohol to not appear to have played a role in the crash.

one other issue i want to point out this morning, top lawmakers are wanting a speedy, nonpartisan probe of leaks.

here is what senator john mccain had to say about those comments. [video clip] >> if you look if the information that has been leaked, again, several officials

said they had to remain anonymous because there would lose their jobs. well, why would they possibly lose their jobs if they were not leaking information that has to do with national security? it is obvious, on its face, that this information came from individuals who are in the administration. the present decision irresponsible as commander-in- chief. -- the president is certainly responsible as commander-in- chief. host: "the washington times" has a story. we have a clip of that to show you now. [video clip]

>> the white house was not the source of disinformation. there were leaks, but i talked to the president. he understands that when he commits people to missions that their lives are in state and are atety of americans stake. the last thing he would allow are leaks that would jeopardize the security of americans on these secret missions and the success of those missions. host: and this morning on "washington journal" we've been talking about the role of political spouses. we will continue that discussion for about the next 15 minutes or so. we will go to the democratic line in fresno, california. good morning.

caller: good morning. i was just saying that the role of the first lady is to compliment the president. part of it is to bring the likability. i think day at help with a lot of the women vote or the youth vote. i think michelle obama has done a good job with her exercise and fitness movement. she is pretty likable. i think when they are campaigning, she has to reiterate our policies. she has to reinstate what he is saying and get the message out there a lot more. that is my view on it. host: thank you for getting us a call in from california this morning. i want to take you to another comment on facebook this

morning. i believe that political spouses play a role in helping to define the candidate. are they like us? what do we believe in and work for? such as, which family would be more of a good neighbor, committee member, and which ones would be frequenting the spot and country club? we will go to massachusetts on the subject. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for c-span. as far as the spouses, i would rather listen to mitt romney's so far. i don't care who is talking for

him. host: because of the first lady's position, does she have a different role? caller: no role at all. irrelevant. it is the person who is running. the guy who has the red phone in his hand. host: thank you for calling in from massachusetts. we have been talking about political spouses. there is also a lot of speculation going on that continues to be about the vice presidential pick for mitt romney. "the washington times" votes favorite.the veep

the article goes on to note that chris christie placed second in those polls behind marco rubio. that is the speculation on the republican vice presidential trail. but what are your thoughts on the role of political spouses?

ann romney, michelle obama. good morning. caller: this will be a comment. the only people who know what is going on is the american people. the rest of this world knows what is going on, but our media will not let us know. host: take it to the question of today. the role of political spouses. caller: to me, the whole thing is sickening. that is power. they do not want to be the first lady. i mean, come on. the thing is a joke. but when you hear them going in another direction and sticking to their guns about the four children, the unemployed people, the senior citizens, the homeless, when you get them going in that direction, then you can actually say something.

they can do one thing. that is to make their husbands are looking good and shined bright. why? because they want to be the first lady. it is all the same game. a power and recognition. host: thank you for the call from maryland of this morning. a campaign going on this week. i want to point you to a seat that is up for grabs in arizona. that would be gaby giffords, former congresswoman's seat.

she was shot in the head and six people were killed when a man opened fire outside of a grocery store in january, 2011. she was a well-known figure here. the election is hardly a sure thing. even the democratic opponent cannot say if the reports or the analysis show a tight race. observers on both sides see the election as a barometer of the broader political environment and tension of political organizations. this, of course, ron barbara. former congresswoman-the difference. these are a few of the other political issues. let's go to south north carolina -- to north carolina.

go ahead. caller: we have forgotten the roles of any political spouse has is in the background. she or he has to be strong for their spouse. there are times when the door is closed. host: the private role, not the public role, is what you see as more important? caller: i think so. when you have to make a decision and you have the world weighing on your sold -- on your shoulders, if your wife is not supporting you, you're not going to be thinking clearly. she has two or he has to be a strong support to be able to help them do what they have to do. that is the very most important.

kuala a host: thank you for calling. duress can watchann -- and viewers can watch ann romney and michelle obama tonight. we will get george's thoughts on the role of political spouses in 2012. what do you think? caller: i m a 78-year-old a survivor. i will try to be eight as clear as possible. -- be as clear as possible. [unintelligible] i don't think we can put romney in there.

we would go to war as we did. he spoke about bombing iran. host: what do you think about ann romney? do you find her likable? caller: yes, only her son said she had no help. that is a false statement. host: an issue we pointed out at the top of the segment. i want to point out an article from "the new york times."

host: that is one of the many international issues going on this morning. the other one we wanted to point out is syrian opposition. this is from "the wallstreet journal" this morning.

host: you can read more of that story in most of the papers out there and of course "the

wallstreet journal." bob, your next and the republican line to talk about the role of political spouses. caller: [unintelligible] i think they were a good team together. michelle obama, her and the president just bucket to these rich people. on that last call, [unintelligible] thank you. host: thank you for calling in this morning. michael is waiting on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. the first thing a wanted to say is, i wanted to speak about the perceptions that we have about these females. for one, females are run the relationship between a man and

woman. when a woman speaks, you can understand of the views that they have and of the views the spouse may have, somewhat the same of their counterparts. host: do you think ann romney and michelle obama should be talking more policy on the campaign trail? caller: well, yes, i do think that they should because everyone should be talking policy. this is not a one-man show. this is not a man and a woman show. this is everybody, down to the homeless. we need everyone involved with the political process so that everyone can have a game full understanding. we need to get the president out

of our mind because he it is not the son of a 1%-er. just because i came from an urban neighborhood does not mean that i should love michelle obama. we need to get the true facctts going on in the world. we have a lot of policies from a long time ago that are still being implemented. they have been built on racial inequality. host: thank you for the call this morning. one article i wanted to point out from "usa today."

host: you will be hearing more about that this week. i want to get one last call in. your thoughts on ann romney and michelle obama this fall? caller: they are all the giving speeches. you made a comment on whether or not ann romney is likable. i do not care if she is likable.

it is issues. we need to talk about the issues that are facing the country. not what they wear, how they wear their hair, or whether they are sweet or likable. it just seems to me that we are falling into a popularity contest like "american idol." this is way bigger than that. i think we should focus on the issues and not the personality. host: thank you for calling in. that will be our last common for these 45 minutes. up next, we will speak to lieutenant-colonel john nagl to discuss the war in afghanistan and later, the discussion on the use of jerome's with harley geiger. we will be right back. ♪

quacks the b-52, you know, everyone thinks back to vietnam. -- >> the b-52, you know, everyone thinks back to the vietnam war. there's a different kind of power associated. >> these are two men, union and confederate who fought against each other in 1862 enter the art sitting on the porch, talking abut the olden days. >> we have one to the east marked 901. there really reflect or

reference the moment of the bomb, which was at 902. >> watch for the c-span local content vehicles every month. look for the history and the literary culture of our next up in jefferson city, new jersey. live on july 7 and eighth. >> tonight, john king on the way that technology has changed cnn and filled meeks with their small business subject on "the communicators" tonight at 8:00. >> "washington journal" continues. host: lieutenant-colonel john nagl joins us for the discussion on how the end of the war in afghanistan might look like. we are in an age of

unsatisfying wars. what do you mean by that? guest: we are fighting counter insurgents campaigns. we just concluded a long one in iraq. these are wars in which the enemies strategies and tactics preclude us from using our great military advantages. tot means we're not going surrender these victories. even when we succeed, it is a messy, slow affair. host: what are you expecting is our best exit from afghanistan? guest: success looks like handing off the war to a capable security force, usually with american advisers and the american air power. we are not going to defeat the taliban completely.

it is important to say that the secretary of defense has an important commitment to our afghan partners with american advice and support and air power. host: this is a piece in "the new york times" from last thursday. you're saying the best we can hope for is a sort of a direct model. is that correct? guest: i should say right off the bat that i did not support iraq.sion of i think it will go down as one of america's biggest mistakes. i would say earlier wars are getting worse than better. it turned out at about as well as we could have expected, given the mistakes we made going in and the mistakes that led to us in mating. the government -- to us invading.

the u.s. government is able to stand on its own. there's not chaos. calcutta -- the terrorists do not have a significant base. out of what could have been a complete and utter disaster, we salvaged about as much as we can hope for out of the iraq debacle. host: if we could get that in afghanistan, that is a win? guest: yes. it is a wealthy country, a very well-educated country. as devastated as it was by the desert storm or and a couple years of sanctions after words, there was a lot more to work with their then there was and afghanistan. afghanistan is a much poorer, less-educated place. not as much human capital or

natural resources. it will not be able to succeed on its own. that is the bad news. the good news is that afghanistan and the afghan government is going to continue to what american advisers and american help for the least one decade to come and it looks like that will happen. host: we're talking with the lieutenant colonel john nagl. he led platoons in desert storm and is an operations officer during iraqi freedom. also, the author of the counter insurgency field manual and lessons learned from vietnam. if you have a question about how an end in afghanistan to

work, give us a call. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. if you have some foreign operations questions. one question i'd like to ask, are like to look at the end of your column in "the new york times." you said in counter insurgency, and you would be more likely to succeed if you leave the project somewhat unfinished. explain what you mean by that. guest: chief lawrence, who was an insurgent leader in the first world war said do not try to do too much with your own hands. there will actually succeed better given their culture and their history and understanding of how their own society works.

it can be a key to some degree of justice. of trying to impose our world view, our standards, our patterns of behavior. i think we have to find a way, while preserving basic human rights, at some degree the has the respect for how they want to organize their own society. i think that is one of the things we have learned of the last decade, is to allow them to do it themselves and us to help them. i think we are seeing that happen in afghanistan. host: what do you make of the strategic partnership that the u.s. and afghanistan signed to define operations going forward after the end date of 2014. guest: i think it was hugely important.

the mentality that americans are quitters, they're going to leave, we enforce that narrative. i think it is important united states has demonstrated the long-term commitment to afghanistan. afghanistan has welcome that long-term commitment. the iraqi government did not. it makes life a whole lot harder for the taliban. it is one thing when they can say, all rights, two more years and they're gone. the president of the united states came to kabul to sign an agreement saying the united states is committed to the security of afghanistan for the next decade. watch the movie "charlie wilson's war." supporting an insurgency in afghanistan against the soviet union in the 1980's, america

abandon them in the 1990's. the only purpose of a war, the dance is could not build a better peace afterwards. the analysis is committed to doing that. i think that is the single best thing we have in the government unlikely to tie the success. also more lives being lost. talk about the calls on the home front you have seemed to end the war in afghanistan. there's an article about the members of groups of congress who call for an end to the war. it came from a republican. he called on the nation's leaders to use the $10 billion spent monthly in afghanistan to rebuild america. with these comments coming from capitol hill, will we be able to

sustain operations? guest: i am pretty confident that we will. what we have learned, both in iraq and afghanistan is that foreign policy -- afghanistan is not a particularly popular war at this point in the united states. it was overwhelmingly popular when we invaded -- when we invaded afghanistan after september 11. this is not a top 10 issue for very many american citizens. one of the remarkable things, to me, as a student of a vietnam, is how well the all-of volunteer force has held together over the last decade of war. i was talking to a group of soldiers were deployed to afghanistan.

they got back a little over one year ago. they remain committed to the fight. they believe we can still achieve a degree of success. i expect america to remain committed to that for many years to come. host: what was the last time this subject was in the headlines? a lot of people were speaking about it on the debate over counter-terrorism over counter insurgency as to which way america should go. can you assess, from your perspective, how we are doing and where we need to go? guest: the important thing to remember in afghanistan is we did not focus on that war from 2002. we had already turned our

attention to starting a war in iraq. counter insurgency is troop intensive. one of the real keys to success in a counterinsurgency campaign is building a local security force. the building and afghan army that can stand most of the issue itself. since then, president obama has a vastly increase the focus on afghanistan. he has nearly tripled the forces on the ground. president obama did a 300% increase. once we started deploying resources to afghanistan, and and we're trying to do now is billed for those local successes. guest: host: on the independent line,

you are on. caller: my feeling is that the war was not wisely but fought. we did drive the terrorists out of afghanistan, which has been our objective. then we decided that we did not need the taliban running the country, so we got more and more involved. we wanted somebody to be our guide. that result is that we are leaving behind, i am guessing, something between 20,000 and 40,000 soldiers. they are like the guard there to protect our guide. they do not want him gone. in the meantime, he goes to china to deal with the chinese.

afghanistan is the treasure trove that everybody says, the chinese will develop. they will build roads and railroads. they will pay good money for their rights. host: your assessment of karzai and the fight against the insurgency. >> he probably has the toughest job in the world. it is difficult for him. we have not always spoken firmly with him and to him. he endured 10 american

commanders during the time he has been president. president karzai is scheduled to leave office in 2014. the important decisions will be whether he steps down and who replaces him. the numbers the caller gave after 2014, that is much higher than the numbers i'm hearing. 20,000 is probably the high end. host: about 91,000 at the moment and that's scheduled to go down in september -- guest: 68,000 by september of this year. that drawdown is in progress. we will have special forces that will continue to conduct operations in the region. a lot of the successes we have

had against al qaeda has been based on intelligence derived from people on the ground in afghanistan and the ability to provide tabs on one the most dangerous places for the estate's today, and that is pakistan -- one the most dangerous places for the united states today. host: leon panetta visits kabul. this is from "the washington post." calling in aircraft. how do you think the decision changes the operation for troops in afghanistan? guest: we have seen this happen over time. we have gotten better at using

force more precisely. collateral damage -- the air force is more precise than we used to be. the collateral damage has gone way down. any mistake is one minstastake o many. it will be difficult to do that. we are going to rely on air power to fill the gap. this process of negotiating with president karzai, whose sovereignty we support and whose independent we're trying to encourage has a responsibility to fight the enemy and to protect his people. that balancing act continues. leon panetta was the american

adviser in afghanistan. one man has terrible back problems. john allen -- that team in afghanistan right now is the right group of people to manage this difficult transition. host: you mentioned john allen. we want to go to his apology last week. here it is. [video clip] >> we are investigating the procedures that were used and the numbers of individuals who were killed. i offer my apologies to the afghan people who are present

today to the governor and assured them we would investigate thoroughly. we will do the right thing in terms of compensation and in terms of restoring, rebuilding that area. we have work to do in terms of the investigation. host: we're here this morning with john nagl with the center for a new american security. robert from florida this morning. you're on with colonel nagl. caller: i have a brief statement to make. does the colonel believe that regulations of war in afghanistan -- syria --

the second question to ask the colonel -- the treaty of the iraqi war and the afghanistan war and the strategic question -- we should avoid all land wars and that was extended to asia. a final comment. the rest of the war in afghanistan. the russians played a prominent part in afghanistan. why do you suspect they are going to -- the area now? host: so we can get through.

guest: in syria, a remains serious. international reports of murder by the regime against its own people. i am in favor of a cautious response. i do not advocate american intervention in syria at this point. i am concerned about what the regime is doing. there is a real crisis in the middle east today. a real chance that not the united states but some of our allies could initiate military action against iran, to put an end to their military weapons program. a real concentration in the middle east. about the wars in iraq and

afghanistan were executed by the president of the united states. both of them were authorized by overwhelming votes in the house and the senate. the constitutional system worked. the american people were able to influence the debate. congress gave the president the ability to wage war. president bush and president obama have both done that. i agree with general mccaffrey on almost everything. we should avoid land wars in asia. when the taliban regime refuses to hand over al qaeda, -- the

airplane went down in pennsylvania, i don't think the united states had any choice except to respond militarily. we cheered the fight against al qaeda. that fight will continue for a long time. we will try to make sure that territory in afghanistan can be used as a base to attack the united states. to cathy on the democratic line from houston this morning. caller: thank you. this is a military mother. you are about to hear the truth. we're committing suicide. john bush and walker.

spies on the american people. say hi, everybody. get the money out. you have to look at the bush uncles. there were sending bad generators to our troops. host: edward on the independent line from north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. glad to talk to you, colonel. i like to speak in a little more civil tone and address some of these issues that the previous caller was trying to get across. there seems to be a lot of reporting that does not quite

make the mainstream in america. what photographic evidence -- the troops are doing nothing but protecting poppies seats in fields in afghanistan. the war in afghanistan has been poorly managed. india needed a base for operations. it is all just a money making rackets for contractors. there are things going on that we are not being told the truth about. the pat tillman story tells the truth about afghanistan. guest: than me go back to kathy, the mother of a sailor and a soldier. i understand your frustration.

my mother's youngest son is a lieutenant in california and he deployed to iraq a couple of years ago. the sacrifices of america's military, the parents, the families, the wives and husbands of those who served our real. i do think we of ask more of a too-small group of military then we had any right to and they have borne a heavy cost. i was most recently in afghanistan in november. i see america's sons and daughters doing good work and fighting to keep us safe over here. edwards concerned about

contractors has some validity -- about's concerns contractors has some validity. a lot of those contractors are patriotic americans and doing tough jobs. a number of them have lost their lives. we need to have more of a national discussion about the role of contractors in america's war. i have written on that subject. host: contractors are a big part in the drone industry. a question on twitter from boringfileclerk. guest: that is a great question. it is important to note that the

hard part is finding your enemy. a lot of the work is based on intelligence gained on the ground. that can happen when we have america's sons and daughters physically present. building relationships with the local population. that will play an increasing role as we draw down the american troop numbers, retaining an advisory prese sence. there will be operated by american soldiers. host: the republican line from -- goose bay harbor?

caller: yes. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question that is not directly militarily involved. i have been interested in the poppy industry in afghanistan. how important is it to the afghan economy? is the illness states replacing that with something more beneficial to them and to us -- is the united states replacing that was something more beneficial? guest: that is a great question. it is about the only thing that will grow there. it can be compressed and carry out on the backs of mules and donkeys. winter wheat will grow in

afghanistan but the infrastructure is not there to send it out. part of our efforts in afghanistan have been to build it and never structure so the farmers have an alternative to poppies. that will remove the lucrative drug trade which is one of the primary sources of funding for the taliban. host: a question on twitter from bill. is not be a good time to explain what they center for democracy and technology is? guest: the old american security was not good enough. it is a defense department think-tank.

the undersecretary of defense for policy. i have stepped down as president. it advocates for in former defense and security policies for america. we do think about the prospects for additional conflicts in the middle east. we have air force assets in the region that are serving to constrict the freedom of action. we have some ideas and present some ideas. our annual conference is wednesday of this week and we'll be releasing papers on the subject. the american military which has been stretched by the last decade of war does have the assets to respond to any contingency in the region and to

influence events in the region. we do remain concerned about the ongoing humanitarian disaster in syria and the prospects for war, which i see as enhanced by the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. host: baltimore, maryland, on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the propaganda that i hear spouted by your guest is so sick you could cut it with a knife. host: what do you disagree with? caller: the nonsense about the september 11 events. that could have been carried out from any nation in the world. he talked about al qaeda.

many people are questioning all of this. i do not believe any of this anymore. i do not believe what your guest is saying. i trust none of them. host: a chance to respond. that: i'm sorry to hear she doesn't understand why we went into afghanistan. that was in late 2001 while the twin towers were still smoldering. when somebody murders 3000 american citizens, it is the duty to pursue them until the ends of the earth. i am proud that america's sons and daughters have brought to justice osama bin laden.

we've taken out the number two members of al qaeda. i think that is a huge accomplishment. the fight continues. we still continue to have enemies. there's not been in other terror attack on this country in the past 10 years. those who disagree of the actions we're taking now -- the drone strikes -- if america is successfully attacked again, there will want to know why more is not done. host: jesse from michigan. caller: good morning. i do not believe a word you're

saying. eisenhower -- [unintelligible] he built a military complex and your part of that. host: when do you think the operation should wind down? caller: right now. the so-called president we have, a man of color -- [unintelligible] we do not bother them. guest: there are of course people in the united states attempting to become terrorists. they have been prevented from taking action.

i do think there is a real domestic threat but the fbi has a good handle on that. it remains true that there are people in the united states who are working every day to try to do violence against america. isk.interests remain at res there's broad bipartisan support. we continue a war against al qaeda. thee working to wind down war in afghanistan while making sure we do not have to go back their 10 years from now. we neglected the endgame against the soviet invasion and as a result, a cancer grew there. host: we have epwvlaw on

twitter. back to the phones. steve from tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate you and the fact that you have served our country. i talked about the drone strikes that happened. 26 innocent people died. "i want that job." my brother was a loving and gentle person before he went into the military. now he is one of the cruelest individuals that i know. host: where do get the facts on

the drone strikes? caller: on the internet. i don't know if it is more or less. guest: the numbers are a lot lower than that. the drone operations give us the ability to attack enemies of the united states in countries with which we are not formally at war without putting as many american boots on the ground. i expect it to be an effective tool of american foreign policy to dismantle al qaeda. that effort has contributed significantly to keeping americans save over the last decade. military to hear that services changed your brother

for the worst. many have served in uniform under fire and it was the most meaningful thing i have ever done. i have seen horrible things. i think that on balance, the experience has made me stronger and hope that is true for your brother, as well. host: about five minutes left in this segment with lieutenant colonel john nagl. he works at the center for a new american security, a senior fellow. doug is waiting. caller: good morning. i would like to say something. i have been in the military and all my brothers were. the people in this country do not understand what we're dealing with over there.

these people are not educated and they are so far behind time. it is like a million years behind us. we went over there and got + everyone of our servicemen -- and god bless every one of our servicemen. we cannot democratize that place. that would be like trying to find a pack of rattlesnakes and democratize them. lives, ourng our money. we need to get out of the place and do the very best we can to get out of there without losing any more lives. guest: doug, thanks to you and your brothers for your service.

there were flaws in the election, to be sure. but democracy is working in afghanistan. life in afghanistan is better than a was 10 years ago. millions of afghan children now in school. i wish that more of the american people could the is visit kabul. it is relatively safe place. the country is making real progress. there are problems. an act in accordance with the national security interests to keep us from being attacked again.

we continue to keep all eyes on the region. it is a country that will continue to get better. the cost is high. i believe americans who served in afghanistan will be very proud of what they have accomplished. host: eric from jacksonville, florida. you're the last caller with colonel nagle. caller: thank you for taking my call. what makes you think the end game in afghanistan will be any different? that country has never been conquered since the beginning of civilization. what they should think it will be different than alexander the great, the british, and the russians?

thank you. guest: i did not serve in vietnam. i served in iraq a couple times. afghanistan will not end like vietnam because of the force we have and the billy that is the u.s. government to conduct long- term operations without incurring the wrath of the american people. there is broad bipartisan support for the continuing war effort in afghanistan and so i believe the drawdown will continue responsibly. america will leave a force of the advisers to continue to support the afghan military. afghanistan will continue to improve over the next decade. america should be proud of what it has accomplished there.

host: colonel nagl, thank you for joining us this morning. up next, we will take a look at the use of drones domestically. then we begin our series looking at the financial agencies with a look at the securities and exchange committee with former chairman harvey pitt. we'll be right back. [video clip]

>> the b-52 -- everyone thinks back to vietnam. they think linebacker operations. they think of the history of the b-52, cold war. so there is a different kind of power associated with the b-52 as opposed to other long-range bombers. >> these are two friends, union and confederate, who knew each other prior to the civil war, who fought against each other at the battle of pea ridge in 1862, and here they are at age 100, sitting on the porch, talking about the old days. >> we have one to the east. it's marked 9:01. the gate to the west is marked 9:03. and they really reflect or reference the moment of the bomb, which was at 9:02. >> watch for the travels of c- span's local content vehicles every month on "book tv" and "american history tv." and look for the history and literary culture of our next stop, in jefferson city, missouri, the weekend of july 7 and 8th, on c-span2 and c- span3.

"washington journal" continues. guest: we have heard about the use of drones being used in battlefield. what about drones being used domestically? harley geiger joins us now. if you could explain how these drones are being used. guest: they are being used in a variety of different places and in a variety of different ways. tracking wildfires, helping police tracked down fugitives that have recently escaped. there is a fair number of concerning uses such as scouting a property before rate swap rate and other surveillance. where they are being used is a difficult question. they are being used along the

east coast and on the border. we do not have a ton of information on where and how they are being used. the faa released a good deal of information on where and how they are being used. the purposes of the use of the drones has not been disclosed. about 18 private contractors use them and60 government entities and research facilities. host: i want to point this out from the most recent issue of "time" magazine.

host: we have a picture from the daily mail talking about some of these domestic drones. that's the drone that is used overseas. this is the dragon fire, about 2.2 pounds. they are used as well. these are what they look like. talk about what bill that was reauthorized in. guest: i am glad you showed some pictures about what the drones look like. they can be as small as state cell phone or as large as a

carrier jet or a cargo jet. there's a huge variety of drones. on valentine's day, the faa modernization and reform act was signed into law. that law had a series of laws and actions that the faa must take in order to integrate drones for early into airspace. right now we're taking some of the steps to enact those rules and take those actions. the faa has been talking with the industry for several years about integrating drones into the airspace.

the relentless advance of technology, robotics to the unmanned aerial systems that become much more common over the past decade. with that has grown a large commercial and government market for drones. this has led to pressure a on to allow drones to fly in public airspace. there was a bill to allow them to do just that. those deadlines became more detailed and specific as the drafts went on, and then there were passed without any hearing on privacy or discussion of transparency. there was no study or support on

the civil liberties side. they are essentially flying robots. many people did not realize that this was put in the bill. organizations -- now it is in the law. there are a series of deadlines dolefully integrate drones into the airspace -- there are a series of deadlines that were integrate jones into the air space -- drones in to the airspace. host: i want you to take the to the congresswoman in the state of the union talk about some of these privacy issues that you

just run brought up. [video clip] >> i have great concern about privacy all over the country, not just about drones. we've lost several liberties based on our need for security. i think we're giving up our security despite the fact we're making more people angry at us all over the world. the argument that peter keane just gave us -- peter king -- this infuriates the rest of the world. i know we have to be strong. i think we can be strong helping them with their policies and what diplomacy. we do not need to put so much of our funds into war machines and

think that we will make friends and make this a safe world. we're not going to. we can have a tougher and tougher and tougher machines and equipment and more scary and we can just the strike our world. not this year or tomorrow, but soon. host: she was on with republican peter king of new york. we will give you a little bit of what he said. [video clip] >> i think drones are a legitimate form of law enforcement. you do not have the expectation of privacy if you are in the open. there is no expectation of privacy.

drones can spot things that are in a crowd and along the border to spot illegals coming across the border. sincenot been attack september 11 and that's a lot better than holding hands. host: harley geiger from the center for democracy and technology, which camp do you fall into? guest: i do believe what representative king that there are many positive uses for drones. i think that the law is outdated and inadequate and that it must change. a nightmare for civil liberties would be to have a network of drones that monitored everybody that was outside on a continuous basis for a generalized security purposes. in a work of drones would be

able to put you on youtube or stream your footage after you step outside your house. very few laws stand in the way of that today. host: if you have comments or questions, give us a call on the republican line, 202-737-0001. on the democratic line, 202-737- 0002. on the independent line, 202- 628-0205. mike is waiting on the independent line. you are on. caller: good morning, c-span. i will try to be brief. the fbi has been positioning to have over 30,000 of these in the skies. you do the math. 800 -- many drones

will be in the sky i. there's a controversy in my county in florida in the oversteps of the constitution. every traffic light, there are traffic cameras. there are citizen cameras. you get off the interstate and -- this doesn't surprise me. this is a going to get worse. the last guest lied about afghanistan. we had 10% of the poppy before

the war. host: let's keep it to this subject. do we have a sense of what the numbers are? guest: the 30,000 number was loose estimate by the faa. the project there will be 30,000 by 2020. that is a pretty staggering number. he reference the availability of traffic cameras. i would counter peter king with this as well. drones can represent a kind of surveillance we have not seen before. they're different from traffic cambers because of their vantage points minute because they can fly. if you turn the camera, the

traffic camera might not see you anymore. but drones are different. drones would be able to track you over a wide area. to do that, law enforcement does not need a warrant probably. there is a supreme court that indicates that might change our right now that is not clear. host: we put up a map earlier. this is a map of launch sites. you can see it here. guest: i believe this is a map -- i reference the privacy group that had sued the faa under the freedom of information act. they put together this map

which shows the institutions that are located that have drone certificates. the faa gave out these temporary certificates. these aware they are located. there will be numerous other sites and the dots on the map will grow much more numerous. that is what a group was able to get out of the faa. it doesn't tell us how they are being used or how many drones are at each of these sites. taboret certifications have been given -- temporary certifications have been given. host: who gets a license and what information you need to disclose to get a license to do this?

guest: there is a distinction between certain aircraft and drones. you can go on to amazon.com and purchase a drone for $300 and you can fly this without a license. that is staggering that you can buy one online. be under 400be under0 feet. you don't need a licence. if you wanted to use it for commercial purposes, you would need a licence. right now the faa is not issuing licenses for commercial use. right now it is mostly

government research drones. you would have to apply with the faa for a special waiver of authorization. the information regards to safety. there's will inquiry into how the drones are being used when it comes to privacy. the faa is not completely transparent about who is using drones and where. you saw the map earlier. that was the result of a lawsuit. i like to see the faa make this as transparent as what they do currently with small aircraft. you could go on there website and search for licenses and registrations of small aircraft by putting in the make and model.

you cannot do the right now with drones and that is something we hope will change as the certification program becomes more permanent. a uas is one of many terms for drones, depending on how they are used. are more terms. the cominmon term is "drone." caller: i have been falling politics for over a quarter of a century now. i'm a long time watcher of c- span and "washington journal." there are so many issues. they do not doubt that the issue of drones will one day end up --

the american public will end up tes.he sight i can see the way the big multinational corporations, that if there are some protections for we the people, that the implementation of drones could be dangerous. that would require c-span to do a segment on the article 5 convention. the girl and conservative groups talking about the need for-- liberal and conservative groups talking about that need for protection. the folks who wrote a

constitution -- if we had a convention today, people would come together and discuss the important issues. host: a chance to comment. guest: he said drones would be used to spy on regular americans. this relates to what the first caller had to say. tone's already being used look at ordinary americans. they're not just being used on the border or overseas. we have seen an arrest that made use of a military-grade drone. that individual was suspected of cattle rustling and he is now appealing his case and it is not

looking that great. congress has now started to pay attention. it would have been helpful if privacy protections had been built into the faa reform act, but that did not happen. but now congress is paying attention. there is at least one bill that was introduced last week that would protect privacy from drones. the text has stopped and made available yet, but it is out there. i understand that there will be other bills. at least they are paying attention. there have been a number of letters from members of congress on paying attention to this since february. they have been asking the faa

which protections have been built in place. onre making suggestions privacy protections. the center for democracy and technology, we have issued a proposal that we think would help quite a bit in terms of privacy protection. it will be difficult to protect privacy from drones, particulates from commercial drones. a need for a warrant from law enforcement to surveil an individual. this is a complicated question. there was a supreme court case, u.s. vs. jones. all nine justices rejected that there was no expectation of

privacy in public places. that was possibly limited to the use of gps being attached to a car. if you put that case aside, there have been a lot of cases that have in essentially said that when you're in a public place, law enforcement does not need a warrant in order to track you via camera. nor do they need a warrant if they're flying a device. the law has been above 400 feet . we would like to see that changed. a bill that would require law- enforcement to get a warrant if they were to surveil an individual. a network of jones being used for general purpose -- a network

of drones being used for general purposes. it to be completely transparent. law enforcement should be prohibited from what urbanizing drones. drones.what ionizieaponizing host: did that include tear gas, rubber bullets? guest: rubber bullets and tear gas in montgomery county in texas. that should be prohibited, in my view. i think that that can be extremely dangerous for civil liberties. i think that it edges into a line that we should not cross. host: you mentioned a letter

from ed markey from massachusetts and joe barton of texas. i have that letter for you. you can also find it on their websites. -- sentences from it host: that is available online. we will go to robert on the democratic line from louisiana. you're on with harley geiger from the center for democracy and technology. caller: hosi have been watching this program and have concerns about this, cameras and so forth. argument and of different theories about 9/11.

call it whichever you will. i've seen an erosion of american rights one by one. if you look at the patriot act, the nsa is spyin gog on us. now they have aircraft. if somebody decided they would take over the government, all the pieces are put in place. i intend to vote against anyone who signed the patriot act because we're being set up for a government takeover. host: we will go to jay on the independent line. guest: i would like to respond to something roberts said. in other people think that is

very kooky. i don't think there is a conspiracy to bring us towards a totalitarian state. we do not know what the world will be like in 20 to 50 years. a loss privacy protections are put in place, there is no reason why the world will not be a darker place. that is the reason to build in privacy protections now. we do not know what the government will be like in 20 years. host: we have a comment on twitter from kenan. you are not going that far? guest: no. drones can have a lot of the beneficial uses and they are being used for a lot beneficial ways. there is a lot great uses.

cinematographer rate and scouting wildfires -- we need to build and privacy protections for the government use of drones. it is more tricky for the commercial use of drones. host: talking about the benefits of drones. this is timothy writing. host: if you folks going in

favor of domestic use. jay from st. louis, missouri. caller: thank you for taking my call. is that a private company? guest: we are a nonprofit. caller: who finds your copy? guest: we take about 50% in private grants and donations. the other 50% comes from private sector sources, including private money. caller: i can see where these drones would be good along the border. this privatization of america, these contractors are getting so greedy. this is a ploy to take away the

military and to keep finding money to the private sector to -- to the private sector. look at the statistics. the money costs of a lot more to support the war in afghanistan with the private contractors and this is another way of making the military smaller. .

guest: this is something that i think is very important. i hear very frequently that drones are nearly like helicopters and there really is no difference from helicopters but a big difference is that as you suggested, they are a lot cheaper. they can be given to many different parties. the analogy is not one drone to one helicopter it's many drones to one helicopter. there are various other distinguishing characters as well. a drone can hover for example

and watch in a wide area for a long period of time. yes, it is beneficial in many ways to give this eye in the sky and so forth to law enforcement agency. as i said, there need to be privacy protections built into the law. host: mitch is waiting on the republican line, good morning. caller: i don't think there's any problem with using the terms because if you're not into any crooked stuff, you really don't have anything to worry about. if you're an everyday person, you just does everything and obeys the law, you're not going to have any problems. i feel that if you don't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. guest: that is actually an argument i hear very frequently when it comes to privacy in general. for me privacy is really about control and the people that have

information about you can use that information to make decision about your life that -- that you may not necessarily want. it's also -- there are a great number of laws out there. can you say that you have not broken any laws in the past month? you may very well have things to worry about. again, we don't know what the world is going to be like in 20 to 50 years. i don't think that your argument conflicts with our call for legislation that requires a warrant in order to use drones to a particular individual. if law enforcement had good reason to watch an individual, they should be able to get a warrant to watch them. same thing with generalized surveillance where we have called law enforcement to obtain

authorization to do that. host: let's go to cincinnati, ohio. frank is waiting on the democratic line this morning. you're on with harley geiger. caller: thank you. i would like to -- this technology is kind of terminatetor style technology. it's very frightening to me. i was wondering what's the things down? this case. guest: recently some fox news

commenttor, discussed shooting drones. the first people that shoot down one of these things is going to be a hero. that actually prompted a response from the association of unmanned vehicles international. host: we had that response. this is the association writing back in response to that. advocate for people to shot down from u.s. air space is irresponsible. monitor weather and wildlife provide disaster relief and respond to emergencies as they did in the fukushima knew clear crisis in japan last year. important uses will be imperilled if they become target. guest: so this is a very real topic of discussion and in fact,

it has already happened, i believe it was in texas. there was a group of hunters that shot down the drone of an animal rights group. it has already happened. this is almost certainly illegal. i absolutely don't recommend it. there is a concept sometime people will reference called self-help in property law where you can take action into your own hands abate a nuance. however that is generally illegal if it's likely to involve peace. a gunshot into the air will involve breach of the peace. however, the fact that we're talking about this and the fact this comes up frequently shows the extent to which americans care about their privacy when it comes to drone. people actually considering and actually shooting down a drone in the air in order to protect their privacy that should indicate to the industry and to lawmakers there's a very real

concern here. you read the response to discussion about shooting down drones. i have been very careful to note there have been many positive uses for drones. what the industries response leaves out is that yes, there are positive uses but there's also very real potential for views. that is why people are concerned about their privacy when it comes to drones. host: we got a little less than ten minutes left with harley geiger with the center for democracy and technology. we'll go to nick on the independent line from fairfax, virginia. you're on the hair nick. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was going to call and speak a little bit about the privacy issue. one of the callers mentioned not having concern about the drones.

they could catch a couple ladies in the neighborhood sunbathing. then there's also a misconception of what the drones are going to be. you mentioned earlier that there are several different varieties of drones. but, there also very tiny drone, they are going to be smaller than the palm of your hands. private sector already got several of those things designed. you can find tons of private companies making very efficient, very easy to fly models what are going to be drone that the we're talking about. host: how easy is it for the general public to get a drone today? guest: , i explained earlier in the program, you can go to

amazon.com. you probably aware that the fairfax police department is interested in purchasing a drone. they have been in the news recently talking about how they will using fairfax county. something i want to say before we run out of time is this, i've heard from several of the callers that they will vote against the use of drones that they are concerned about it and they want to do things about it. the best thing you can do is interact with your local police department and your elected officials. that will make the biggest difference. commenting to a blog post about shooting down a drone calling into a radio program. really what needs to change is the law. there needs to be interaction with the government and telling them your concern and protections you want built into place. an example of that is seattle.

the seattle police department evidently had purchased a drone. the city government i don't think knew about it. they only found out about it through the media after the freedom of information act lawsuit. this outraged many people in seattle. they petitioned the government to do something about it. the seelings -- seattle police department issued an apology. it can work. to take that action, you have to interact with your government official and say i want my privacy protected. host: let's go to annapolis, maryland, sarah you're on the washington journal. caller: good morning. the previous caller said if you don't have anything to hide, you don't really have to worry. that's part of me that agrees with that. but, i also think that we should

think more carefully about the implications because your guest had a very good point about, they don't know what the world looks like years from now. one of the things we can look at is history. when government start eliminating rights of freedom, i think we should all start paying close attention to that. when you look at nazi germany, when hitler was elected, democratically elected, he started eliminating rights. nobody, at the time, thought that he will start a world war and exterminated jews and many other people on top of that were killed in these wars. i think the biggest terrorist of all during that time was actually the german government. they did it in a very

systematically over time. host: harley geiger are there any thing that congress can look into in navigating the privacy issue on this specific subject? guest: precedence, i'm not sure what you're referring to. there are several legislative suggestions that are out there. the aclu has one also. the civil liberty groups are willing to work with congress to come up with a set of guidelines. host: looking back to the patriot act debates, are you hopeful that congress will work with you guys on these issues? guest: yes. whether or not enough members of congress will take action and view privacy as a priority for them, i think as i tried to indicate earlier is largely up to the american people. it is up to them and make it a

priority. somebody mentioned talking about government. it is not just the government, it is also the private sector. there probably going to be a lot more commercial and recreational drones even in government drone. of course the difference government drones can eventually put new jail. something i want to mention before you run out of time, when we talk about drones, we are not just talking about the use of a high definition camera. it is important to know that they bring in a lot of other surveillance technologies as well they really just a platform for various types of sensors. drones have been outfitted already with a variety of sensors including facial recognition, opening wifi sniffers, audio-visual and they can pick up conversations and so forth. already of this is already happening. when we talk about drones, it's important not to just think of

them as a regular video camera. they can be used to gather much more information about you such as identifying you from a dance. host: we'll go one more caller on this segment. spokane, washington, mary on the democratic line. thanks for calling in. caller: yes, hello. my big question is, in continuing this act in 1993 now under the fema homeland security act, a lot of these drones being distributed in the united states originally okay by the u.s. government. once the government get the okay and the people get the okay and then it goes forward. i don't see how the government could have even allowed such a thing to take place due to the fact that this country is found

on -- it's not governmentism, it is patriotism that our country is based on. with all of this going on, more and more it seems like the government has the right to disband the people, but the people are losing their right to disband the government and these drones make the people even more scared to stand up and voice their opinion. i had friends of mine that have been monitored by government drones, standing up and doing political actions in different cities in the united states. you don't hear about it on the news. host: harley geiger i want to get your final thought on this judge. guest: the chilling of free speech and chilling of democratic action is one reason why privacy action should be built into drones. the action that you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about is really going to open up

the door to rather dark age of surveillance around the world if that is the way that we live. again, i urge callers to engage with their government on this specific issue because it's not a matter of if, we now know it's a matter of law. it's a matter of when. the deadlines are set in place and they are hitting us rather fast. host: harley geiger of the center for democracy and technology thanks so much for joining us. up next, we'll have have a discussion -- we begin a lifelong agency including a look at the security and exchange commission with a former chairman harvey pitt. right now we're going to take you to a live shot of the supreme court where we're waiting for the decision on the president's healthcare law. that could come today or any monday of this month in june. stay with c-span for the coverage of the decision.

>> the b52, everyone thinks back to vietnam, they think linebacker operation. they think of history of b52, cold war. there's a different kind of power associated with the b52. >> these are two friends, union and confederates who knew each other prior to the civil war, who fought against each other in

1862 and here they are sitting on the porch talking about the old days. >> the date to the west is marked 903. they really reflect or reference the moment of the bomb. >> watch for the travel of c-span local content vehicles. every month on book tv and american history tv. look for the history and literary culture at our next stop in jefferson city, missouri. on c-span 2 and 3. >> tonight epps president john skipper -- espn president john skipper . cnn national correspondent john king on his way to change cnn. on the communicators tonight at 8:00 on c-span 2.

host: starting today we'll have a regular segment this week on the financial and agencies involved in regulation and enforcement of the rules impacting the u.s. financial system. tomorrow we'll have commodity futures trading commission. we'll talk about the commodity future with chairman gary denseler. on friday, we'll look at the recently formed consumer financial protection bureau with hubert skip humphrey. today, we'll have mr. harvey pitt. give us a broad outline what the fcc mission is and how it's different from other agencies?

guest: the sec commission is fundamentallily to protect investors and to promote capital formation so that new companies can get started with great new ideas and employ people and help boost our economy. the distinctions between the sec and the other agencies you mentioned are first the cftc for example is largely devoted to commodity regulation whereas the sec is devoted to securities regulation. however, the distinction between the two is blurring and has been for the last 30 years. the difference between the sec and some of the banking agencies you mentioned is that the sec has jurisdiction over bank holding companies in terms of disclosure, in terms of their

relationships with shareholders, it does not regulate the act of banking. that is done by the banking regulators. that's the distinction and indeed those distinctions are part of the problem that we've had with our regulatory system. when you have so many different agencies, all working on things that coalesce and converge, sometimes it's hard for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. host: has there been calls to merge a lot of these different agencies? guest: there have. but it is a virtual impossibility. congress has been very reluctant to give up its jurisdiction over the specific agencies and so, there's little likelihood in the senate that you could merge the agencies. host: if you have questions

about the sec, how it work, what they investigate, give us a call in. the republican like is 202-737-0002, the democratic line 202-737-0001, and the independent line 202-628-0205. just give people a sense of the size of the sec, the staff is about 3500 people according to their website. some of the security and exchange groups that they over see are about 11,000, 4500 broker dealers, 450 transfer agents, 15 national security exchanges, 9 nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, 8 act clearing agencies and reviews more than 9100 reporting companies. take us back to 1934 and the beginning of the sec and what it was originally intended to do to get to the expansion that we

have today. guest: our markets were much simpler back then. in essence the main devices were equity securities and also debt securities. equity securities are interests that give people a chance to share in the profitability of a corporation. it gives them an ownership interest. debt securities are ways for people to lend money to corporations and get a return not only in the amount they lent to the companies but also interest on that. today, the world is far more complex and indeed, the dodd-frank act which was passed two years in 2010 basically creates a jurisdiction over swaps or derivatives and split that authority between the sec and the cftc and the market for swaps is over $600 trillion,

which is more than the combined equity and debt market that the sec was originally authorized to regulate. host: if you look at the about us section on the sec's website, the 19 page report make it is clear that the sec first and foremost is a enforcement agency. take us through some of the various enforcement mechanisms. what brings the sec knocking at your door? guest: let me say first that i disagree with the characterization though you are reading it correctly., i think the sec is regulatory agency with enforcement power. i do think its website suggest it's an enforcement agency with regulatory power. it's a big difference. for purposes of your question it seems to me the sec first can

investigate any allegations or concerns about potential wrong doing. that gives the sec the ability to subpoena people, compel them to give testimony under oath. its enforcement step will then make a judgment as to whether they think the law has been violated. if they think the law has been violated, they can then recommend an enforcement action of one type or another to the five commissioners who sit at the head of the agency. host: we should note there, democrats and republicans know more than three from the same party, is that correct? guest: that's correct. the agency is required both to be independent and bipartisan. the two major forms of enforcement action that can be brought are an injunkive action in which the sec has to go into

a federal court and ask the court to provide some element of relief against people the sec alleges have engaged in wrong doing. the alternative is an administrative proceeding and the sec has brought authority to bring its cases before a so called administrative law judge. that's also a judge that someone sits only to hear sec cases. there's a trial in each case and individuals who are found to have violated the law can then be subject to sanctions. host: some of those violations include insider trading, what are some other actions that can lead to an sec investigation? guest: insider trading, is of course one that's been quite prominent in the news but also financial fraud where corporations claim that they are

doing well but are not doing well. there are cases involving giving bogus advice to investors or for professionals in the market. people who don't fulfill the high responsibility that the law places on anyone who deals with the public and tries to help them make securities investments. host: let's take a few calls on this. bill is on the republican line from seattle, washington this morning. you're on with mr. pitt former chairman. caller: thanks. i would like to know why the private banks and insurance agencies has so much control over credit default, swap derivatives that are owed to the united states treasury

department? guest: i'm not sure i fully understand the question. up until the dodd-frank act, credit default obligations and credit default swaps were essentially a function of private negotiation between parties. one of the things that dodd-frank has insisted upon that these instruments be standardized that they be traded on equivalent. an exchange of some sort and they be cleared centrally so that there is greater u.s. control over both the creation of these instruments and the credit that gets involved with these issues. i'm note sure that fully responds to where your question

was. host: let's try erik on the democratic line from atlanta, georgia. go ahead erik. caller: i got a comment and a question. my comment is corporations have a conflict of interest with consumers. because corporations have a conflict of interest with consumers, they have a conflict of interest with voters because voters are consumers. because corporations have a conflict with voters who are consumers, corporations should not be allowed to get info through our media. corporate media is the root to all evil. now my question to mr. pitt, mr. pitt, what derivatives under the sec umbrella, are they regulated? the $600 trillion, does that provide a dark cloud over the world market, the world economy, the world financial market?

how did it get to $600 trillion before anybody decide to say we should take a look at this and maybe we should put some rules and regulates to this derivative market? guest: let me start by saying that although i understand your point about the potential for conflict, well run corporations would view the interests of their consumers to be consistent with their own interests and are wise to promote the interests of consumer and not to stream -- treat consumers as if they have that interest. the important point i think in response to your question is that the -- first the sec has authority in the swaps markets only over security-based swaps.

the cftc has authority over all other base swaps. therefore there is a split of jurisdiction even though the instruments are required to be traded similarly under dodd-frank. but the notion behind dodd-frank was that by regulating those instruments, corporations can get the advantage of these derivative instruments which allow them to hedge risk and allow them to pursue profitable results and goals while at the same time protecting investors to make sure that we're not going to have another meltdown. it's a operate issue whether the law succeeded on that goal. the fact of the matter is, the whole purpose of dodd-frank at

least in title vii dealing with derivatives was to eliminate any conflict of interest and make certain those who trade in derivative interest do so in public interest. host: we're talking with the 26th chairman of the united states securities and exchange commission in 2010 to 2003 mr. harvey pitt. and also a former harvey sec commissioner. guest: it's a global strategic consulting firm. we help governments and businesses deal with very complicated issues as well as corporations. host: let's go to texas, thomas is on the republican line this morning. you're on with mr. pitt. caller: i have an idea that you can eliminate all of these protections and many of the rules and regulations by simply

making a new standard for the securities exchange commission. if you buy one shares or 100 million shares of one share. that stock cannot be worth less once you purchase that. it can be more but not less. what do you think of that? guest: it would be fabulous that people who invested knew that stocks will never go below a certain level. the way our system operates is that the investment in securities is a risk and the risk is that the corporation that's involved may do well, it may do poorly. the laws intended to prevent that risk from being subject to the winds of the people who run the company. no one should be at risk that a

public company will be run fraudulently or that people will steal assets from a company or any of the shinanigans we have seen. that's a risk that investors take and it's one that has to be rel understood. host: couple questions on twitter for you. jim writes in, mr. pitt should the sec investigate congress for insider trading? guest: it's a very difficult question as to whether the sec should investigate congress. but congress has passed so called stock act. now individuals on the hill who trade on the basis of material

or non-public information can be sued for insider trading. as a result, if anyone takes advantage of his or her position on capitol hill, they could very well be liable for the equivalent of insider trading. host: when does that go into effect? guest: the bill passed several months ago. host: what got the momentum to get congress to pass that bill? guest: for years there have been issues that have been raised about the fact that people on the hill, for example, may know that they're working on a provision of a bill. let's take for example, hypothetical, the obamacare legislation, they know certain provision adopted by the committee, may well help certain healthcare provides and therefore those people might go

out and trade in the shares of healthcare providers, knowing in what direction congress is leaning. it was by that possibility that congress should be subject to the same kinds of restraints and the bill passed quite handedly by both houses of congress. host: let's go to earl on the democratic line from detroit, michigan. caller: i realize i may not get an answer from the gentleman. i'm going to ask because of that unwritten rule not criticizing the people that go after you. if you could, i see that you were in charge in 2003. how do you feel the department was run after you left? especially with the -- in front

of congress where they were telling how his company was doing stuff wrong and it was basically ignored. it up does seem like the sec, after you left, didn't do their job. they were asleep at the wheel or were letting things go on to benefit certain people. how do you feel that the department was run after you left? guest: i think that's a very pertinent question and i have no hestation in answering it. i think that the sec has made mistakes. i think that there have been i wants in the sec's history which are unfortunate and reflect problematic behavior. having worked there, both as a young lawyer as the agency's

general counsel and then as its chairman, the one thing i know is the people who work at the sec as a group are very bright. they are very hard working. they are very committed to the public interests that won't prevent them from making mistakes and in some cases serious mistakes. i think the best the agency can do is acknowledge those mistakes and try improve. under the current chairman, mary shapiro, the sec has made enormous strides to improve things where their performance may have been lacking. the one concern that i have, it's a continual one, is that very often people like to find the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. that's what i call a fair amount of bashing of the sec much of which is unfair.

i think the important thing for people to do is recognize the important mission the sec has and assist the agency in doing its utmost to fulfill its important mandate. host: short question from jason on twitter. mr.pitt, do we need dodd-frank? guest: we needed something. unfortunately, i think dodd-frank was not the answer. we had a severe problem with our financial regulatory system. it failed us and that's why we had the melt -- we had the meltdown. dodd-frank was an effort fix that. think it was an inadequate effort. i'm fond of saying partially that god was able to tell the human race what it needed to do

in the ten commandments. congress told the financial service industry what to do in 2000 pages. that is why the dodd-frank bill did not do what we needed it to do. host: let's go to mesquite, texas. cindy is waiting. good morning you're on. caller: hello, a lot of people were mad because they didn't go after the banks. the government bailed out the banks. more or less, the banks were pardoned. did they ever replace the regulator that were suppose to regulate and making sure something like this didn't happen? host: replace the regulator to allow the financial crisis in the first place? guest: first let me say, many

of the people who were in office at the time of the crisis are no longer there. we have a lot of different people in place. some of the people are not only still in place but even more important positions than they were at the time of the crisis. the short answer is, not everyone has been replaced. the problem in my view was the system was not functioning properly and then you had on top of that, regulators who did not react well and did not protect the public interest. i think it's a mistake to think that any of the people who are in office actually caused the problems. i do think that they could have been more useful in solving

those problems and unfortunately for all of us, did not do so. host: let's go to james on the independent line from woodhaven, michigan. caller: being the federal reserve is our major debt holder, why is it that there is no over sight and we have no idea what they do? is there anything maybe we can do about that? guest: that's a very interesting question. much of what the fed does is in connection with monetary policy and monetary policy by definition, needs to be confidential until some period after decisions are made so that the efforts of the fed are not compromised by people trying to take economic advantage of their decisions. notwithstanding that, think your

point is a very valid one. we need a great deal more transparency for all financial regulators and figuring out what the policies are, how the agencies are trying to implement them and what the potential risks as well as the benefits of those policies are, are things that need to be disclosed and disclosed in way that all of us, you and me, can understand as opposed to legalese and the likes. there's a lot of room for more transparency and financial regularration. host: right now the security and exchange exhibition budget request in 2013 is up about 18.5% on their 2012 request. in 2012 it was about $1.32 billion what they were eventually funded for. in 2013 the request is

$1.56 billion. mr.pitt is it enough? do you think they deserve an 18.5% increase? guest: i think there's a need for more money. it's not enough. one of the things that amazes me when i took over in 2001 at the sec, our budget was about $300 million and that was at the time, thought to be an earth shattering amount of money. the problem you have is that one of the things that dodd-frank did is it increased the sec's obligations and responsibilities, exponentially. as a result, the sec needs more expertise, it needs more tools at its disposal. the way to solve the problem, however, is not by strictly speaking, increasing the budget of the sec. but rather giving the sec the ability that many bank regulators have to fund its own

operations by charging the people who benefit from its regulation so that in effect, the taxpayer does not wind up paying for this regulation. host: you remember what the budge the time you left the sec? because there's a very big law, the sarbaen-oxley act. guest: we more than doubled the budget. it was well into hundred million dollars. i'm doing this strictly from memory. there's no question that the increased dramatically. the problem is that no regulators ever going to think that he or she has enough money. therefore, the question becomes how do you make sure that the agency gets all the funding it needs but avoid difficult

economic times putting the burden on the u.s. taxpayer and that's why coming up with self-funding for the sec is a better way to approach these budget issues. host: let's go up to oakland, california, ben is on the democratic line. you're on the washington journal. caller: good morning. i had a question here. huge derivative market, $600 trillion, how much of it is unregulated? once derivative is created and become private and how can the sec or anybody keep up with them? is the provision -- you know huge law that gives the sec some kind of leeway discovering what's going on privately? guest: it's very difficult for any financial regulator to keep

up with new products, new services and developments in the financial markets. you've got very bright and creative people who have the proper motivation behind them to come up new ways to make money. for financial regulators the problem is to stay abreast of all of these developments. one way to do that is by hiring people with far greater expertise and the sec has had in the past. that's one of the things that sec and chairman shapiro is definitely trying to do. bring in people who actually been on the firing line in the private sector and who to put it into vernacular and know where the bodies are buried. that's the kind of talent that the sec

is out recruiting and it clearly needs in order to do the kinds of jobs congress has imposed upon it. host: let's go to harry on the republican line from vatican city, california. caller: my first job out of the law school in 1970 was wall street law firm. back then, self-regulation was under challenge because the break downs in the background system. we had a task force trying to go through the records. if self-regulation came under challenge by the sec and was in jeopardy but what was born out of that was typical. my second job as deputy commissioner for state of

wisconsin security, pat lucy was governor and i became acting commissioner. here is my question. this is fast forward to more recent times. i submitted an article to barrons in september of 2010 in which i had hired an independent phd finance to figure my returns over a three year period from august 1st of 2007 and july 31st of 2010. the question is i challenged in the article any registered investor to come up with one audited result for a client that beat my performance. i had 49% return and person who figured my returns did a hypothetical using the

diversification. that portfolio would have lost about 2%. barrons refused to publish my article . host: we'll go out to texas, pete is on the independent line waiting to talk to mr. pitt. go ahead pete. caller: good morning mr. pitt. my question deals with the fines. i remember during the housing meltdown. i read i believe it was in 2007, got $140 million in profit. the fines that the sec were able to against him were in the $60 million range and those were paid by bank of america or whoever took over countrywide. he didn't have to admit any

wrong doing. this seems like a joke. china has something right when their executive, her people, they do public execution. is there any way the sec might be able to get to that point? guest: well, let me just say the whole question of sec fines has come under scrutiny. very bright and thoughtful judge, federal judge in new york judge jedd raycoff questioned sec. with respect to your question, one thing that i think becomes very important is to understand that when a corporation pays a

fine, that money comes out of usually the corporation's coiffures, its treasury. that treasury is the possession of all of the shareholders. one of the things that has to be balanced in essence is recompensating one class of investors through the funds that are now being held by another class of investors. so, this becomes a more complex question and that's one of the reasons why the issue i think is now under legal review. host: let's go to houston, texas, debbie is on the republican line. go ahead you're on with mr. pitt. caller: they allowed banks to get into the business. one of the other concerns we had

at the time was interest rate swaps because they did not have any accounting rolls. one of the things about derivatives that i've been confused about is you're investing in liability. does that liability becomes an asset or does it remain a liability? the other point i want to make, the banks are not regulated by the sec, they are regulated by the occ who has no concept of the security or the interest rate swap and are in conflict of interest on interest rate swaps on the commercial side of the bank. that's all i had. this is what i see and -- guest: let me just say, i think your comment really highlights a

very important point. that is that the agencies of government need to work together and share information. one of the original proposals before dodd-frank took the form that it did take was that all of the financial regulators will be merged into a single body of sort so that the left hand of government would know what the right hand of government was doing. that was not politically feasible and so we've kept effectively this bifurcated system that we have in place where people are regular laided based on what they were born as. that's why dodd-frank needed to be revised.

host: let's go to georgia. thanks for calling in. caller: my question is, why a person have less than two months out of their years get more security than a person who work higher than their lifetime. host: what do you mean? when you say more security, what do you mean? caller: social security. host: is not something we're talking about today. we're talking about the sec. do you have a question about the federal financial system? caller: okay, i'm sorry. i got the wrong show. host: , you got the right show but another subject. we will go out to new mexico, don is on the independent line. caller: good morning.

wall street was described as a casino. one of the aspects of that casino i see as high frequency trade. my question to you this morning regarding high frequency trade, should they be regulated and should there be a transaction fee for these trades? it seems to me when two-thirds of all the trades on wall street are high frequency trade, the average investor has no hope what so ever of making any money. guest: let me say this, first of all, high frequency trading does raise some significant issues. the sec has adopted and in fact quite recently a number of rules to try to prevent some of the dislocations that we've seen occur. on may 6, 2010, the stock market

dropped 1000 points. it recovered that amount but it caused a great deal of confusion and chaos. the sec has been hard at work coming up with new rules and proposals many of which are now taking effect. the first part of your question, should there be regulation, the answer is clearly yes. second, should there be transaction fees. there are transaction fees and whether or not there should be higher fees for people who engage in in and out trading is i think a very interesting form. i think the government in whatever way it can without preventing people from trading any way they want, should encourage people to be long term investors and therefore higher transaction fees may well be a solution to some of those

problems. host: last minute we have here on the washington journal today. lot of changes to the sec in the last decade or so. are you optimistic about the future the sec stability? gaw -- guest: i am, i think the sec made great stride particularly under its current leadership. i'm quite optimistic as long as we can keep the bashing to a minimum. host: thanks so much for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: we'll continue this conversation about the spot light on the federal financial agency tomorrow. on wednesday the treasury department, on thursday the federal depository insurance corporation and on friday the consumer financial protection bureau. that's our show for today on the washington journal. thanks so much for joining us. we'll see you back here

tomorrow.