he breaks down the almost $60 billion spent supporting projects in the country since 2003. "washington journal to go live with your calls and tweeds and e-mails is next. -- "washington journal" live with your calls and tweeds and e-mails is next. ♪ host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal" on this monday, march 11, 2013. congress is in this week, and president obama will travel to capitol hill to meet with democrats and republicans in both chambers. chuck hagel made his first trip to afghanistan as secretary of defense over the weekend. news outlets are reporting that his trip was complicated by accusations by the afghan president that the u.s. and taliban are working together. we would like to get your opinion on the u.s.-afghanistan relationship. what should the tom b going

forward? here are the numbers to call -- you can also find us online. send us a tweed by writing @csp anwj. you can also join the conversation on facebook. you can also e-mail loss. here is the front page of the new york times, a photograph of defense secretary chuck hagel talking with american troops at a military training center in afghanistan. a story that goes with it says --

other stories --

we would like to hear from you this morning in the wake of these stories. we will talk about some security issues that cropped up over the past week. what you think about the u.s.- afghanistan relationship? what should the tone of the secretary of defense chuck hagel be? as we look to wind down america's military presence over the next year or so. here are more stories relating to this -- the washington times has a big front-page story looking at commanders in afghanistan and the revolving door of generals in afghanistan command.

our first call this morning is from tampa, florida, peter joining us on the independent line. caller: good morning to you. i have a comment about the fact that i am kind of wondering as to what the american military is going to be doing over in afghanistan. i talked to a gentleman over the weekend was -- who was assigned over there in private security. he was updating me about what was going on there, as far as the market up oil prices. he commented that the american public has been told the barrel price. it is actually much lower over

in afghanistan and kuwait and has been marked up immensely by oil companies. for the most part, i think people should be aware of that. i am curious to see how much military intervention there is going to be during the end of obama plus interest -- administration. host: what would you like to see? caller: i think we should be cut in the troop involvement right now. i noticed on nightly business report that the government jobs had decreased 10%. it is quite possible that the military is part of that because of the military industrial complex, which is the biggest chunk of the u.s. budget. as far as i'm concerned, i cannot get on the ballot as an independent in the senate election. that was on my platform, to cut troop involvement in

afghanistan. host: let's hear from darrell in missouri. what should the tom b in afghanistan? caller: i think we should be out of afghanistan. it has been 10-12 years we have been fighting. we have had plenty of time to reflect on 9/11 and what happened. that is the reason we went to afghanistan. since we know what we know now about 9/11, we should never have went into afghanistan or iraq. to suggest otherwise, to me, is complete denial of what actually happened on that day. until we address that issue, we are just slaughtering people in afghanistan and iraq, and it makes no sense. we have no goal. we have achieved nothing. we will achieve nothing.

guest: to take a look at some of the reporting, here is a front- page headline on wall street journal --

host: here is more of what president karzai said -- let's take a listen to what the defense secretary had to say in a press conference addressing the comments. [video clip] >> we did discuss those comments. i told president it was not true that the united states was unilaterally working with the taliban in trying to negotiate anything. the fact is any prospect for

peace or political settlement, that has to be led by the afghans. that has to, from the afghan side. obviously, the united states will support efforts, if they are led by the afghans, to come to some possible resolution, if that eventually evolves. i do not know. i have always believed that it is wise for nations to engage, to reach out. that does not mean that you are prepared to negotiate. you may never get to that point. i think it is far preferable

than war. host: that as defense secretary chuck hagel speaking in afghanistan at a press conference addressing comments made by afghan president hamid karzai. we're asking you about the u.s.-afghan relationship and what the tone should be. kenny in chicago, welcome. caller: hello, how are you? what i want to say is i think they should focus on getting out of this war. we have and with this war for the past 10 years. it is too long. i think they should make every effort to get out of this war and focus on the host of issues that are right here at home. host: what should a message be? what should the tone sound like? should it be a tough approach? should it be friendly? caller: obviously, we cannot

leave the country broken, but we should leave a few people there, do what they can, but really work to get out of there. i think the people can handle it -- not completely themselves -- i think we have taught them enough or they can carry on without our help. host: on twitter -- ben is in phoenix, arizona on the independent line. caller: thank you for having me on. our participation in afghanistan, the effect that has on iran and the planned oil pipeline going through iran, and how that would compete with oil and energy interests in america.

we have companies that are producing power stations that would directly compete with iran. it would be interesting to find out if we are taking on iran to keep the energy production stations coming up. host: what do you think the town should be, of the u.s. government, as it deals with afghanistan? caller: we need to tell afghanistan that we will provide an alternative to iran's power generation. if we do not get serious, iran is going to put in their pipeline. host: here is what jan says on twitter -- looking at underreporting, here is the headline in the washington post -- at our

reporting, here is the headline in the washington post -- an op ed from "the wall street journal" -- mr. karzai coset bizarre logic is that the u.s. does not want to leave afghanistan so it secretly wants the taliban to keep shelling. mr. karzai is shirley playing the nationalist card. but he is doing is increasing the chances that president obama will use mr. karzai as an excuse for the u.s. believe in total when the four coalitions mandate ends in 2014.

that is how mr. obama played it in iraq. as for mr. chuck hagel, it shows how difficult the exit from afghanistan is likely to be. kyl in madison, indiana is a republican. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say that i think it is time for the u.s. troops to pull out. i just retired from the army. with this president over there talking the way he talks, it is time for him to step up to the plate and show his cards. he can take care of himself. the country can take care of itself. host: did you served in afghanistan? caller: no, i served in iraq. host: we will look at the inspector general's latest report on how much the u.s. has spent in rebuilding the nation of iraq later in the program. that will be about 9:15 eastern time. let me give you this -- "the

wall street journal" says the defense secretary in her to a premature withdrawal timeline. what do you think about what "the wall street journal" is saying? caller: i think they are wrong. it is not premature. we accomplished our mission in afghanistan. we did beat the taliban. we got rid of al qaeda. we did accomplish our mission in afghanistan. we have victory there. what is going on over there now is totally different from what was in the beginning. we went over there to step up to the plate and defend this country. on 9/11, the u.s. that destroyed.

we went over there, took care of business, and now it is time to go. host: that was kyl in indiana. let's hear from jesse in michigan and our democrats line. -- on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i like your style, when this post is on there. -- host is on there. i wonder if anybody watched last night brian lamb -- this girl was talking about, trying to force our way of life on them. she was a really nice lady.

the gentleman over there, they will always want war. that is their job. [indiscernible] when george bush was president, all the democrats criticized what he was doing over there. now that obama is in there, you do not hear nothing. i cannot vote for obama because i do not like his attitude towards the war. i just -- i do not believe he is doing his job.

i hope we can get out of there and leave those people alone and come back here and take care of people here, because people are hurting here. this war is not doing us any good. we're spending too much money over there in iraq and afghanistan. it is time for us to leave those people to run their own country. host: jesse mentioned the program "q&a." we spoke to judy williams -- jody williams. she is a 1997 nobel peace prize laureate. keith in georgia, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to say really quickly, i think george bush figured out in 2003, after he had been in afghanistan for about a year, that unless you killed a male under the age of 12 in the country -- every male under the

age of 12 in the country, you're not going to be able to rebuild afghanistan, regardless of how much money put in there, regardless of how many americans were killed. when obama ran for office, he said the war in afghanistan was the war that george bush ignored. george bush did that out in 2003. it took obama about two years to pick up the same thing, that regardless of how many resources be put into it, you are going to end up with a failed state. it is not a function of when we leave, but what the country looks like up one year after we leave. host: what kind of town would you take a girl you were president obama or a leading member of congress? how would you be addressing this issue? -- if you were president obama or a leading member of congress? how would you be addressing this issue? >> it is like being a pilot a

plane. you either have a controlled landing, or crash. every afghan knows we are going to leave, because the russians left under the same circumstances. we are going to be there to support them, feed them, and then, this idea, you cannot give something to somebody who does not want it for themselves. i do not know what he tells the teenagers. that is the closest parallel i can draw. i cannot give something to my teenager that he or she does not want for himself or herself. we can see to it that karzai -- he has to run the army, the police for himself. there is a lot more of the country that he does not control than he does. at this point, you cannot leave the place in total shambles, but

the real test of whether or not it will be able to run itself is not the day we leave, but the year after we leave. that is what we learned in iraq. host: here is a comment on twitter -- here are some facebook comments that have come in. you can join the conversation by looking pour c-span on facebook.

cumberland, maryland, a democratic call. hello, carl. caller: i do not think we have any business over there and never have. all of europe, russia, china, the united states, we have been trying to take over those people over there since the 1800's. the reason is oil. if we take care of our own reserves here and along better with mexico and some other south american countries, we would have all the oil we ever need. we have no business there. we should get out. we should get all of our money out. that includes israel, which was set up as a puppet state of the united states to help control the people of that area. that is all i have to say. host: jim in minneapolis, an independent scholar. -- caller.

caller: good morning. you have people over there that are basically nomads. they are troubled. -- are tribal. is impossible to put these people under any sort of ruling. they will live their lives the way they have for thousands of years. to try to change that -- it is time to pull out of there, get our guys on, let them be. host: that was jim in minneapolis. joining us is tom chancre, a pentagon national security correspondent for the new york times. hello. guest: how are you this morning? host: good, thank you. how surprising was this development of hamid karzai accusing the u.s. of working with the taliban? guest: it was absolutely surprising. we spoke with general dunn

furred, the new commander of coalition forces -- dunford, the new commander of coalition forces. chuck hagel said it was ridiculous claim. hamid karzai as a domestic and international audience. this was surprising, but for the domestic crop. host: how significant was our push back? we are seeing this on the front page of all the papers. this is getting some play here. what are the domestic implications? guest: in afghanistan, it is unclear. in the united states, we have to reassess what kind of partner is mr. karzai going to be. these are very important 12 months ahead in which the entire security mission is transitioning to the afghans. conversations continue about whether there will be any sort of an adoring and military presence after the mission

expires in december 2014. it becomes a very delicate, political, military -- host: are you still with us? we will see we can get him one more time. we lost him. thank you so much for talking with us for a few minutes. he has been traveling with the defense secretary, defense secretary -- as we look at what the papers are saying, here is "the new york times" -- you can see that headline in the new york times. a news conference for women was the setting for president karzai's claim that americans do not want a stable afghanistan. we're asking you about the tone of the less-afghanistan relationship. what you think it should be moving forward?

the new defense secretary chuck hagel trouble over there. -- traveled over there. our next call is from massachusetts. caller: i think it is a waste of time. we got osama bin laden. those countries over there, they have been at war for thousands of years. their leaders, they are nothing but corrupt. my opinion is we should pull all assets out and give them one warning. if anybody attacks our country, we just nuke them. that is it. and a story. we do not need to expend our lives over there. host: what you think the people, citizens of afghanistan who are trying to live their lives and live peacefully? they would presumably get killed in your attack.

caller: they cannot along. i am sorry. there is no reason to put up with this every four or five years. host: dave in florida, an independent color. -- caller. caller: i think we all should have not been there in the first place. now that we all know 9/11 -- it was not an inside job, but we knew it was going to happen. we never should have been in afghanistan. all we are doing is moving over there to take control so china does not take control. i think that we should actually pull out and apologize, as crazy as that sounds. host: talk about that, what we do now. how would you pull out? how would you set a time line for it? caller: we should not have been there in the first place. a lot of innocent people have died in drawn attacks. a bunch of global list have taken over our government --

globalists have taken over our government, they want to take control of assets and resources all over the world. now they are calling us terrorists. they are calling george washington a terrorist. i think we should apologize and pull our troops out immediately and not be involved in any more of these wars. we should not be the world police anymore. host: arthur in texas, a republican. caller: excuse me, i always get nervous. it seems like a read in the paper last year or so that hamid karzai was bipolar. somebody from the fbi was complaining that he is on his medication, off his medication. i do not think this is the first

time he has come out with something like this. i do not think we should take very seriously. if we want to discuss it more diplomatically, i think somebody higher up than the secretary of defense should be talking it over. i also saw on c-span that the taliban had gotten money through some contractors that we had hired to work over there. i remember hearing about that. it made me pretty angry. i would take it as his ramblings. we are there, we might as well try to finish the mission. i know nobody wants to be there. it may be worth it to stay a

little longer, and get something out of it, rather than to just pull out and say, all that blood and treasure went for nothing. host: arthur, what would be your marker of success there? caller: it would be hard to tell from my perspective. since globalization has taken over, and i suspect people interested in having countries so they can get into the globalization movement, that has something to do with it. when you see a free market economy over there, that would be a good indication that our mission is successful. when the taliban agrees to sit

down at the table and get a seat in the government -- which i think is what a lot of them want -- you might call it a success when the government is stable. there are different ways you could measure it. host: thank you, arthur. rick rights in on twitter -- another twitter remark -- let's take a look at some other stories in the news. president obama will be going to capitol hill this week. he will meet with republicans and democrats in both chambers. over the weekend, house republican whip kevin mccarthy was on a state of the union and talked about what might be behind president obama's charm offensive. [video clip]

>> anytime both parties are talking is a good thing. this should happen quite for years ago. is this about politics? or is this a genuine? only time will tell. this president spends a lot time on the road, a lot of time about politics. he walked off his campaign election and he made two phone calls, steve israel, nancy pelosi. is this about winning the house or governing for all of america? only time will tell. >> it could be both. he could like to have a deal, but if you will not, he might say, i will need a democratic congress. >> there is an opportunity for both sides to come together. if president thinks that he just needs to raise taxes, he will get the same answer. if he says where can we come together, he will like the answer. host: that was kevin mccarthy

talking on cnn yesterday about the president's methods for creating relationships with congress. other stories in the news, this from "the washington post" -- we will be watching for hearing right here on c-span on tuesday. hispanic and union leaders in maryland applauded reports on sunday that thomas perez, a longtime civil rights attorney, is poised to be nominated as

secretary of the u.s. department of labour as early as this week. you can see that headline from the baltimore sun, the local newspaper of mr. pereira's -- mr. perez. another story about the sequester, the va is exmpt, but veterans themselves are not. -- congressman ryan, the former vice presidential candidate, has a new budget expect to be unveiled this week. he said the budget blueprint will promote repealing president obama's signature health care law. he made comments yesterday on fox news sunday. also making the rounds on the sunday talk shows was jeb bush, former governor of florida. he has a new book out. here is the story in the washington times --

also from the baltimore sun, progress made on a bipartisan immigration bill. senators agree on how to get legal status to 11 million. -- work visas are proving to be a sticky issue, according to "the wall street journal." you this morning about the u.s.-afghanistan relationship and what the tone of should be going forward given the stories in the news last couple of days. adam is on up -- our next caller

from san diego on the republican line. caller: i was just saying, i think we should leave afghanistan. i think we should just go and let them do their thing. host: how would you do that? would you set a time line? we're looking at a 2014 deadline. would you do it all at once? caller: i would say 2014, i would say that is a good goal. host: what kind of natoma would you take? would you have a tough or friendly tone? caller: you know, we have been here too long. it is getting to the point where it is a bad tone. we should have left five years ago. host: on twitter -- brandon from massachusetts, an independent.

caller: i feel bad because people try so long to get on the line. this is my second time trying to call. i will try to be organized. and did not hear president karzai, but i did want to say, as far as the town, i'm pretty cynical about our foreign policy and afghanistan, when it comes to military action or wrapping up a military presence. we have done that around the world. obama has not rained that in at all. i appreciate that he wants to withdraw troops from afghanistan. taking withwe're drone attacks -- humanitarian efforts aside -- we're not obligated to put humanitarian efforts into the country -- it is a conundrum. i am pretty cynical. i love for policy, but i cannot stand with that, because it is

too rash. i know we marched in there. many say we can march right out. i agree with that. there are unintended consequences. there is going to be so much to lebec from our activity in that region. there already is. there already has been. we're asking for it. i do see a future generations -- i do not think we should nuke them. i want to make that absolutely clear. before you say you want to take any action military or otherwise against another country, you better think long and hard about it. it is an over-the-top statement. i understand, the sentiment of frustration, but the last thing we should be doing, or any of its citizens should be saying, you do not want to set off a nuke anywhere in the world for any reason. that is all i had to say. host: just as a refresher, here

are some of hamid karzai's comments. he said that the taliban were killing afghan civilians "in service to america." he said the taliban is in everyday talks with americans and are setting off bombs to show strength to america. the u.s. government has pushed back firmly against those comments. a little while ago, we showed you some of the sunday talk show comments made by republican whip kevin mccarthy. let's go to the democratic side of the aisle and hear what leader pelosi said, nancy pelosi of california. she was also on a state of the union, looking ahead to the president's trip to capitol hill. [video clip] >> i think these meetings are not something to say, i will do this later. i think it is to say, let's get some things done together to make elections less important. let's come together for the benefit of the american people.

that is our responsibility. if he can diffuse some of their opposition to some of these issues, bravo for the american people that we can get a job done. that is far more important than what happens in an election. host: that was democratic leader pelosi talking about president obama's visit to the capitol hill this week. what capitan would use that as far as the u.s.-afghanistan relationship if your president? on twitter -- dave from florida, a democrat. caller: good morning. i will not go on a tangent, but there are a few things that i would like to say concerning this, with president karzai. it was so important, i feel,

that we did go in there and take care of business and do what we had to do over there. there are so many more issues. i do honestly believe four or five years ago, they should have pulled out our troops. bring them home. host: what do you think the defense secretary should do right now? as chuck hagel gets used to his job, what kind of tone and should he sat? caller: i feel number one, the need to get them out of there, the tone should be, we went in there, we did what we had to do , and that was it. bring them home. there definitely has to be a little more sternness.

there definitely has to be fairness with all of this. there is one thing i would like to say. i do believe with the gold and oil and everything, a good portion of that should have come back here and sent to the afghans, the citizens of their -- citizens there. i feel the reason why they are wanted to keep some of the troops there -- i do not know if anybody else knows this -- there was a ship that was on their -- was found there. several soldiers were missing. one of the reasons they want america out of there now, the

flying ship from the days of atlantis. host: we will leave it there. we will go to war on twitter -- laura on twitter -- a republican on our line from west virginia. caller: good morning. about this afghanistan situation, we need to get out. in north's go to anne carolina. an independent caller. caller: let's not only get out. let's stay out. we were lied to. we know this. the money did not come back over here to do anything. it did not help us.

gas prices are god high. that poor, poor dick cheney -- he needs to be burned at the stake. we all know that. republicans, you're scared to death about him. host: what would you do now? caller: i know you want to change the subject when it comes to dick cheney. host: i just don't want to burning at the stake. -- want you talking about burning at stake. caller: should we talk about a burning karzai? he is bipolar. you knew there weren't weapons of mass destruction and you lied and lied and kept in line to people and now we look like total fools. host: what would you do now?

do you think president obama has the right course of action in mind? caller: i will tell you one thing, i do not agree with everything he says, i do not agree with everything he has done, but i will tell you, he has got a lot moving and a lot going on. we have been shifting -- at least we had been shifting, and he has not been caught in bold faced lies, like those other two crackpots that came before him. host: here is monte on twitter -- next we will talk about

environmental issues which are represented -- representative from a league of conservation voters. we will also look at who hopes to be president obama's environmental appointees. also issues like the keystone xl pipeline, that is coming up. the national organization for marriage president brian brown, we will talk about the supreme court's upcoming or arguments on that issue. we will be right back. ♪ >> one of the things that an early american life was taught to do, she supported her husband's career, usually through entertaining. dolley was both socially adept

and politically savvy. she constructor for entertainment in such a way that she could lobby for her husband under the guise of entertaining. she also thought it was very important to create a siding within the white house, almost like a stage, for the performance of her husband and the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> first lady dolley madison, from a quaker would go into the woman that history remembers, the wife of the fourth u.s. president james madison. we will include your facebook comments and tweets mrs. madison on c-span at 9:00 eastern tonight. >> we cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy. that is why earlier today, i signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber

defenses by increasing information sharing and developing standards to protect our national security, jobs, and privacy. >> there are some things that clearly need to be done with an executive order. but some things can only be done with legislation. part of my reaction is i wish the president had put as much effort into getting some legislation passed and then come out with the executive order, rather than the other way around. >> it has been around for a long time, cyber security. we finished talking about it. we finished wondering what is going to happen, because things are happening every single day that are destroying our intellectual property, which are taking away from our future, and people are very casual about it. newspapers are casual about it. we're not. it cannot afford to be. >> a look at the president's recent cyber security executive order with senator jay rockefeller and congressman max

thornberry, tonight on the communicators at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: good morning, thank you for being here. i wanted to talk to you about what is on the horizon for the environmental agenda in 2013. let's look at the president's cabinet. what are you learning about his goals for his second term based on who he wants to work with? guest: as we saw both in the state of the inning and inaugural speech, president obama has made it clear that climate change is a very top priority. that is why we are excited about the new nominees he has put forward. four years ago, when he announced his first set of nominees, we called it the green at dream team. they were people coming in to make a difference on our public health and environment. look at the new appointments, the same kind of leaders we

need. i am a big basketball fan. it is march madness. when president obama announced that jeanette mccarthy was going to be the new head of the epa, it was a slam dunk for the environment. she has been head of the air division. she will continue that as head of the entire epa. she is smart. she is strategic. it is a great choice. host: at the same time, the president talked about his picks for energy secretary. what can you tell us about him? guest: secretary to was a scientist. secretary moines is also a scientist. gina mccarthy at epa, mr. munoz at the energy department, they understand the critical challenge of the moment. each of them need to use their authority to make progress on the issue of our time which is

climate change. host: we saw one of the nominees who will have some purview of our and our mental issues, sally jewell. but to listen to her testimony. -- let's take a listen to some protest the money. [video clip] >> there is no question we need balance on the use of our public lands. many people, as they enjoy the outdoors, jump in a car to get there. it requires fuel. many of the products that our industry produces are produced in some way or another with materials that derive from fossil fuels. it is important that we take a

balanced approach to both energy development and resource development, with conservation and recreation. i do not think it is an either or. i think it is a both and. by knowing the places that we all collectively believe me to be set aside and protected and recognizing the importance to our economy and our communities of a corporate, state, and responsible development of resources, if look at my background from working on the alaskan pipeline to working with organizations in alaska on mining and elements of oil and gas, i have had that kind of balanced perspective in my career. i would look forward to bringing that to this role. >> would it be safe to say that you agree that part of the department's mission on federal lands is to increase oil production? >> senator, we're blessed with many resources on federal lands.

leaning into domestic oil and gas production is unimportant part of the mission particularly the bureau of land management but also the department of the interior. host: that is sally jewll -- jewell, the president's pick up for a head of the interior department. does that concern you? guest: there is a need for balance. she has a great history. she is head of rei, and her lifelong commitment has been to make sure that people appreciate, understand, and use the outdoors in ways that people -- that are appropriate. we're confident that she understands what we need to do to protect the most important places. one of the challenges is to make sure we do new energy development a right way. as president obama says, in need to lean into the clean energy

teacher, make sure we deal with climate change, which is the challenge of our time. we need to push in the direction of more efficiency and renewables. host: one of the biggest decisions facing the obama administration is aware the keystone xl pipeline. here is a map of where it could go. the state department is poised to greenlight this, essentially. we saw an environmental impact statement that came out. they did not find some of the concerns and our mentalists have raised. guest: from my perspective, it makes no sense. it is not in the national interest. the state department said there is no national security interest to do this, and in the long term, it creates 35 permanent jobs. it clearly has a negative impact on the environment. the new secretary of state, mr.

kerrey, was the leading champion in the united states who understands what climate change is the challenge of our time. as he looks closely at the record that will be created, we're confident he will determine that this does not create our national security, and will clearly do major damage to the environment in the pace a climate change. "the new york times" has an editorial with that sentiment. host: a recent story, the state department opens up the door to keystone xl. guest: let's be clear, we were disappointed in the state department report on the perspective on the impact on climate change. somehow they claim that this development will happen anyway. that makes no sense. the pipeline will basically big

one big -- for taking the dirtiest oil in the planet, running it through the heartland of our country, and most of it will be shipped overseas to china. it will not help our national security. it will go through in our monthly sensitive areas in nebraska. it makes no sense. we think the state department was wrong in not underscoring as what we see as many more climate change impact from the pipeline. we cannot take all the oil and natural gas and all the coal out of the ground. the plant has no ability to survive we do that. we need to leave the dirtiest will in the ground. host: we will see a hearing on the keystone xl pipeline. robert menendez, democrat of new jersey, plans to hold a hearing and the keystone route. you talked about climate change legislation. where do you see signs that that will be picked up? we're seeing a lot in the news

about immigration reform, gun control. its climate change on the back burner? guest: clearly, it is not. let's be clear -- gun safety and -- gun safety legislation, immigration, that needs to go through congress. we do not anticipate major legislation to move through congress. there are some climate deniers running the house of representatives. this house of representatives that just ended was the most anti-environmental. the president under the clean air act can make major progress. three things -- raise his voice, continue to educate the public about the climate change problem. he has begun to do that clearly in his state of the union address and inaugural address. secondly, the epa has the authority under the clean air act to make major progress. i have already cut major carbon pollution from automobiles, the

single biggest step this government has ever taken. now they can do the same on power plants. they can impose standards for new power plants. once they finish that this year, they need to do the same thing for existing power plants. the president can elevate his voice. number two, the epa needs to make progress in cutting pollution from power plants. number three, we need to reject the keystone xl pipeline. host: you just came out with your and our mental scorecard for 2012. it ranks members of congress. -- your environmental scorecard for 2012. it ranks members of congress. if you want to join the conversation, these are the numbers -- our first caller is dave in pennsylvania, a republican.

caller: good morning. i wonder who your favorite basketball team is. host: i am georgetown all the way. [laughter] caller: i knew it. i wondered if you could extrapolate on a president obama's agenda in so far as what he is planning on doing to prevent urban sprawl and to keep some reservation land open for anything ranging from overpopulation to just protecting some of our natural resources. number two, i am very disappointed in recent years because it seems very few people legislatively address animal rights, animal welfare, food supply, all of that. i recently changed from a voracious carnivore to more of a

vegetarian, based upon my interpretation of our animal welfare laws and the slaughtering process. i was wondering if i could get your feedback on some of those issues. guest: i appreciate the question. as we rebuild our cities, make sure the transit -- make sure the transportation systems work to make sure citizens can get around more easily. washington, d.c., is becoming a model for all that stuff. make sure we do not encourage the sprawl to the outer, outer suburbs.

better quality of life with less pollution. a vegetarian diet can be very healthy. look around to the state. there is a lot of activity going on. be in touch with some of them. host: james in wichita, kansas. caller: good morning. i want to comment that the epa does a bang-up job. you can now swim in the tidal basin. the reality is legislatures have decided to gut as much of the clean air, clean water act as possible. deep water drilling is one

example. the never ending assault has to be continued. there is a lot of people behind you. thank you very much. >> bed rock laws were passed back to the 197'0's. president nixon signed those laws and there was bipartisan support. a lot of them are still intact. cutting pollution from power plants and automobiles. the united states house was the most anti environmental in history. there was a fire wall to weaken the clean water act.

we've basically kept those laws in taact. there has been a lot of attack but the public is showing support. the public likes protecting our health. the public is still on our side and the senate has blocked all those efforts. host: here is the voting score card. you can see the states moving up to green, the best environmental scores. the house here, the senate here. how are you seeing legislation move forward if the house has a lot of anti environmental votes. >> if folks want more

information, they can go to lcv.org. you can search back seat to 1971 you can search back to 1971. it is a challenge. over 200 votes were held in the house to weaken environmental protection. senator boxer how to block all those efforts in the senate. we need to make sure that we get more bipartisan support in both houses. republicans and democrats have understood this is not a partisan issue. one of the green as members of

congress from both sides of the aisle understands this. we need to build back at the grass roots will. we're seeing progress in states across the country. host: joe writes in on t witter -- guest: this is not about every pipeline. many will go forward and that is a fact of life. we get energy from many different sources. we will be using natural gas and coal and oil. we need to move toward a clean energy economy. that means more renewables. this is the dirtiest oil on the planet and does not need to come

out of the ground. it will not increase our energy security. it will do permanent damage to the planet. we cannot afford to have keystone go forward. host: we have a question about fracking. guest: natural gas is a challenging situation right now. over 450 new coals have not been billed. -- built. that is the biggest source of carbon pollution, power plants. fracking is challenging. in 2005, was president cheney

got an exemption in the energy act for this process called fracking. if fracking is going to happen, we should make sure we have a better right to know so we know which chemicals are being injected into the ground. we need tougher air and clean water standards. we need to protect certain places. methane gas is released from that process. we need a better technology to capture that methane. host: gene karpinski is president of the league of conservation voters. hi, thomas. caller: good morning. if you are aware

but they are already bringing the oil in regardless of the pipeline. what your feelings are on the difference between bring in by pipeline and by rail and over the interstate highways. i make crude oil pipeline mechanic. i can tell you the hazard to the environment as far as this hydrocarbonnd emissions from rales and trucks -- rails and trucks is much more significant to the environment. when we bring them by pipeline, they use electric motors which are much more efficient and have

little to no emissions at all. with regard to permanent jobs, one of the pipelines i worked on has been there since 1928. when you have jobs, jobs will continue in the future. the number you quoted earlier is very, very low. the amount of people it takes to build the pipeline. you have welders, electricians to set it up. it takes a long time to build as far as the keystone is supposed to go. 3500 i feel is low. i feel there is a greater risk

to the environment by bring it over rail and by trucks. guest: this is not our figure. the state department said it literally 35 permanent jobs. that's not our number. host: construction jobs versus permanent jobs. guest: on the question on the alternative means of transportation, it would be much, much more expensive to do it that way. there is a little bit of that happening now. it would be a gusher out to china and other countries. we need to leave the vast majority of that oil in the

ground. we will help save the planet. host: gene karpinski, the story says the state department has said it denying the keystone xl pipeline would not stop the canadian oil to get to the market by lorrail. guest: that is the point we were trying to make. transportation by rail and other means is far more expensive to do. people will the site there are better ways and to get oil in other ways. some have suggested canada might

built a pipeline out to the west coast for the montreal area. let them try that. trans canada it is all in. you cannot have it that way -- both ways. if we are effective in making the case about this pipeline, great almost no permanent jobs and to permit shawmut -- damage to the planet, we should leave the dirtiest oil in the ground. host: albert is a democrat. good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: i was a mechanic back

in 1971. we discussed all of that when they first came out with the catalytic converter. what about the aviation fuel? we had a problem with that. they made a big deal and a big issue. we do not understand. it has never made a difference. it has never made a difference in the planet. i'm 61 years old. guest: in terms of the automobile impact, we have made incredible progress in cutting our air pollution from

automobiles with the catalytic converter as well as a proposal by the president joining the department of transportation saying we will make the biggest single reduction in carbon pollution. we will go further on a gallon of gas. it is good for energy independence and good for the planet because helps cut the carbon pollution. aviation fuel is a big challenge. some have said we have to do better. the opportunity is there to make airplane engines more fuel efficient. we have done that on cars and on trucks. we have no choice but to do so. we saw a success story with the

automobile. making cars go further on a gallon of gas. that is what the public likes. host: a republican from north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for being on, mr. karpinski. i'm a little bit confused. i thought it would be better to go after the worst polluters on the planet and we can have a real role in the impact falls faster, india and china. we are outsourcing and other jobs to them. we can coerce them to clean up their act. we would be doing a greater good for the world.

going back to some of the other callers. they just than did the gas -- vented the gas when drilling for oil. now they recapture it. it is clean. it seems like it would best serve the environmental groups to go after the worst polluters. guest: you make a very important point about other countries. the united states was the biggest polluter when it came to carbon emissions. we have been surpassed by china which is now the biggest polluter, and india is the third biggest polluter. it is difficult for the united states to be on the world stage

saying you and you need to do better until we get our act together more. our challenge is, let's make sure we're not the leader in the pollution but the leader in the solutions. make sure we used american ingenuity and develop the best automobiles and the cleanest technologies. let's be the leaders in renewables. left lead the world and to export those technologies to china and india. china is making much more investments then we are in clean energy technology of the future. we need to recapture our place and show the rest of the world how it should be done right and taking that leadership and make

the agreements with them to do the same. we need to be a leader first. host: gene karpinski is the president of the league of conservation voters. also the lcd political committee. he was executive director of the research group and was a field director for people for the american way and congress watch. john is from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat and support the president. i know the environment groups have been used by a straw man over the years.

these construction jobs, everybody dismisses them. these are living wage jobs. we do not build anything anymore. there is a lot of middle class families that benefit from construction jobs. everybody focuses on manufacturing all the time. these big projects like keystone -- i want to protect this country for future generations. but we have to eat in the meantime. i wish in varmint to groups would get in front on these issues and shape the movement of the construction so that it is environmental friendly, but we need these jobs. these are jobs that are important to the american

people. they put kids through college and pay mortgages. host: those feelings that you have, do they make you less inclined to support candidates outside of the one you're talking about right now? caller: i know a lot of environmentalists that live in montana. they make their living off the land. we need to strike a balance. i am not blaming the environmental groups. i do not want to live in the third world. but we also have to work. those are non-ounce forcible job.-- non-outsource the baable

guest: the new energy economy and president obama has gone out to dozens of towns and cities highlighting the clean energy jobs of the future. the recovery act would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the new energy future. there are all kinds of ways we can do would. we can repair our infrastructure. the auto industry has made a tremendous recovery. they are building clean, new cars of the country. we understand the new energy future. the difference we have is on the

specific keystone issue where it makes no sense for those particular jobs, to take the oundiest oil out of the gr and ship it to china. we understand we need a new economy. constructing the high-speed rail and repairing our infrastructure, building the new cars of the future -- all these things are part of the jobs of the future. we stand hand in hand with construction workers all the time. host: there is a post in "the huffington post." here is the headline.

a mix of renewable and fossil fuels. he said it is unsustainable. are environmentalists pushing hard enough? guest: all of the above is not our word. that is the president's word. all the push and the major investments and the new direction has got to be for the new energy future. it is building the most efficient buildings and retrofitting buildings. retrofitting existing buildings and making sure new buildings have a contained carbon footprint. it cuts carbon pollution in a huge way.

we need to make progress there. our investments and focus should be on the efficiency in the renewables of the future. that is where we need to make the most progress. host: william in illinois. caller: yes. i like to ask the bar man-to- man -- the environmental man -- they are killing bats. you have all kinds of the west nile disease. what are they going to do about that? host: talking about wind power and the dangers you are seeing.

guest: it has been a challenge that has been raised. the impacts have been overstated in a lot of situations. the wind in history has been sensitive to the concern. they are developing next generation turbines. they have helped to fix the capacity to avoid those kinds of things as much as possible. host: gene karpinski, headline in "the new york times." what are your concerns about this story? what are some realistic approaches? guest: 2012 was an incredible

wake-up year. we saw the hottest temperatures in the united states ever. we saw record floods throughout, forest fires. we saw superstore sandy. that is a snapshot of the kind of impacts we could have. forest fires and droughts in the midwest. we are seeing it across the country. the challenge is -- president obama spoke more forcefully about this. we have seen him elevate this as a top challenge. we have seen the impact. the public understands this is a real problem. there are solutions we can get to.

all the technology is right there on the shelves. it will be difficult to convince some of the republican leadership in the house. big oil is against these kinds of changes. they are heavily invested in the leadership at the house. we have a lot of new champions in the senate. they understand this is about the future. the president himself can make a lot of progress without congress. we need more people to speak out. we need to go back to the states. states are leading the way. the states are a the laboratories.

host: you mentioned a new crop of legislators. some are retiring. four democrats you give high scores to in your scorecard of how members of congress are voting. what does it mean to lose them? guest: same thing happened backin 2012. look state by state. the coup might come up through the ranks. -- lilco might come up to the ranks. somebody like tammy baldwin. summerlike chris murphy from connecticut. some like elizabeth warren in massachusetts or tim kaine in

virginia. we went state-by-state. let's find champions and get behind them. we spent the most money with ever spent in politics. we defeated 11 out of 12. open seats create opportunities. host: let's hear from leonard in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i work for a generating plant that is possibly slated to be closed. i am also a democrat. i believe the environmental issues are serious. i am also for the environment. being in the business, i do know

my company has taken structural and administrative and put them in place to clean the air up. if you were to come to the power plant i work out, we employ union workers. i am a union worker. we will lose quite a few good- paying jobs if they close this plant down without having to other plants to provide the capacity that we do to provide to the public. we also have generators. we have hydro. we used to be in the nuclear industry. i believe this is an opportunity

for the democrats and republicans to seek some common ground for the workers of this country. guest: you said you were from michigan. your senator has been a friend of the environment almost all the time and he is retiring. we need to find a champion to replace him. some plants will be shutting down. it is case by case. we saw this in the recovery act . investment in new clean air does create many more new jobs. the auto industry is in your state and is made a tremendous recovery. they were required to design a

new set of cars that were more efficient and they have had a great revival. industry by industry, there will be some that might not make it. we will create more jobs in the future. host: the scorecard is online. you can see their tally of the senate votes. thank you so much for your time. the supreme court will hear arguments on cases prohibiting gay marriage. we'll hear from brian brown. a closer look at how much the u.s. has spent rebuilding iraq. we will talk to the author of a new government report. >> 8:32 eastern time.

lisa jackson will make an appearance of this week at a gathering. they are gathering to keep supporters of the president motivated ahead of the congressional elections. they also will be focusing on government reforms. there will be a founder's s ummit. an afghan police officer opened fire inside a police station while u.s. forces were visiting. it sparked a fire fight that killed two u.s. troops. beay's incident appears to the latest in a series of insider attacks against coalition and aft corn forces. there was a deadline to withdraw

from the province. one of the debates is whether the catholic church needs a task masker or a people pollpe. want a pontiff that can inspire the faithful. deliberations to choose a new pope begin tomorrow. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> when he was 17, until he died in 1799 at the age of 67. he participated in the political life of the city. he was a justice of the piece of fairfax county.

he represented alexandria in the virginia legislature. he made sure when they chose this area to be the new side of the nation's capital that alexandria was included in the original district of columbia. we're in the ballroom of the tavern. george washington loved to dance. all the ladies love to dance with him. they came here for birthday balls. have one in 8000 because that was too close to his death. today the main street in alexandria is named after washington. alexander has the largest --

this is george washington's home town. >> next we can come out more from alexandria, virginia. saturday at noon eastern on c- 2's book tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brian brown is the president of the national organization for marriage. the supreme court will hear some cases. here is a headline. lay out what the court is going to hear. guest: there are two cases. this article is about the perry

case. essentially it is whether there is a right to redefine marriage. the court has to rule. people in california voted to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman. a prior vote was overturned. they voted again. those against the proposition filed suit. it went through the courts. supporters lost in the lower courts and in the ninth. now it is going to the supreme court. this is the decision on the future of marriage in the country. the second case is the doma case.

this is also -- the court will hear both cases is essentially at the same time. host: what is your basis for your opposition? guest: marriage connects mothers and fathers to children. this is what marriage is. mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. no other relationship is the same. interconnects mothers to fathers -- it connects children to mothers and fathers. whether people can stand up and vote on this issue without the court sure sickening the process and throwing out the votes of 50 million americans.

over 31 states have voted to protect marriage between a man and a woman. it would essentially be throwing out the votes of 50 million americans. this is a critical vote. i think we will win this case. the lot is clear -- the law is clear. there is it hidden right to redefine a marriage within the constitution. prior supreme court, the court said there is no federal right or constitutional right that would make marriage, same-sex marriage the law of the land in this country. the court is being asked to create a new understanding that

hidden is a right to same-sex marriage. it is not true. essentially throw these votes away. i do not think they will do that. host: there is a full-page ad in the paper today. you see a list of members of the military. we have seen 75 republicans signed on to the legal brief in support of same-sex marriage. guest: look at the republicans who signed. most are former office holders. the majority of republicans understand that marriage is the union between a man and woman.

those that want to overturn these amendments were able to find some republicans to sign onto this. very few current office holders have signed on. this is not a new fight within the republican party. they thought social issues were enrolled one --were irrelevant. if the republican party wants to draw new voters in, the last thing they should consider is advocating to redefine marriage. i think most republicans are standing firm on the principle that marriage is the union of a man and woman.

that is the "progressive" sta nd. you will see new voters alienated that democrats have endorsed same-sex marriage and they did not support it. host: our guest is brian brown. here are the numbers to call. democrats, 202-737-0001. republicans, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. you can see those opposed to allowing them to marry legally trending down words. our guest talked about african- american and latino

communities. it shows attitudes shifting among african-americans. 36% of blacks -- host: you are seeing a shifting of opinion among african- americans. who do you represent? who does your group speak for? are you losing people? guest: we of hurt that people are changing on this issue and we saw this exact same type of pulling in california before passage of proposition 8.

there were polls saying we were down by 30 or 40 points. it is absurd. it depends how you ask the question. it still shows a strong majority the route the country believe marriage is the union of an man and woman. i would not accept the data in this poll. there were polls saying this was a neck and neck race in north carolina. the marriage amendment passed in north carolina by 60%. majority of americans believe in this common sense truth that it takes a man and woman to make a marriage. many democrats have stood up to

protect traditional marriage. many folks from different walks of life, different ethnic backgrounds, different faiths understand that there is something that is true about marriage as the union of a man and woman and that government should not try to redefine marriage. there are consequences for people of faith and consequences for what is taught in the school. the more the folks say what they have in their heart they are willing to devote at the ballot. host: those that allow gay marriage are in our range. --

orange. you said there have been repercussions. guest: catholic charities had to change its benefits structure because the district said there is no difference between same- sex and opposite sex couples. hrlich's -religion- organizations have to give the same benefits, and the catholic church could not do this. catholic charities adoption agency in massachusetts were told they could no longer adopt. not allowed to have a tax exemption for a pavilion because it would not allow same-sex union ceremonies. people like me and the majority of americans who voted to

protect marriage as the union of a man and woman. they are saying that belief is a form of discrimination and bigotry. when you put that into the law, you cannot be surprised that then there are profound consequences. this was discussed a lot in california. children are taught that is the same thing to grow up and marry a boy as it is to marry a girl, even though parents disagree. that is a profound consequences. host: jennifer from minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with a guest.

democrats are over sampled more than republicans or conservatives. they are the ones that belief and think that everyone should be equal. the majority of america, we are against that. for christians, they are against it because god says in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination. why should we accept something that man says over want god says? true christians will come to terms if it is ok. the government needs to butt out.

this has nothing to do with them. i think it was horrible in california when the people determined that on eprop that said -- that one prop that said gays and lesbians cannot marry, and i was disgusted. that is basically it. i support him wholly. guest: folks around the country stand up and believe in marriage is the union between a man and woman. there are folks that stand up and say, we believe marriage is the union of command and a woman. i was in france for a rally.

many were speaking for traditional marriage and work themselves gay. you hear this constant refrain of, this is the future. this is inevitable. there are a lot of folks that no a marriage is the union of a man and woman. host: pew looks at regional differences towards gay marriage.

host: let's go to jessica in maryland. hi. caller: hi. i am a little disturbed. i agree with the speaker. i'm african-american. what is going on it seems -- due to the media is changing perceptions and changing the value systems. there's a lot of issues surrounding marriage in my community. people want to get married but due to the social issues, that is not what they do before having children. i am pointing this out to say i

have seen firsthand the destruction when the family unit is not in place and i think that instead of the discussion around gay marriage, traditional families need to be given a voice and to be supported in this country so that we can ensure children have an adequate home and that they are raised properly. this is where the resources need to go. it shows how low we have gone as a society when we're having this debate. host: let's say there was a family, two women raising children. grandparents and aunts and uncles. would that be preferable than having a single parent family?

caller: it is phrased as, if a gay family is providing all the benefits, would that be better than a single mother? when we support the focus back on the traditional family. 'sst: let's get brian brown opinion. guest: trojan do best with a mother and father -- children do best with a mother and father. in countries that have gone far down the road where you see high family breakdown that you were at the point of discussing same- sex marriage. host: let's put the question to you. is that better than having a

single parent family? guest: i think it is in falls question. -- false question. our public policy should be for every child to have a mother and father. the ideal is that children have a mom and dad. we should be working to rebuild the marriage culture. advocates for same-sex marriage put a lot of money into these initiatives. i agree. the very idea that children need mothers and fathers and there is something unique about moms and dads. once you accept the argument for same-sex marriage, you can no longer say there is something

unique about mothers and fathers. they are not the same. two men and two women are not the same as a mother and father, and together in a marriage. host: a democrat from texas. good morning. caller: where did he get the right to get together with 31 other states and discriminate against a whole group of people? how did that happen? i'm a christian, too. i believe in marriage and everything else. i don't think the constitution has anything to do with marriage. getting together and discriminated against them. host: ok.

guest: gays and lesbians have the right to live as they choose but not the right to redefine a marriage for the rest of us. the majority of americans are discriminating and this is what is at stake. if we disagree on a question of public policy, we have an open debate. we do not shut down debate by saying these people are hateful or bigots. that is not right. it is not discrimination to stand up for the simple idea that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. utah was told they can become a state unless they ban polygamy.

is it discrimination for the state to say only two people can marry? why not 3 or four or five people? it is based upon the idea that men and women are different and complement each other. why not 3, four, five? host: jim writes on twitter. marriage?s it hurt guest: that is not what the state is doing. it could decide how to do that. what is at stake is what is marriage. what will the state recognized as marriage?

this truth that many cultures up until 20 years ago in the united states, everyone agreed on for the most part. the state is redefining marriage. the state is putting this unt rue, marriage committee two -- that marriage can be two men, two women. host: let's hear from the dustin. caller: let me quote from the bible. eunuchs --"some un

some like priests will not copulate with women for that reason. are punished and castrated. that is a gay person in roman law. that.worrepresented they want to force people to do certain things. you want to prevent consenting adults to engage with each other. there are plenty of well adjusted children that came from same-sex household. it is a red herring. it is not consistent with christianity.

guest: is not all that important to me about how it is define but rather how it is true. people will differ on the interpretation and a different readings of scripture. the teaching is very clear. >> i was down two weeks ago in memphis meeting with priests. they are very united on this. there is a pretty wide set of a critic's sense of agreement amongst the religious base that marriage it's the union of a man

and woman and with standing up for. there is some disagreement but that is why we have these public policy argument. what is in the best interest of our country? what is in the best interest of children? i think that clearly is the state recognizing what comes before the state -- marriage is the union of a man and woman. host: ibrian brown is the president for national organization for marriage. a little bit about the organization -- it helped get the prop 8 on the ballot in california. one of our followers on twitter -- the internet right then and says --

guest: i think that is absolutely wrong. the reality is that laws against interracial marriage and based on racism was about keeping the races apart. marriage is about bringing the sexes together. you are comparing apples and oranges. we see the plaintiffs in the proposition 8 case tried to make this argument, which is a slur upon good people who believe marriage is the man in -- is the union between a man and woman. they think we are the same type of people that aren't against interracial marriage. that is absolutely out of left field laws that kept to the races apart did just that. they were against marriage. a marriage is about bringing the sexes together. you cannot say "why do you care

about this?" and then at the same time say, those of us the believe marriage is the union between a man and woman are bigots or discriminating or in the same position as those that supported slavery. one other thing -- if you look at this history of the great social movement in the united states, you see the importance of religion. the abolitionist movement was one of those. when folks say why are all of these pastors and priests and rabbis standing up for traditional marriage? dump is a -- don't they understand the separation of church and state? that is absolutely wrong. going back to the abolitionist movement, we had pastors and priests stand up and say that slavery is wrong. it is against human dignity. that went all the way through the civil rights movement. those standing up now and saying that marriage is the union between a man and woman, let us

protect the interests of children in society -- just because many of them come from religious backgrounds, that is what motivates them. that is an important part of american history and the folks that stood up for justice. >> let us go to judy in idaho. caller: i called in to correct a few of the gentleman's fax. marriage between one man and one woman is neither historical nor is it the norm. i would also like to add that the traditional role of government in enforcing marriage laws has been a contractual matter. it is only since about 1850 that the u.s. government can now with

a set of fixed laws -- came out with a set of fixed laws regarding property. marriage was about property, providing for the children, disposition of property. the constitutional requirement for fail-safe credit -- the loss of the individual states regarding marriage. i would like to know what you have to say. host: before we get a response, tell us about your personal opinion and if you do not mind give us a sense of how old you are and if your opinions about the marriage had changed over the years or not. caller: i have been gay since i was 16, i and 50 now. i was unable to marry my partner of 12 years and she died and her ex husband took custody of the

children. host: thank you for your call. guest: we are going to have a difference of view on the history behind marriage from english common law to the colonies all the way up until the present. the government has recognized marriage as the union of a man and woman in this country. there were a lot of fights over the nature of marriage before the 1960's. that is true. everyone understood that marriage was the union between a man and a woman. there was no one advocating forcing-sex marriage. he did have a fight over polygamy. polygamy is a relatively common variants in some cultures.

again, this country made the right decision in the 1850's in the debate over utah statehood. the country said that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and public me was not allowed in the territories becoming the new states. i think that was the right decision. i do not think polygamy is in the best interest of children or society. i also do not think that same- sex marriage is in the best interest of children and society. every child has a mother and a father and that is the key biological fact about marriage. this is the means by which children come into the world. society needs a way to connect children to their mothers and fathers. marriage is that form. if we start changing that there are going to be consequences. host: to someone like our caller, her partner died and she was not able to have

visitation access to the children that she helped to raise. is that fair? should there be a legal mechanism for her to be able to keep her children? guest: i do not know the particulars but there are ways the law can -- for any two people -- you can have certain rights and privileges. host: you'd be ok with that? guest: the problem becomes when we make this special category like same-sex civil unions and same-sex domestic partnerships -- what we have seen in states that have gone in that direction is that it is a very short step towards same-sex marriage. texas has civil unions. during the argument, the argument is for -- this is what we want to focus on, we are not going after marriage. we do not need to redefine marriage. two years later as we have a lot

to read fine marriage. the key question is what is marriage? the argument is there is something unique and special about mothers and fathers coming together. those that say it is discrimination have to answer to did the country make a mistake in the 1960's -- in the 1860's? host: you can see here from "the huffington posts," countries that recognize gay marriage. in 2000 when no country recognized a marriage, 11 countries have passed legislation for a marriage equality. trolly from less like ohio -- from west lake, ohio, go ahead. caller: i am a teacher. i look at how we decide to throw

away 5000 years of tradition. we do not know what we are opening. other countries have opened up gay marriage. i lived in amsterdam a couple years ago. 88% of marriages have gone down. no one is getting married anymore. i think the argument is not whether gays can get married -- i think the argument is for a stamp of approval that gayness is normal. i do not believe that most gay men want to get married. they want nor maliseet. -- they want to normalcy. host: so you are against the

marriage. give us a sense of your age range and if you have always had this opinion. caller: i have always had this opinion. i am in my 50s. i am a father. i tried to imagines little children wondering what those daddies are doing behind closed doors. to me it is not normal. host: brian brown? guest: if you look internationally, in many of these countries we were told this is about rights and benefits. this is "marriage equality." we do not have to guess at the consequences. folks know that marriage is the union between a man and woman. we have seen them punish intimidation and oppression folks have been brought up before this human-rights.

i think that the caller is right in the sense that when you read the fine marriage, when you put the state's stamp of approval, it is not like this is somehow some neutral policy. the state is endorsing a view. it is endorsing a view that somehow those of us that hold this view are outside the norm. it uses its power to repress an idea it now sees as against basic democratic norms. when your kids are taught in school that your father and mother are bigot because they hold this outdated you, when religious organizations are punished and they may lose their tax and set status -- tax-exempt status, the cannot say more because we are already seeing

other countries the movement in this direction. host: former president bill clinton wrote an op-ed in " the washington post." he says the defense of america act is incompatible with the constitution. a comment from one of our twitter followers -- what do you think about this perspective? guest: i think libertarians to understand this but the libertarian argument is that somehow the state can have no view on marriage is just wrong. by embracing same-sex marriage you are actually seeing a great expansion in state power. you are basically having the government try and call black white.

the government does not have power to redefine marriage. if you are allowing the state to do something it has never had to do in the first place. in the arguments of the proposition 8 ks, you are given the government the power to rewrite its entire legal history. it is judicial activism on steroids if the court were to overturn proposition 8. host: this is from diane on northridge fell, ohio. caller: i am not trying to change his mind. he says marriage between a man and woman -- not everyone have that view. same-sex couples are provide -- are able to provide the same care and love for children as a man and woman. they are actually adopting children who have no mother or father. it is providing that support system.

to say that they should not be able to live their lives together just because someone reads the bible, i do not agree with that. i believe laws were made many years ago but you cannot say that those laws always stayed the same. our government should be able to look at progressive and change these laws because you are basing your fate of a man and a woman union on a book that was written thousands of years ago. host: let us get a response. guest: i am not saying that folks who have committed their lives together cannot live together or live as they choose. but they do not have a right to redefine marriage. i am arguing not simply on faith. there are people motivated by faith. that is their right. i am saying both faith and

reason point to the reality that there is a difference between men and women, they are unique, we are complementary, and that children come into this world with both a mother and a father. marriage is that institution which connects the children to their mother and father. in the case of adoption, there are long lines for adoption. many couples want to adopt. what we have seen in adoption after same-sex marriage was passed in places like massachusetts, the state has come in and shut down adoption agencies. it will only place children up for adoption with children -- with mothers and fathers. i think that harms the interests of children.

one last caller from wisconsin. john is an independent. caller: my thought is more that it is a monetary thing. i think that everyone should be choose -- should be able to choose if they want to be married or not married. if the church wants to marry you it should be able to marry. when it comes to the state, if the state wants to give certain benefits for people raising children from conception through life than they should they give them benefits. other than that, it doesn't matter if we are two individuals that want to adopt. the basis should be one of the same. now are looking at the differences of changes in monetary policy. people should be allowed in general to make their choice. matter if you are

black or white, we all make this choice in life to do what we are going to do. host: we are tight on time so let us get a response. guest: i think that husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, that should be a strong public policy. if you agree with that i hope folks will come to the march for marriage on march 26. this is a simple common-sense truth, whether you have faith or do not have faith you can understand that there is something unique and special about marriage as a union of a man and woman. the state should recognize that and not redefine marriage. host: brian brown, president of the national organization for marriage. coming up next we look at a government report that put a price tag on reconstruction

efforts in barack. -- in iraq. >> a new joint military exercise between south korea and the united states began earlier today. it is amid heightened tensions across the region. both korea is refusing to answer -- north korea is refusing to answer. north korea's army is declaring the armistice agreement that put an end to the fighting of the korean war in 1953 as invalid. eu foreign ministers meeting today in brussels added a list of those subject to a travel ban and asset freeze, bringing the number of people section in this way to 87. and an update on official data show increased costs economy

shrank in the final quarter of 2012 but not as fast as initially forecast. the contractions totaled 6.4%. the country is dependent on bailouts and is in its sixth year of recession, which has been exacerbated by harsh austerity measures demanded by creditors to curb runaway budget deficits. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> one of the things that an early american wife was taught to do, she supported her husband's career usually through entertaining. dolley was both socially adept and politically savvy. she constructor her entertainment in such a way that she could lobby for her husband. she also thought it was very important to create a setting in the white house, almost a stage for the performance of her

husband and the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> first lady of dolly madison. we will follow her journey from a young quaker would go into a woman history remembers. we will include your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets tonight on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: we look at your money. how taxpayer dollars are spent. we are looking at the $60 billion spent to rebuild a rock after the war. our special guest is stuart bowen, special inspector general for iraq reconstruction. the report is out. $60 billion. give us a sense of what that money went towards. guest: the reconstruction fund

was almost 20 billion. another fund was used to build up the police and army. 20 billion. over 4 billion to do thousands of little projects done by the army, a substantial innovation. the economic support fund supported the state department and agency for development, capacity building efforts. host: let us take a step back. how do you tell us what your role has been as an inspector general? guest: the congress created this office nine years ago. they recognize there was a special need for oversight in barack. the program was initially expected to spend two $0.4 billion. that was the first appropriation in april 2003. in november another $18.4

billion was appropriated. to ensure oversight of that money i was appointed in late january 2004. host: barack bank -- barack bank, $20 billion -- iraq, $20 billion. guest: there were plans to carry on as large and ambitious infrastructure program. rehabilitating, rebuilding, and during the construction and electricity. water, roads, bridges, but that has changed course. when the ambassador arrived in june 2004 he reviewed what was going on and determined that $3 billion had been moved into the security center -- security

sector. another 20 billion was created and supported barack bang's police -- supported iraq's police. host: what sort of money power did they have? guest: substantial and unprecedented. the most significant revolution in the defense department in the last 30 years was the establishment of the stabilization operations mission. to carry out that mission the congress funded the commanders emergency response program. eventually they allocated over four billion dollars. thousands and thousands of small projects were carried out by italian commanders -- by a battalion commanders. there was waste and almost one-

third of our convictions have been military personnel. host: dig into that for us. who are we talking about and what did they do? how did it discovered? guest: that is the challenging part. it usually gets discovered through a whistle-blower or through unusual circumstance. for instance, capt. schmidt, a marine major, stole two million dollars. there was a domestic disturbance in his house in california and the police found hundred dollar bills in his person. they were stamped with iraqi central bank markings. they contacted us and had us explain it. that led to his apprehension. host: here is another element of your report, kickbacks. to see and what is he doing? guest: this the worst problem

that has occurred in u.s. army history. major cockerham started a criminal kickback and fraud scheme involving bribery. he wrote people and persuaded them to join in on a conspiracy. cockerham went to prison for 17 years. eddie presley went to prison for over 20. we helped break some significant crimes and we put a number of people in prison as a result. host: 1 of the other use of funds is narcotics control. there was $990 million.

that much money on narcotics control -- guest: it is misleading. it is used to support inl, a bureau within the state department whose expertise is police training, among others. its applicability in barack was to train the of rocky police -- trained the iraqi police. host: if you'd like to join in on the conversation here are the numbers. our first caller is from new haven, connecticut on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two questions. the first question is where is the accounting of that money you just showed us -- does that

include the large amounts of money that were given away during the surge? the other question is how much money was given away during the search? how much money was actually given away? those are the two questions. guest: you are talking about the "sons of iraq" program. the expenditure of $370 million in commanders' emergency response program money. about 99,000 sudanese who otherwise might have taken up arms against the coalition -- that program continued for several years and the agreement

with the government was that it would be continued by them. it has not been and indeed that has been a point of extraordinary for action in iraq over the last year. we have seen increased violence across the country. part of the cause of that has been the breakdown in galatians that were partly -- a breakdown in relations that were partly established during the surge. host: is the search covered in this report? give us a timeline and the reconstruction period. guest: the reconstruction period began in 2003 and began -- and ran through last september. there is some additional reconstruction money being spent, but much less than before. it is averaging $50 million per

day expenditure of the last 10 years. the peak was in 2005. last year it was $75 million per day. the surge occurred from late spring 2007 and into 20008. host: you have given us a sense of what your role is and where you come in. who else receives the actual reconstruction spending as it happens? what goes into making sure money is spent well? guest: a variety of entities have carried it out. it was an ad hoc receipt.

these are all acronyms for temporary agencies that were charged with doing exactly what you are describing -- overseeing the policy and importation of the reconstruction program. there was a dichotomy between who controlled the money and who was charged with executing the policy. the department of defense controls 84% of the money in the five major fronts. the department of state was supposed to be where the policy was. host: we are looking at this report. it is the final report from the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction. walter is our next caller. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe if you do not spend

money rebuilding the enemy -- it is pitiful when i listen to these numbers and i realize all of the blood, carnage, lives, and treasures that have been spent on a country and the only reason we are spending money on the country was if we want will from them rather than getting our own oil -- that is a whole other thing i cannot figure out. i appreciate the gentleman bringing up this information. money is wasted on people who hate us anyway. we are not there to fix them and repair them. the united states should declare war on itself and surrender, we will get economic aid. what else can we do what we see trillions and trillions waste on these country? i tried to unplug from this whole system until we can get someone who says we are going to

take to our own people and we are relieved other countries to do what ever they want. frustratedening to a american who served this country. it is sickening. guest: he is right. this was a very costly 10-years in a rock. four hundred 88 troops killed. as reported last summer, at least 719 people killed working on reconstruction related activities. that goes with the $60 billion in afghanistan is 90 billion. this has been a very expensive ticket. -- expensive decade. host: 8 twitter user white sand and wants to know -- -- twitter use writes in and

watns to know --- know the wants to nko top three recipients of government money. guest: the largest contract ever awarded in u.s. history was done during a classified contract in pre-war. -- contracting pre-war period. it did not end up using anywhere near the amount they were given but exhibit to the level of investment that the united states was willing to make in the program. with regard to where it was spent, we spent almost $6 billion on the electricity sectors. that has produced some good results. most of it was bad in the first four years.

iraq's electricity output is higher than it has ever been. host: give us a sense of what the u.s. has spent versus other spending is -- versus other countries. guest: the united states have spent about 54 billion. the coalition multiply -- relatively spent a limited amount. diffraction was spent, 4 billion to 5 billion. a fourth significant benefit to of iraq is 30 tw billion dollar

290 nations that on that debt. host: democrats line. caller: good morning. mr bowen, it would seem to me that you are demosntrating the practicality of having an administration such as yours overseeing government corruption and government liasons. the gentleman from indiana brought up the whole idea about where this money could have been spent elsewhere had we not got into a war. that comes to the point i want to ask you. if there is any practicality in and york -- in your administration in overseeing government corruption, why don't

we look at our own politicians as criminals? i will leave it at that. >> my mission was to look at how funds were expended in barack. -- in iraq/ i have had a significant number of members in congress carry out that mission. senator susan collins very strongly supported it. what makes them angry, what makes you angry, what makes the american people angry and me is whaat least $8 billion of that 0 billion was wasted in the rock band. -- in iraq. we expect bite september 30 when my office closes -- i know that fraud has been much higher.

if there is one thing that sticks in my craw it is the desire to catch more of the coax the store that money. we will continue to push it hard for the next six months and do the best we can. host: the tenure anniversary of the war is coming up. -- the 10-year anniversary of the war is coming up. it shows an image of u.s. soldiers pulling down a statue of saddam hussein's tweet tell us more about the examples of waste you are unable to identify. guest: $40 billion spent on a prison. it turns out the iraqis did not want that. it was a key failing in the program. that money was wasted.

there'll never be in prison there. it is just a pile of rubble. the poet to waste water treatment plant was supposed to be completed eight years ago. it took three times as long cost three times as much and served a third of the members of barack. -- members of iraq. it was a frustrating project that i think stands -- the recently departed minister of finance told me that people of lucia point to a project in britain as a great legacy and the felicia waste water treatment plant as a failed project. host: it is serving about 9000

homes. how many people live in the region? guest: it should have served triple that number. perhaps one day it will. arakis have -- iraqis have the hope of sustaining it. that is a tenuous one. the government of iraq's commitment to maintenance has been a week. host: berwyn, pennsylvania, independent line -- caller: my concern is where all this money came from. from an article i read the other day, there have been approximately $752 billion spent on the iraq owar. and now you're telling me another 90 is going on reconstruction. why aren't they borrowing the money themselves? we had to borrow it, pay

interest on it, and give it on them. i would like your response to that. guest: thank you. a number of the senior u.s. leaders interviewed over the last several months agree with your point and say that we should have structured a program that involved -- iraq could have afforded to bear the burden of loans as a part of the program. that issue was raised in 2003 and rejected. senator collins broached it herself and told me it was not to be considered. host: a tweet in --

tie that to what you are just talking about. guest: a good example of waste is that -- is a pullout study we have on a contractor that charged 5000% markup on a little elbow joint. i understand it is expensive to deliver items in a war zone. but that is ridiculous. host: a competitor's offer was $1 $41. was $1.41. guest: we continue to see confecting capacities. the pentagon, in an attempt to achieve a post-cold war dividend

cut its contacting capacity and contracting officers. if we paid the price for that in iraq and afghanistan. i think that contributed to the waste. host: stuart bowen was appointed inspector general, in october of that year his title was changed to special inspector general for iraq reconstruction period a final report, learning from barack bank -- from iraq. it is the final report on what happened. pat from new york, a republican -- caller: there are a million problems. 25 years watching c-span on and off.

the point i want to make is i do not have a problem for the $800 billion that was spent in of rock bank -- in iraq. we spend one trillion after the obama administration was put in and people said that was a big waste. the war over 10 years pales in comparison to what we waste in this country. the point i want to make is that i think that what we did in iraq changed the world in a way that it would not have changed in the middle east for 50 years. people discovered democracy and a force for good. americans have been losing their lives for 250 years going to war and being killed for the cause of democracy and freedom.

thank you. guest: he makes a very precise point that prime minister al- maliki made to me when i interviewed him last saeptember. he thanked me and thanked the united states for bringing democracy to iraq. host: let this go to market. democrats line. caller: i am a marine corps veteran from the desert storm era. as a civilian i was called back for desert storm and desert shield. we waited to get our shots to be shipped overseas. the bush family owns penzoil.

they own the carlyle investment group and at one time they owned the carlyle group on dunkin donuts. the point i would like to make is i would like to think inspectors bowen for the information he is conducting. i do not think americans have a place where they can communicate. as an abraham lincoln republican and as a veteran i would say how sad it is that -- the money that the inspector has found was only able to relieve what he told he can relief. that is the way things are done. i am not criticizing him for that.

a lot of the reconstruction money was the american citizens. the soccer mom mentality of the united states -- i will get the answer from the inspector. i would imagine most of the projects were not even conducted. on behalf of my veterans i want to say how bad it was that a number of our soldiers were electrocuted because of faulty wiring. i did not hear americans talk about our senior weapons inspector who said there were no weapons of mass destruction. we know they don't have the weapons. war for profit. i thank you for all of the work

you do. can you comment on the projects? guest: thank you. and the credit for the work done by my office goes to the auditors, investigators, and inspectors to faithfully carry out the very challenging mission of oversight under fire. we identified the challenge -- your point is very well taken. so many of them were not finished until they transferred to of iraqi control. two things happened. sometimes they look at the project and said it was something they never wanted or they would say the project is not finished and we need to fund its completion. we did not in most cases. in those instances the iraqis set no. that is waste, clearly.

it also foreshortens the ultimate mission of all of this reconstruction money which is to improve their democracy and build good will. when you do not consult properly and transfer assets properly and ensure their sustainment the program breaks down. host: what happens next? this is your final report. who will monitor efforts from here on out? will that be done internally? will there be any u.s. representatives looking to see how americans pay out over the long term? guest: the department of state and the inspector general will have oversight of the money that will be continued to be spent in iraq. there is still a substantial amount on the table appropriate yet to be spent.

we will also play an important role in that money. host: what happens to your office guest:? we continue to carry out the 60 plus cases we have. we expect a few more convictions added to the 82 we have so far. we hope to recover $100 million more. that will add to the two hundred million we have already recovered. we will close our doors on september 30 of this year. host: scott is on the independent line from new york. caller: i would like to know why our president has not made efforts to reclaim our expenditures in iraq. i would like to know why what efforts are being done to move ahead in collecting our

expenditures. it is an oil-rich nation and i do not understand we are not able to collect any money. the result of this war was a big bill. that is all we got out of it. i am not suggesting we fight a war for oil. a lot of blood has been spelled tweet why pay for a war that this bad for other reasons? host: our audits have recovered over $600 million from the program. for larger question, why isn't the united states seeking recovery -- the program was not structured that way. restructured affectively as a grant program. there was no obligation on the part of the iraqis to pay back any of that money. host: our caller talks about

president and he wanted to see the president make more of an effort to recoup money. did anything change in your office with the changeover of administration? guest: there was no effect in the change of administration. we received good support -- continued to receive good support from the department of state to carry out our mission. it is now much smaller than it has ever been. i have an investigator still working over there. i am getting ready to be on my 34th trip this week we will maintain and investigate it presents throughout this year but it is not like 2008 when we had 58 personnel. host: how much is carried out that guest: set in teams. host: -- how was that carried out guest:? in teams.

the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. that is how you tackle these very complex investigations. host: our guess stuart bowen is special inspector general for .raq reconstruction perio a price tag of $60 billion spent in iraq. the anniversary of the war -- the 10-year anniversary is later on this month. carl is our next caller from pittsburgh kansas. caller: i was a veteran from the iraqi war. i have seen a lot of gross overspending and a lot of the projects and everything else. i was wondering how much of that is actually a gross over- expenditure.

guest: substantial on our audits. we did not have oversight on most of the cavy are spending because that dealt with the dispatch -- with the defense department. we did look at how kbr supported the embassy in 2006 and 2007 with the provision of fuel and fuel and found serious weaknesses and significant overcharging which could only be remedied after we products to the government's attention. to knows how rampant similar crisises have been throughout the iraq program. host: carl, are you still with us caller:? i am host:. was there an ear to listen to that? caller: not really for us. we basically had to do our job. we weren't allowed to really say anything.

at one point i was stationed at camp crawford. the military was going to build a swimming pool and a whole bunch of other sports facilities for the prisoners. that was need this money to be spent. my curiosity was exactly how much of that, aside from what i have seen, was actually spent frivolously. guest: thank you for your service. you are exactly right on products being chosen that should not have been carried out. there was one that was similar to the prison constructed up in the west in embark provinces. tens of millions of dollars spent on a prison that wasn't used. host: how can people what our last caller find out more about your investigations?

where is this information online? guest:www.sgir.mil host: allen is up next from cincinnati, ohio on the democrat's line to caller. caller: i have an observation and a question. foreign and domestic government programs all have the same model, the congress puts a big amount of money the appropriate into a big trough. all of the cattle feed all they want. the farmer does not monitor who is getting what or how much and in the end nothing happens until the trough is empty. and then they ask inspector general's to come in and figure

out where the feed went. that does not work. my question is what would you do to change the model so that we were monitoring who gets what as it happens rather than waiting 10 years to find out? this is an aside to say, 30 years ago i saw the comment about auditing. the auditor is the guy who comes in after the battle and bayonets the wounded. guest: i tried to frame my office's work in a lesson- learned a-oriented way. operators on the ground could benefit from the intelligence we were gathering and look into their programs.

we proposed 12 lessons, general portrayed as applied nine of them in afghanistan. -- general patraeus applied nine of them in afghanistan. we are critical of this juncture. we have fresh data and reporting, comprehensive reporting about what happened in iraq. we know what the lessons are and i believe is up to the congress to resolve it. it is an interagency problem because of the nature of their cherished diction -- of their jurisdiction. there should be an institution created that has responsibility for overseeing these operations. there ought be a permanent inspector general as well to carry out the oversight of such programs that are carried out in reconstruction operations. host: larry from michigan on the independent line --

caller: i am an american, and the tyranny. when i hear the term $60 billion, that is an immense amount of money. you have big think about how much money that really is. if we are going to spend that kind of money -- here in america we have modular homes. we have wells. we have all of those things here in america. why don't we build here, american workers -- host: i am quite have to cut you off because we are getting ready to wrap up. final thoughts? guest: the ministry of interior said exactly that. we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it please development program that was structured in a way the i iraqis did not want. his words were,