and senator bernie sanders of vermont talks about the 2014 senate budget proposal. and on the history of u.s. pakistani relations, husain haq qani will speak. host: good morning and welcome on this thursday, march 14. washington leaders from capitol hill to the white house welcomed yesterday's news of a new pope. president obama meet with lawmakers today it and. the conservative convention cpac starts this morning. budgets emerging from democrats and republicans. we will look at the proposal on the table from senate democrats. unveiled their first budget in

four years yesterday. we would like to hear what you think about pat to marry -- patty mariposa proposal that includes spending cuts and tax increases. here are the numbers to call. here is the headline in the baltimore sun this morning. the budget plan -- the senate democratic plan released yesterday would raise taxes on the wealthy and some corporations --

we focused yesterday on the gop proposal and we will reflect on that a little today as we dig into one democrat tab on the table. here's the headline in the washington times. that's the direction the washington times is taking. we will look at a couple other headlines and how they are

covering this story. the headline in the new york times says -- we will hear more about that this morning and that is coming into play as well. let's listen to senator patty murray, the head of the budget committee. she unveiled her 2014 budget plan yesterday afternoon. [video clip] >> are budget tackles this issue the way the american people have consistently said they want it done, with an equal mix of responsible spending cuts across the federal budget and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and cutting wasteful breaks that primarily benefit the rich. this budget cuts spending responsibly by $975 billion. we make some tough choices to get that. we think every program including the ones we know are important

need to be ringing out waste, trimming fat, and reducing costs. $500 billion of our deficit reduction comes from responsible savings on the domestic spending side, including 275 billion in health care savings. are no sacred cows. we put everything we can on the table. we do it in a responsible way that preserves, protect, and strengthens the programs like medicare and medicaid that the american people strongly support. our budget saves to $140 billion by carefully and responsibly reducing defense spending, while giving the pentagon enough time to plan and align the reductions with the withdrawal of troops from overseas. -- $240 billion. host: joining us by phone is a

staff writer from roll call. guest: it's good to be here. host: what is the take away from what the senator unveiled? guest: i think the headlines it is the contrast between what senator murray has unveiled and will be going cruciform will mark up and amendment process today versus what we saw go through a similar process yesterday in the house with a proposal by house budget chairman paul ryan. most of that distinction was highlighted in the clip you just played. while both sides sort of maintain lower deficit numbers, they go about it in a different way. the democrats tried to vote

raise new revenue. they struck the finance committee to come up with almost $1 trillion in tax reform package versus all the cuts on the spending side of the ledger on the house republican plan. so that is the debate we have been having for years and it is the debate we will keep having as these two budgets look to move to the course of their respective chambers next week. host: niels, what is new about what democrats are proposing? have we seen a lot of this comes from democrats before? guest: we're not talking about anything that is particularly novel. because we have not seen the

senate to go through the formal process of drafting a budget resolution, holding a budget markup, and go to the floor with a budget resolution and pass a budget resolution in several years now, it is sort of putting pen to paper in a different way than we have seen the senate democrats do it lately. a lot of this reflects what we would have seen from senate democrats in bipartisan, bicameral negotiations over some sort of big deal on deficit reduction. a lot of it seems to track with what senator murray would have been pushing the democratic co- chair of the supercommittee. but we are sort of looking at it from a different prism, but not

necessarily all that different from what we have seen before or what we are going to see in the weeks ahead. host: from the washington post, it reminds us that the proposal would replace the automatic sequester cuts with $1.80 trillion in alternate policies over the next decade, fresh tax revenue, and $400 billion would come from performed to medicare. how does that factor into what democrat on to do? guest: both sides have been saying for some time now that there are cost savings in medicare as well as in other entitlement programs. there seems to have been some sort of consensus that may be in

building around any eventual deal including means testing for upper income medicare beneficiaries. if there is some sort of bipartisan democratic and republican agreement. the other thing is democrats particularly have noted in the past that there have been over pavements to some medicare providers of various different services. and some medical equipment and what not. so they think that there is money to be going in and savings from medicare that will not affect -- at least that is the expectation -- it would not affect the average person on medicare who has to go to the hospital. that is always the trip, how to get rid of the waste in the program without affecting

patients. you told us about two different bills. republicans versus democrats. how far has the republican proposal gone? we saw activity yesterday in the house. what are you watching for? guest: the house budget markup wrapped up shortly before midnight last night. chairman ryan in the house expects that his budget resolution will be on the floor of that chamber next week. every indication is the same is true on the senate side. what we could see next week's is both plans on the floor. because each requires only a simple majority, and in the house that is kind of normal for

things to pass with a simple majority, but it is somewhat irregular in the senate. you cannot filibuster a budget resolution. as a result, we are going to see the democrats and republicans each pass their respective plans out of the chamber's they control. what remains to be seen is that going forward there is going to be an attempt made to reconcile the two plans and to bridge the divide, because, as you are aware, there are so many people on the republican side who are getting orally opposed to new revenue and tax reform that raises revenue as opposed to tax reform or tax overhaul package that lowers tax rates and broadens the base of everyone paying. so there's a fundamental

disagreement and it is not clear how you could get together and reconcile the differences between the two plans. host: thanks for talking with us. we would like to hear your opinion on the senate democrat'' budget. here are the numbers to call -- on facebook -- and on twitter -- joe from georgia, republican. caller: thank you. i love c-span. i agree with those two people. we need to cut. thank goodness we have tom price, vice chairman of the budget committee, tom gray as

well working to cut spending. all democrats want to do is raise taxes. that is terrible for the economy. march 27 there will be a speech in georgia from steve moore. i'm sure the last thing he will say is we need to increase taxes. host: where do you see and that they can come together? caller: i have been working in politics 50 years. the republicans have compromised ourselves into a $16 trillion debt. it's time for the democrats. we have got to cut spending. obama is not doing anything accept raising taxes -- except for raising taxes. the rich are the heroes because

they create jobs. i'm not against poor people, but they cannot give anybody a job. we need to stop the attacks on the rich. we need to cut spending. i am thinking of changing my name to cut spending. host: here is what steve wrote on twitter -- let's hear from dennis in massachusetts, independent. caller: how are you? i am reacting to the report that the senate plan suggests another quarter billion dollar cut to medicare after the $760 billion cut that the senate democrats have already made. as your reporter just said, but

guess you havd, it's doubtful that will not affect medicare beneficiaries. i am a medicare beneficiary and among the democratic party voucher plan, which has been very successful. to the extent they can customs fraud and waste, they ought to be a bad back to the medicare trust fund and not use it for other things. host: let's look at some details. years the distance between party budgets as laid out by the new york times. you can see what senate democrats have on the table. $5.20 trillion in deficits over 10 years. you can see the projected deficits and how they would tackle that. and in the house republican version, $1.20 trillion in deficits over 10 years, a bigger goal of reducing the deficit. when it comes to sequestration, democrats would replace the automatic cuts with a similar amount of target cuts. they would like to see $493

billion in health care and other domestic programs. $240 million in military spending. and $242 billion in savings from lower interest payments on the debt. when it comes to additional spending cuts, democrats say there are no additional spending cuts. republicans have a host of those on the table would be laid out for you yesterday. they do include cuts from from medicaid and changes to medicare and cuts in discretionary spending. the democrats' tax job training and the stimulus and the infrastructure, which will help jump-start the economy. perhaps $100 billion. republicans have no new spending. democrats want to close loopholes that benefit corporations and wealthy,

saving $975 billion -- or raising revenues of that amount. and republicans want to require the president and congress to submit plans to increase the trust fund. we spoke about speaker boehner and other republicans meeting with president obama yesterday. here is president obama yesterday as he made a courtesy call to house republicans in his search for a moderate-minded ally interested in a broader budget deal. you can see the president there. let's hear from speaker john boehner welcoming what he called a frank exchange. [video clip] >> i thought we had a very frank and candid exchange of ideas. i think it was productive. we know there are some very real differences between our two parties, like issues of jobs, balancing the budget, and what to do to get our economy moving again. republican

on to balance the budget. the president does not. republicans want to solve our long-term debt problem. the president does not. we want to unlock our energy resources to put more americans back to work. the president does not. having said that, today was a good start. i hope that these kind of discussions can continue even though we have very real deficits, our job is to find common ground to do the work of the american people sent us here to do. host: speaker boehner reflecting on the republicans meeting with the president yesterday. bob is our next caller in minnesota, a democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call. the biggest problem is the health care, which is the biggest drain as far as unnecessary and wasteful spending. the only way to fix that is to eliminate the insurance

companies. the insurance companies don't contribute anything to the medical profession. they don't even put a band-aid on you. all they do is take money. if you cannot see the fact that the single payer system is a better way than what we are doing now, then you are just missing it. as far as social security, social security is not doing anything bad. it is self sustaining. if they need to make any changes to social security, just to make it more sustainable for the future, and that will be not that tough a of a problem. to get rid of the insurance companies would be the best way. host: we saw an effort to repeal the health care law yesterday. it failed in the senate. here's the news from "washington

times" -- let's hear from chris in sarasota, florida, republican. caller: i have a question. why not make the tax is lower instead of? balancing the of the budget could cut down to where some people might think it's appropriate. taxesetter to raise rather than raise some and borrow the rest. host: let's go to dan on the independent line in youngstown, ohio. caller: the republicans were talking about increasing

spending by 3.5%. every democrat was whining about how cuts are going to kill us. we are still spending right now 4% more than we did last year. they are whining and crying that we are cutting too much? we are cutting 2% from the 6% increase that they intended to have. that is not a cut. we want to spend less money than we did the previous year is what i want to see. the other thing is we are passing this debt on to it our children and grandchildren. no other generation in history has passed massive amounts of deaths on to the next generation the way we are. if they are really concerned about our grandkids the way they say, they would start thinking long-term. 10 years is too far to take this

out to try to balance the budget. yet the democrats are saying we can balance it in 10 years, people will be suffering. we are paying for people to go to dinner. if people are starving, but is a different story. paying for welfare people to go out to dinner, there's plenty of fat to be cut. host: here's the headline in "usa today" -- let's listen to senator mitch mcconnell, the leader of republicans on the senate side, reacting to what he expected the democratic budget to look like. [video clip] >> given what we have heard about the budget so far, it is obvious why they refused to release 1 for so many years. we hear that it will not prevent medicare from going bankrupt. we hear that it contains yet more wasteful "stimulus" spending.

spending that turns out to be a lot more effective at generating jokes for late-night comedians than jobs. in order to finance more spending, we hear that it relies on more than $1 trillion in new taxes. that includes on the middle class. remember, washington democrats already got more than $600 billion in taxes this year. so where is the new revenue going to? come to charities? the home mortgage interest deduction? will they go on after families and small businesses against? -- again? their budget will never balance, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. host: senator mitch mcconnell on the senate floor yesterday. on facebook --

and peter says -- let's go to chicago, independent. caller: good morning, libby. happy st. patrick's day to you. pardon me for my speech. i have been diagnosed wit h4 terminal diseases. i just want to comment briefly. all we need is a 1% sales tax on wall street on derivatives, a hedge funds, and tax the rich and not tax the poor or really the middle class. income tax is legal.

just capital gains is allowed by law. we have the rockefeller international banking dynasty for a profit of international bankers. there's no reason why any form human being would want to kill anybody for any reason. if someone came to attack you, that is self-defense. we have the best military. instead of dropping bombs on people, we should be delivering food and medicine. we are loving, kind people. unfortunately, we are enslaved by these corporatists. we have to straighten this out with a peaceful civil rights movement to get our civil liberties to be able to protest.

you see all these occupy kids out there trying to protest and they're being beaten and sprayed with tear gas. i want to just listen to the comments. thank you and god bless america and for being a peaceful, loving people. get these fascists out. all profits -- all wars are for the profits of bankers. host: you said you would like to see more taxes for the wealthy and less for the middle-class and working-class. here's the "washington times" -- taking a look at other front- page news stories. announcements of a new pope, it's all over the newspapers today. we're looking at front pages, courtesy of the newseum. during the l.a. times --

and the arizona republic -- a jesuits, and non-european. and the detroit free press -- and the denver post. and the boston globe's front page as well. here's what president obama had to say about the announcement of a new pope. he wrote that "on behalf of the american people -- also, remarks came in from others on capitol hill.

we saw a lot of comments on twitter and a message out of the house speaker's office, speaker boehner -- we are asking this morning what you think about senate democrats' budget proposal. nancy is our next caller is from maryland, a democrat. caller: how are you? host: i'm ok. caller: what i think is president obama has been running on the same thing since he got into office. he has not flip-flop in saying that he wanted jobs. you know how the media,

republicans going out on a date with the president, knowing they will not do anything and the media talking about going out on a date. that's nonsense. they want -- for some reason, they don't think they are supposed to do what the president says. that is the republican position. they had no intention of doing anything but going on a date and maybe we can make him do what we say to do, eventually. host: you mentioned the present and various spending time. let's look at a story in usa today. he also met with an advocacy group yesterday evening.

the president yesterday told volunteers and the top donors that their active involvement in a new advocacy group could help make his second term agenda a reality. let's hear more of what president obama had to say last night. [video clip] >> over the last several weeks, the press in washington has been reporting about obama's, offensive. the truth is all i have been doing is calling up folks and try to see if we can break through some of the gobbledygook of our politics. i do believe that at this juncture in one of the things i

believe is we have got to get members of congress involved in these discussions, not just leadership, because i think a lot of them feel as if they don't have the opportunity to break out of some of the partisan gridlock. ironically, i think some of the leadership wants their membership to create a permission structure. they don't like getting too far ahead of their leadership. so we are reaching out to individual members so that they create a things can get done. host: president obama speaking last night. billy is our next caller in west virginia, republican. -- billie. caller: the entire rayn budget increases the budget by over 3%. -- the entire ryan budget.

i'm tired of them stealing the democratic talking points like they know what's going on. he does not hurt medicare or medicaid. why don't these people take time to watch and learn something before they get up here and spew out the talking points that the democrats want? they're on their corporate jet fikicks. during the booklets deal, the republicans begged them to take the loophole closings, but they would have nothing to do with it. now the democrats are howling the republicans want to people loopholes to protect the rich. when in america did you become an enemy of the country if you

worked hard and make something of yourself? host: a tweaked -- let's look at another graphic. this one in the wall street journal of the competing plans, democratic and republican. john in colorado, independent.

caller: good morning. i am a registered unaffiliated voters and am disgusted with these two parties. a century of mismanagement has led to this. i don't think it will change. i don't vote for democrats or republicans and i don't know why anyone would. at least the republicans are reaching a balance. democrats have no intention of balancing the budget. 16.7 trillion in debt. we're going to pass that off to the future generations. there's nothing right about that. i would encourage people to look at libertarians and constitutionalists, try to make a little better choices. host: roger in virginia, democrat. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm a little nervous. i'm a first-time caller. host: thanks for calling.

caller: i am disgusted. nobody is talking about what the republican party has done to this country since george bush stole the election in 2000. they say they have -- they let the taliban beat us. we are in debt to our eyeballs. we cannot even feed the hungry in this country and all we want to do is tax cuts. that's all i hear any more. i wish somebody would start figuring out how we can get back on our feet instead of just going crazy every day. host: what do you think about the president out reached to members of congress this week, his trip to capitol hill, and how members of congress have responded? caller: i think he's wasting his time. he ought to just go on vacation, because they don't want to work with him.

host: all members of congress? caller: yes, all members. host: here's what speaker boehner said. an editorial in the washington post, an opinion piece -- that's a piece written by

speaker boehner. desmond's is our next caller in georgia, republican. caller: the economy is an easy fix. this apparent arguing amongst themselves. we spend a half trillion dollars per year in other countries. we buy friends. we borrow money and give it to other countries. you have not enough money to go around in the u.s. embassy we have to cut back on this and that. they are building houses in different countries and we have people in the united states living on the streets. host: that is desmond in georgia. franken, new york, independent. caller: hi. i have a suggestion on how to cut spending and help the poor people and another on how to

increase revenue in a fair way. one area where we are spending $700 billion per year nationally is education. both parties talk about it. if we introduce parental choice in education by giving moderate income and low-income parents a scholarship or refundable tax credit equal to half the cost of a public-school education, your was spending $20,000 per student, if we gave scholarships or vouchers or tax credits equal to half that, at $10,000 or maybe $8,000, that would give parents a better education to the kids because there's competition and the public schools would have to improve to keep their students. so you save billions. new york would save $10 billion a year. that's according to a study for 10 years ago. we would help the poor people and help low-income get a better quality of education, help students and parents and help taxpayers by lowering taxes.

everybody is opposed to that because of the teacher unions. and democrats have to kowtow to the unions. on the revenue side, there's something called carried interest. that's where hedge fund managers and equity fund managers make millions of dollars sometimes and only pay taxes at the capital gains rate of 15%. if they invest their money,, but they are investing their time, just like a sales agent or real estate agent. they should be paying taxes at the normal income tax rate for the investment of time. carried interest is an area where we could raise billions of dollars across the nation in a fair and just way. these folks should not be taxed at the capital gains rate paris school choice -- these folks should not be taxed at the capitol gains rate.

and we should have school choice. host: we want to hear what you like about the senate democrat'' budget and what you think about it in the short-term and long- term. we can talk politics and dollars and since. a couple other stories in the news. you see this from the christian science monitor -- she is a former ambassador to kuwait, currently a scholar at the middle east institute in washington. if confirmed by the senate for the libya opposed, jones will take on a diplomatic position associated with --

cpac gets underway today. after four more decades, cpac is still evolving, says the washington post. here's a sense of who we will see on the first day. featured speakers include marco rubio of florida, rand paul of kentucky, texas governor rick perry, attorney general ken cuccinelli of virginia.

congressman allen west, who was defeated for his seat last fall. grover norquist. senator thune instagram. senator ted cruz. if you can find out more about that in the "washington times." and we see a range of other newspapers covering this. here's the new york times -- and a senior director of communications at the competitive enterprise institute has a commentary piece at the top of the washington times today -- we would like to hear from you about the senate democrats' budget. marmargaret is next in texas, democrat. caller: hi. the ryan budget stinks', like

all republican ideas. these are the people that gave us three wars, one that never ends. two wars in iraq. it took a father and son republican president just to go into that little piece of country sand to get sadaam hussein. and now this war never ends. the republicans are probably the people that put us deeper in debt to a communist country, a. i don't think president roosevelt ever would have done that. paul ryan speaks out of both sides of his mouth. he says no change in social security. i heard him say it out of his own mouth on tv not very long 10 years they otr

will do something to social security. host: have you seen what democrats have on the table? caller: i think it's a good plan. i am sick and tired of the republican party being the party of just the rich. they are rich. they take up for the rich, like oil people and everybody else. it's possible they are getting kickbacks out of all the rich in this country. there's a lot of stuff that goes under the table. host: we will hear republican and independent centers this morning. a tweet -- ivan in charlotte, north carolina, republican. caller: yes, this is the

problem. anytime that you hear ryan or the republicans talk about balancing the budget, they talk about that is what is going to reduce the debt. they're not being intellectually dishonest, they are lying. the question that the media must become cognizant in asking is what must you do to bring your budget into surplus? surplus is the only way you are going to bring down the outstanding debt, because we have a misunderstanding between debt and deficit. deficit is the annual running of the government. the debt is what we accumulate in the aftermath of running the government. if we are going to start reducing what we have been accumulating over all these years, we have to bring the deficit -- we have to bring our budget into surplus. when you listen to the

republicans and that argument, you have to understand their agenda is not about saving this country. our agenda is something different. host: are you a republican? caller: yes, because this is becoming frustrating. everything is becoming gummed up. host: what you think about the democratic proposal? caller: the democrats at least have an honest appeal about what they see as a future for this country. we have to understand that this. regardless of how we have animosity between the economic extremes of this country, the rich and poor. regardless of the animosity, the sun will rise tomorrow on america and we have to be ready to compete. host: we will have a north carolina congressman coming up in a couple minutes. on twitter -- linda in cleveland, texas,

independent. turn down your tv. caller: i believe there should be a straight tax, whether its rich or poor, no matter what they are spending. they would save money. another thing,, the welfare programs to people than had been convicted of crimes. they don't need our help. if they're out stealing and killing, they don't need it. host: on twitter -- you can follow more of the senate democrats' 2014 budget plan. 9:00 this morning on c-span 3. the budget committee will consider amendments and vote on the resolution. they agreed yesterday to start work on this $984 billion package to fund the government until october 1 after two republican senators brought

objections to proceeding with the measure -- dropped objections. next we will talk about what's happening in congress, specifically looking at tsa and we will hear more about the new rules to allow small knives on airplanes, that is with republican congressman richard dachshund. later on, independents and a cure bernie sanders from vermont will talk about the senate democrats' new budget plan and other issues. we will be right back. >> ♪ [video clip] >> i think for dolly madison

what she also has is a model for government that stresses civility and deputy. she is modeling this for us. she's not going to win. but we look to our founding generations because we need examples, role models. her way of conducting politics, stressing building bridges, is a model she has bequeathed us. >> our conversation with historians on dolly madison is available on our website, c- span.org. [video clip] >> the story starts in december of 1783. the moment is one for the ages. with a perfect sense of the theatrical moments, one of george washington's many appreciate it -- unappreciated talents was the right gestures at the right time. the general stood on the floor of the state house in annapolis.

that was the temporary capital of the country at that time. you can still go to that building that is standing and stand where washington stood. he returned his commission as commander-in-chief of the continental army. a voluntary surrender of unprecedented power struck observers at the last act of a great historical drama. king george iii apparently declared that if washington did that, he would be the greatest man of his age. he did. it was perhaps the greatest exit in american history. >> this weekend, george washington and drafting a blueprint for america, they at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. congressman richard hudson, a freshman.

thanks for being here. guest: greg to be with you. host: you are serving on homeland security and are determined upon transportation subcommittee -- and you are serving on the transportation subcommittee. guest: >> i was honored that the chairman recognized by the leadership ability and gave me the opportunity. host: who did you work for when you were serving on the hill? guest: i was a district director six years and i was the chief of staff in north carolina in the fifth district and server two texas congressman. host: how different is it serving in congress? guest: it's not as different as you might think. i get to go-around on a

motorcycle now, and it's a huge benefit. just try to preserve the people from back home. -- i get to go through metal detectors now. host: we are talking about security issues and what can be taken on to airplanes. react to the decision to allow small knives on airplanes. guest: it's a good decision. since 9/11, the tsa has a really tough talk. we have tried to find everything and everybody and it's a tough balancing enough to balance the real security risks there are out there with the needs of travelers to get through an airport in a reasonable amount of time, a reasonable amount of privacy. the new moved that tsa is making is going to a risk-based security footprint. i think it's a good thing. they are taking items off a

list such as pan nice -- as pen knives. these are not scary. it's a good thing that the tsa folks will not be spending time rummaging through your luggage looking for a pen knife and are more focused on explosive devices and things of that nature. host: we're seeing what is allowed. here's an image of what is not allowed, according to tsa. why are these banned? guest: these knives are little bit more potent. the knives we are talking about allowing our tiny knives that someone may keep on a key chain or attend domonick carrie to open letters. these knives are sharper and have different types of groups. i think they have made a good

determination of the types of things that don't pose a real security risk. common sense would tell you some of these knives don't need to be in public host: transportation here's a statement by the head of a tsa union -- what is your reaction to their concern? guest: i understand their concerns, but we cannot protect everyone from every contingency. common sense tells you that there are lots of items on an airplane that could be fashioned into a sharp object. common sense needs to prevail. when you go back to the graphic of the types of knives we are

talking about, these are not scary knoves. they are on keychains and they are bottle openers. these types of knives don't pose a deadly threat. saving the tsa screeners time not only to rummaged through bags and examine the knives, you can look at the knife even when it's closed and see the size of the blade is permissible. i understand the concern, is over-hyped. we want the tsa to focus on real risks like explosive devices. host: representative richard hudson, a republican from north carolina, representing the eighth congressional district which includes rockingham. he sits on the agriculture committee, education work force, and homeland security, where he serving as the chair of the transportation subcommittee. the numbers to call to join the conversation --

yesterday on the washington journal we heard from former tsa administrator who disagreed with the tsa decision. [video clip] >> my sense is that the decision to allow knives on board seemed to go against the grain for me personally. we worked so hard over the course in standing up the agency and to what the success of leaders go by and success of policy changes. we want to make the experience for the traveling public as painless as possible. first and foremost, the job is about security. it seems to have stirred the pot and a loud thumping on board that is so close to what was the box cutters on 9/11. i don't think i would have been very supportive of

reintroducing knives on board of commercial aircraft. host: there is the perspective of someone who helped to implement the program. guest: i think his point about the timing, the motion of allowing a blade similar to the box cutters used in 9/11 is a valid point. the box cutters are still not allowed. with any razor blade or sharp blade. there their graphic we brought shows a pair of scissors that are currently allowed, compared to the new tiny knives that we are allowing. which isre looking for on scarier, i think it is the scissors. a valid point by the admiral. when you look at the security risk we are talking about, i am much more concerned about an explosive that could bring down

an airplane. the scenario of 9/11 of someone using a blade to bring down an airliner does not exist anymore. we have procedures and processes in place. so the real threat is not the tiny knives. i think tsa needs to be focused on the real threat. host: [indiscernible] are securitye who experts say the scissors don't pose a risk to an airline. the scenario of 9/11 is not a viable terrorist scenario any -- any more because we have made great strides in securing the cockpit. when you are dieting the risk, i want the folks keeping us save to focus on the things that pose the greatest risk. host: let's hear from robert in tennessee, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think any knife or scissors or anything like that, you can

stick a knife and persons temple and to do fatal damage or an artery in your neck or anything that's 1 inch or two inches long, that's just as deadly as any other weapon if you know how to use it in the right way and it can be concealed. they should not let anything like that on a flight. host: do you think that in dangerous of all flight crew? caller: it depends if you have one standing there with it to their temple as a hostage and saying let me in or do whatever. if someone was standing with a grenade saying i will complain, you've got a person standing there with a knife at their brain, but you will let them die just because you will not open the door? at 30,000 feet, some people might say if that one dies, we can jump him. host: let's get a response.

guest: i appreciate the call. we're always happy to hear from someone just over the mountain in tennessee. i understand what you are saying. but when you look at what is a true risk of a terrorist trying to bring down an airplane, you mentioned the hand grenades, i much more word about that than a small knife. someone could use a pen knife as a weapon to us like they could use an ink pen or a lot of things you'd find on an airplane. a lot of things we can try to completely eliminate every risk to personal injury on an airplane, but i think common sense and the limitations of our tax dollars require that we are smart about our security. we deal with real threats. using a blade, apparently, even holding it to someone stempel to try to gain access to the, pi

host: the tsa administrator is going to be testifying today for the house homeland security subcommittee on transportation. what do you want to hear from him? guest: i'm interested in hearing about the new risk-based policy. i want to see us getting smarter and being able to reduce the size and cost of tsa and have a tsa that is more efficient and focused on our security needs. i am looking forward to hearing how the input that's how the implementation is going to we will be discussing this new policy with knives. i think it will be a really productive hearing. host: you can go to our website , www.c-span.org, we will have more details there. rubber, republican, -- roberts, republican. go ahead. caller: you mentioned common sense.

common sense would call that we do our security like the israelis do with intelligence and common sense and not manual labor. also, i spent 20 years in a correction department, and you could sharpen an object to the point that it is like a razor blade. you can neutralize the passengers on the plane, and you have all of the time in the world to deal with the cockpit. guest: robert, i appreciate your service. i see your points. but the bottom line is, if we are doing what if scenarios, there are a lot of objects on an airplane that can be turned into a shiv or what have you. since 9/11, we have done training for flight crews, we have air marshals on planes, we have secured cockpits. i agree that there is a lot to be learned from the israeli model where they do behavioral

analysis. it is much easier for them -- they have one airport. we have 450 plus airports. so the amount of people it takes to do that kind of procedure is an issue. but i think there is a lot of lessons to be learned. that is one of the things we will be examining when we talk with the administrator is how are some of their efforts to introduce behavioral analysis and the screening process working, and are those things like using dogs that can sniff explosives, using some of those behavioral analysis -- how are they working yet go -- working? are they viable alternatives so we can improve or increase the ability for passengers to pass through quick we but maintain our safety? host: twitter asks -- what is tsa exists and should be done by the military? guest: that debate was held back

in 2001. congress decided to create the department of homeland security. tsa is an organization that is fairly young. it has gone through growing pains. i think administrator pistol is providing good leadership. i think there is a lot of room for improvement. this is the model we have today. i think one of the issues when you are talking about military security is do we want the military operating on american soil? i think it is entirely reasonable to have a civilian agency doing this type of security on american soil. host: donald from west virginia. caller: i have a real big problem about the knife situation because if you think about it, you can buy knives in

america anywhere. so why would you bring it on a plane yet go just get off -- plane? why would you want to bring a weapon on theirre? host: do you carry a pocket knife? caller: no. i'm not hunting, slicing up animals or anything. it does not make sense. the knives are in my house in the kitchen where i cook. guest: you make a good point. why would you carry a weapon? any type of knives we're talking about our penknife,, not weapons. typically carried on a keychain. friendly, i grew up carrying a knife. at age six, my grandpa gave me my first little knife. i carried a knife of this size up until 9/11. after i had to go out and bury my knife in front of the airport the second time because i try to go through security and forgot i had it, i quit carrying a knife. it is a old role thing.

men and women use it open letters, clean your finger nails -- they come in handy. peel an apple, so it is a cultural thing. a convenience thing. it is not a weapon. when you look at the links as well as the width of these blades, it is not any more dangerous than a sharp ink pen. host: let's hear from spring, texas, john joins us now. caller: i was wondering, is a rand paul's son out of jail for attacking that flight attendant ? when is he due in the trial? host: should your questions at us, john. -- shoot your questions at us, john. caller: i have a couple more. just answer that one first. guest: i don't have any idea.

i am not sure where the case stands. host: we can look here online. i will search for that information. we will go on to our next call. republican from florida. caller: 9/11 was not a choice. it will take more time to get through because there will be a negotiation about the size of a knife. you have to measure. let the military do it. military help is cheaper than civilian help. thank you very much. guest: all reasonable thoughts. the motion behind the razor blades, the box cutters use on 9/11, i understand a lot of people have concerns.

those are still banned. when you look at the pen knives we are talking about, this is actually going to save tsa time because they don't have to rummage through a bag and pull out a knife and make sure it is ok. you can look at it knife and determine whether it is a two inch knife or not. the characteristics of a dangerous knife versus a little penknife we are talking about. they're not going to increase confusion. it will speed up getting through tsa. it will allow tsa folks to focus on the role threats. that is the point here. i want our security people focusing on the real threats to the airliner, passengers, and not wasting times on things that are not a threat. the 9/11 scenario of summary with a blade being able to gain access to a copy and taking over -- to a cockpits and taking over the plane is not a reality anymore. that started changing with the last airliner when the

passengers relies we no longer live in a world where terrorists took an airplane, fluid to a location and surrendered. the world has changed. those passengers taking control of that airplane was the first step in that change. since then, our security people have been very smart. they have looked at securing the cockpit, giving training to flight attendants. there are lots of things that we have done so that the 9/11 scenario is not viable anymore. these little pen knives do not pose a threat. host: congressman hudson, you mentioned freeing tsa up from the responsibly of sorting through these knives. play out what some of those scenarios that concern you are. guest: i do not want to get into a whole lot of details about the types of things we are concerned about, but any type of explosive device or something that could threaten the integrity of an airliner is our biggest concern.

that is where the focus ought to be. the other thing is that tsa had started the pre-check program, and if folks are not sign up for the project, go to the tsa.gov website and sign-up. . the tsa pre-check is a quick screen process where we have known travelers, we establish them in advance, they do not have to take off their shoes, their computers and devices out of their bag. they are able to much more quickly move through security because we know those folks. they have a history of flying. we can focus on people that aren't as well known. again, it is risk-based security. it is a smarter way to do it and allow our security folks to keep us safe and focus on real threats. host: a question on twitter -- the new rules were brought on by a tsa group. what are they, what are their credentials?

who makes these choices? guest: that is one of the questions i was going to ask at the hearing. very smart question. i do not have an answer. maybe we can provide one back through c-span after the hearing. host: why is that a good question to be asking? guest: it is important to know how a decision is made and who is making it. i have not had the chance to dig deep on it. but we are happy to share that information after the hearing. host: another angle on the tsa story -- congresswoman marsha blackburn of tennessee -- we had a tennessee caller: earlier. the commerce woman has a piece "dressing for access at the tsa ." she says -- since its creation the tsa is that an employment increase of 400%.

host: she says the cost over two new uniforms was $12 million. however, tsa's recent $50 million agreement for its 50,000 officers is four times the cost. they are to have uniforms from previous years. what do you make about the congresswoman's concerns ? guest: i agree completely. when you look at the growth of a have a series over the last several years, over the life of the agency, and you look at issues like the uniform cost, the fact that they made the purchase before the sequester

kicked in, and the uniforms were partially made in mexico, which is another concern -- i want to buy things made in america when possible. there are a lot of issues with this agency. it is a large bureaucracy. it deserves a lot of scrutiny. i do believe they have got leadership in place looking to make these changes. but we as congress will hold their feet to the fire and pushed them to make changes. one of the benefits of risk- based security is it makes us safer and it is a better deal for the taxpayer because if we can focus on a real threats and not try to find everything on everybody, it seems reasonable that we can reduce the amount of people necessary to do that, which means we can return money back to the taxpayer. host: independent caller from connecticut. caller: i would like to ask the congressman what his experience level is he for he took this position.

what experience does he have in aviation and security, and also how about the f rating that homeland security got. what is the new rating? guest: i do not know about any new rating. there are a lot of issues with the tsa and the department of homeland security in general. a lot of concerns that i and my colleagues have peered we will continue to press them. the other part of your question -- we have civilian leadership. i am not a veteran of vhs or have experience in the tsa. to answer your question directly, but i think that is why our government was set up the way it was. our commander in chief is not on active duty military person. so my job is not to be an expert and advise tsa on

techniques but rather to provide oversight and represent the people of my district and the people of this country when we look to make sure that we are balancing our safety, our privacy and where getting the best best deals for our tax dollars. host: a call earlier asked about the son of senator rand paul. here is a story about that, looking at how he was charged with assaulting a flight attendant during a u.s. airways flight from lexington, kentucky two charlotte earlier this year. bondsman, you talked about for returning members of your district. you are able to unseat a two- time incumbent last fall to claim your seat. you have some exterior. washington working behind the scenes. -- you have some experience in washington. guest: the district changed the borders a little bit.

i think it was a good change. we took a district used to run from downtown charlotte to downtown fayetteville. one of the important principles of redistricting is communities of interest. i think the new district is suburban and rural and is very consistent across the district. the biggest concern of people back home is jobs. and the economy. people are really suffering out there, and they continue to suffer. i made my campaign about that and coming to washington and representing people in the district. i told them -- you may not always agree with me, but you will always know where i stand. i think that kind of straight talk, that focus on the concerns that they are dealing with everyday, was the reason i was successful. host: a local news story from your community -- immigration reform, several dozen immigrants march in uptown charlotte just days after

seeking concerns to lawmakers in washington, d.c. opening up the story, one of the folks who was engaged in this said "i was very impressed by your willingness to listen to what's young people were saying ." he says you "were pretty much on our side." are you aligned with what these young activists are looking for in regards to a path which is citizenship? guest: i am not sure i want to answer that specific detailed yet. i think i share their concern that there are folks out there living in shadows that we need to deal with with compassion. i think their sense of fairness, that people need to be treated fairly, extends not just to the students and their situation, but also people who come here legally and have done things the right way. it is not fair to put people in

line ahead of them. it is ultimately about having operational control of our border, knowing who is coming into our country, to keep our nation secure, and then it is about the economy. we have employers who need workers and cannot find workers eared and my district, either coulter is an important industry. i talked to farmers all the time about their needs. this is an issue that we have got to address. we have got to do it in a bipartisan way. one party cannot solve it. i was encouraged by the president when he came to talk to the republican conference, that he mentioned immigration was an area we could work on together. i agree. as long as we're talking about putting in place a better legal immigration system that can handle the folks who are coming into this country and that can reward people for doing it the right way. i think then we can deal with some sort of worker program for people who are already here who

have jobs and are following the law. we can deal with those folks and a compassionate way. ultimately, i do not believe somebody who came here illegally and broke the law to get here ought to have the path to citizenship. as long as they're going to work and follow the law, there ought to be some sort of status that we can allow them to stay and work. the details of that and whether it is something you renew every five years or whatever is negotiable. but i do not think we ought to put them in line for citizenship ahead of people who can hear the right way. host: congressman richard hudson sits on the agricultural committee, also the education workforce and the homeland security where each tears the transportation security subcommittee. when the caller on the -- we have a caller on the democrats line. caller: i think there was a gentleman a little while ago saying that you could buy anything that you bring on that plane, you can buy it when you get to your destination. so why haven't they are on the

plane -- why have it there on the plane? i think the threat of anything that he is talking about today -- he is a threat himself. because you go down and look at all of the republicans in congress and everything that happened on 9/11, that was brought over here by saudi arabia with the queen or whatever paying the rent on the box cutters and all of the 19 of them that got on the plane. she paid their rent and everything for them to learn how to fly that plane. host: so you hold republicans responsible for that? caller: i hold them responsible because their theory is all about -- his theory this morning is that a little tiny knife can't hurt. even a four-year-old is not

allowed to have one of those. all of the republicans turned loose all of the hijackers a long time ago. he let them go. he said we did not need them anymore. and you go down the line, all of the republicans are saying no. host: let's get a response from congressman hudson. guest: i think to say one party is always wrong is a little extreme. i do not think democrats are always wrong. i do not think you can bring -- blame one party or another for what happened on 9/11. the 9/11 commission report showed that all parties had some culpability's. that we as a nation could and should have been doing things better. i think we have learned those lessons, it and that is why we have instituted policies like a secure cockpit, training for flight crews, adding air marshals on planes, and having

tsa screeners at airports. are we perfect? no. but we have gotten better. there is room for improvement. i will continue to push for improvement every day. improvements in security capabilities and the things we are doing, also improvements and efficiencies and access for passengers getting through security checkpoints, and the privacy of individuals in this country. those are all principles that we have to have to look out for and continue to get better. the cost of this bureaucracy, the cost of government -- we have got to bring down and start looking for efficiencies and savings for the taxpayer. that is a high priority for me. we will work hard to improve, but we have got to work together, republicans and democrats. there is too much name-calling going on. i think trying to blame one party or another is not productive. what we have got to do is work

together and put the interest of the country first. that is my focus. host: dean, republican, go ahead. caller: i am 92 years old. i watched c-span everyday. i love it. i think it is wrong to have a knife on the plane because they can cause damage. host: what do you think about liquids on a plane? what is your opinion on the restrictions of liquids? caller: as long as it is water it is all right. host: what about lotions or shampoos. caller: they can buy that or it is usually furnished in the hotels. but i used to fly a lot. most of the people that fly are afraid anyway. but with nice on the plane, i think they will be more afraid. -- with knives on the plane. host: perhaps you can address

the liquids question. if liquids are still restricted to a certain number of ounces. guest: sure. i appreciate your call. it is great to hear from a loyal listener who listens everyday. the real threat to and integrity of an airliner comes from explosive. -- from explosives. you can read in the news, years ago, there was a threat of liquids could be converted into an explosive on the plane, so that is really the answer and. -- the concern. disguising a liquid at something that could be -- as something that cannot be dangerous. that is a challenge for tsa and and something we will work on. why would you allow a pen knife on a bus, on a subway system, ballpoint pens? .hey are shop -- sharp

knitting needles. if you try to eliminate everything that could be used as a threat, you get to the point where it could be absurd. what is a threat of someone taking control of an airliner and using it in a terrorist way ? a small pen knife, with the new security measures, it's not a threat. the real threat is someone bringing a bomb, whether it is liquid or otherwise. host: there is a twitter question. he wants to know whether you favor on rushing employers who hire a legally. -- illegally. guest: the problem is we do not have a system that employers can use with great confidence to determine whether someone is a legal or not.

even verify system can tell you whether a so-so security number is an active, real social security number, but it does not tell you whether it touches the individual who presented it to you. a lot of times when we find problems, and employee -- an employer will learn about it when they get a letter. we have to have a better system in place if we are going to hold employers accountable. we should hold them accountable for hiring illegal workers, but we ought to also give them a system that works so that they can make that determination in good faith. host: new york points out that senator ran all of kentucky' thinks his pit crew after having the filibuster. you are mentioned. it says congressman richard hudson around the back of the senate chamber to show their support. what read doing and how did you find out was doing the filibuster? guest: we heard about it during

the day and we knew it was going on. it's as one of the few nights i did not have a dinner or something to go to. my wife and i went back to our little apartment early, and i was watching "dr. dynasty." my favorite tv show, after c- span, of course. and when "duck dynasty" finish, i flipped over to see there are still going. ted cruz was talking and senator paul was still on the floor. after watching for a few minutes, i said, i am three blocks away, i should so that i should show my support to what he is doing. i put my suit back on. i had never been on the senate floor before. it is smaller than you would think. but i fell like i was part of history. it is not often that you have a villa buster. -- a speaker filibuster. i admire what the senator was doing. i think the question he was asking is important. does the president have the authority to kill an american citizen on american soil one that citizen is not engaged in a

terrorist activity? we are dealing with the question of drones. it needed to be asked. and we got that answer, finally, after 13 hours of filibustering. the attorney general sent a letter to senator paul and said no, the president does not have that authority. it is important that we got that administration on record. host: did you serve any other purpose? paul was brought some sustenance. did you hand out candy bars, do anything else like that. guest: no, i was not prepared. it was more moral support. i did get to speak with the senator during the filibuster and afterwards. there were several members of the house. we did not coordinate, we just showed up. host: and the senate let you in. guest: they did. i was not sure if they were going to. host: let's hear from glenn in

the missouri, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. there is a simple way to carry a knife or anything else on the airplane. put it in a check through bag. you don't need it on the airplane anyway. i carry a pen knife all the time in my pocket. but when i get on the plane, i put it in the check through bag. that way i could not get through it. that is the simple way. anything you want on the plane, put it in the cotton picking check through bag. and you don't have to worry about it. guest: those are wise words, and i would encourage travelers to heed that. checking through items is the dust way to do it. at the end of the day, what we

are dealing with is we are trying to do a better job of keeping people safe. we are trying to focus on things that are really a risk and not waste time on things that are not a risk to that airliner. we can sit here all day and go back and forth about the size of a blade, is this thing or that thing sharp, but the bottom line is we need to be focused on what is a threat. we want the folks in charge on keeping us safe focus on that. we want passengers to have as much convenience and privacy as possible. host: a call from iowa on the democrats line. caller: i carry a pen knife, like you, most of my life. i use it to clean my nails, open letters, that is basically it. use them for anything else and they break. politics aside, this is a country by the people for the people. homeland security can be there, but you have to slowly give control back to the people.

at least the pacifier affect. this will happen again and maybe 50 years from now, and we will forget. only security of money to go away, but you need to make people feel safe. that is all i got. protect us, make us feel safe, politics aside. host: how do you balance that? making people feel safe with keeping them safe? guest: it is a good question. it seems like we chased the last incident. something will happen and then we have new procedures, the shoe bomber, reiber -- robert reed happen, now you have to take off your shoes. we response to the last incident. this new approach is the right way to go. let's do a better job of evaluating what the real risks are and give back some of that freedom to individuals. we live in a free society. we cannot eliminate every possibility of someone being harmed.

what we need to do is focus our anti-terrorism efforts on real threats. that is what we are trying to do. i appreciate that call. host: congressman richard hudson, republican of north carolina, representing the eighth district. he took the seat back for the gop last fall. thank you so much for being here on washington, d.c. -- "washington journal." coming up, independent bernie sanders will weigh in. and coming up, a pakistani ambassador to the u.s. will talk about the strained relationship and whether he thinks the alliance is worth preserving. >> 8:32 eastern time. present obama has told house republicans that he is still weighing a decision on the

keystone pipeline from canada to texas. speaking yesterday with gop members, the president says jobs numbers and other benefits are probably exaggerated, but he did not rollout a decision to approve the bout -- the pipeline. lee terry said the president appeared "conflicted on the pipeline." he went on to say he wished the president, as were less negative, but he hopes the pipeline will be approached -- approved. gun control legislation is being considered in congress. the senate judiciary committee is set to approve an assault weapons ban today. went to get to the senate next month, the measure seems unlikely to survive because of opposition from her publicans and some moderate immigrants. the sponsor, dianne feinstein, said she will all the help she can get because she will be facing an 800 pound gorilla.

the national rifle association. later today, a ceremony to welcome secretary chuck hagel to the pentagon. vice president biden will officiating at a ceremonial swearing-in that will be witnessed by friends and former colleagues, including senator hagel's brothers tom hagel and mike hagel, the painter. kerry,ecretary of state carr john brennan of the cia and james clapper. c-span is covering the event. you can see it later in our programming schedule. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the simple fact is that we are all getting older together. we are not the same. we are beginning to have an inverted pyramid. that makes our challenges as it relates to entitlements and

social security even greater. photo/slow going developing countries have had lower fertility rates, and al qaeda -- and now china is starting to feel the impact of its one child policy. we are better off than the rest of the developed world, but our fertility rate has dropped to 1.8, the lowest drop in order history. unlike most of the world, we have a tried and true way to deal with this demographic time bomb. demography does not have to be destiny if you change course. the past that we can -- the path that we could take is to allow for a strategic reform of our immigration laws so we can bring young, aspirational people that will rebuild the demographic pyramid to make our entitlement system secure and jumpstart our economy in a way that will create an uplifting of our hopes and dreams but also directly impact economic growth. >> u.s. economic growth and

immigration policy. former florida governor jeb bush on immigration wars, saturday at 8:15 eastern on c- span two. "washington journal" continues. host: senator bernie sanders, independent of for my, joins us. he served on the budget committee. yesterday we saw senator patty murray introduced her budget plan. here is the headline in "the washington times." there are no sacred cows. what is your take away? guest: it calls for substantial cuts. it deals with deficit reduction in a balanced way. i think as many viewers know, the ryan budget and what the republicans want to do is deficit reduction by cutting, doing away with medicare as we know it right now, converting

that into a voucher system, which would be very onerous for senior citizens. making devastating cuts in medicaid, which means that millions of american people will lose their health insurance. massive cuts in education and nutrition. basically every program that working people depend upon. what my view is, and to some degree what the committee is moving toward, is to say we have seen in the middle class collapsing, poverty at a high rate, while the obvious people and largest corporations are doing x ordinarily well. we are looking at record- breaking profits for corporations, yet their tax rate is the lowest since 1972. one out of four major corporations is not paying a nickel in taxes. the issues we have to deal with is do we really want to cut social security, medicare,

medicaid, education, head start, or do we want to ask the wealthiest people in the largest corporations to start paying at least their fair share of taxes? what the budget is about is raising revenue. there are substantial cuts in it. the real unemployment in this country is not them .7%. -- if not 7.7%. it is even higher than it is for young people. we are helping to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, bridges, water systems, to put people back to work. the point that i would make is that while we have to compass rate -- concentrate on deficit reduction, we had to create millions of jobs in this country and put people back to work. host: would you vote for senator murray's budget plan? guest: it does not go as far as i would like. we have the most unequal this

region of wealth and income of any major country on earth. it is worse than any time since before the rate depression of 1929. the top 1% owned 30% of the wealth. -- 38% of the wealth. the bottom 60% owner 2.3% of the wealth. the walton family of walmart owns more wealth than the bottom 60%. in terms of income, what we should know is the last study showfrom 2009 until 2011 that 100% of the new income went to the top 1%. the bottom lost. when you have that inequality, the middle-class shrinking,

people on top in joining record- breaking profits, you have got to ask them, not go after the elderly, children and sick and poor. host: "the new york times" shows a table of the republican versus the democrat proposals. senator murray says a tax increase would raise $975 billion in revenues by closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy. and new spending, $100 billion in stimulus and job training. guest: we have real unemployment, including those people who have given up looking for work and no stable who are working part-time. it is over 14%. it is her rent this for people of -- it is horrendous for people of color. we have got to put our people back to work. focusing on deficit reduction is important. but creating the millions of

jobs that our economy desperately needs is more important. i would go further -- i can tell you that in the state of vermont, we have a serious problem with roads, bridges, water systems, schools, we need to invest in our infrastructure to make this country more productive. when you do that, you create jobs. i'm a big fan of investing in the infrastructure. i would have gone higher on a proposal. host: the competing plans in "the wall street journal," democrat and blue, did -- and republican in red. you can see that there. guest: do you really think that the only way we can move the deficit reduction is cut, cut? revenue is the lowest it has been in six years. there has to be a balanced approach, and we need revenue coming from closing outrageous

loopholes. host: talking with senator bernie sanders, in his second term. democrats can call 202 585 3880 . republicans -- (202) 585-3881 and independents -- (202) 585- 3882. let's go to edward in grand prairie, texas. go ahead, you are on with senator sanders. caller: senator sanders, my concern is that you guys are being easy on the republicans about raising tax. the democrats are not raising tax. all they are trying to do is get rid of the welfare program. units are not emphasized that fact that we are subsidizing these corporations. we are not raising the tax of the 1% -- we're just trying to

get them to pay their fair share of taxes like every other citizen. when we talk about corporations not paying any taxes, we are saying that that we are not raising their taxes. we are trying to get them to pay tax like other organization. in looking at the programs, we talked about how the workers' income has decreased. it has decreased because you have many of those red states that have voted for republicans during the reagan administration and during the johnson and administration that killed the union, which at the time was about 35% of the citizenship. now it is only 16%. over that period of time, the workers have decreased while the corporations have increased. i don't understand why you guys are being nice to these republicans. guest: i think my republican

colleagues would disagree with you. you make several good points. first, when we talk about the decline of the middle class, median family income going down, most of the new jobs in this country are low-wage jobs created. there are a couple of factors. the decline of trade unionism is one of those reasons. we used to have far greater representation so workers could sit down and collectively negotiate a contract and get a decent wage. we have lost millions of decent union jobs. the second issue has to do with our disastrous trade policies. i voted against all of the things. from nafta to permanent normal trade relations with china. congress at the behest of organizations has opened up their markets. the real truth was that in the last 10 years or so, we have

lost some 50,000 factories in this country. many of them going to china or be low-wage countries. those trade policies would say to corporations, throw american workers on the street, moved to china, bring up products back into the country -- has been were -- has been disastrous for the american people. let me tell you this, we are losing every year about $100 billion in revenue because large corporations have stashed their profits in the cayman islands and other tax savings where they can avoid taxes. there was a story last week i think last week. what we have got to do is indices loopholes with these large corporations, many of them we bailed out.

congress bailed them out when they're recklessness almost destroyed the economy. they were wonderful american companies that needed to help the american people. but when it comes to paying taxes, they prefer to put their money into the cayman islands. that is an issue that has to be addressed. 12% of profits -- corporations are paying the lowest effective corporate tax rate sent 1972. this is an issue that we have to address. host: senator mcconnell, leader of the republicans, talking about the democratic budget plan before it was unveiled officially. here is his feedback on it. [video clip] >> given what we have heard about the budget so far, it is obvious why they refused to release one for some years. we hear it won't prevent the believe that programs like medicare from going to grab. we hear it contains yet more graceful -- wasteful "stimulus"

spending. spending that turned out to be a lot more effecting at generating jokes for late-night comedians and then jobs. and in order to finance more spending, we hear it relies more on $1 trillion in new taxes. including on the middle class. remember, washington democrats already got more than $600 billion in taxes this year. so where is this new revenue going to come from? charities? the home mortgage interest reduction? will they go after families and small businesses yet again? at least there is one thing we almost certainly no -- -- know --their budget will almost certainly never balance. not today, not tomorrow, not ever. host: that is senator mcconnell. senator sanders, what is your response? guest: the first point is that

what we have done in the budget committee is make cuts in programs including medicare, but we do it without cutting benefits. here is how and why we do it -- by the way, the budget committee is a committee that comes up with the blueprint. here is what mr. mcconnell does not appreciate. his friend in the house, congressman ryan, in -- ends medicare as we know it through a voucher program. that means if you are 65, 66, 67, the government will give you an in adequate doctor checked and say, go out to the private insurance companies. if you have cancer, if you have diabetes or a sale -- or a serious health issue, what kind of help do you think you can get at that age?

what we have said is that at a time when we are spending almost twice as much for capital on healthcare -- that is not just medicare -- and in many ways our outcomes are not as good as other countries, of course we can make the health care system more efficient. one of the things you can do in medicare is a demand that medicare negotiate prescription drugs with the pharmaceutical industry. we can save substantial money. put more money into primary care so people do not have to go into an emergency room at 10 times the cost of going to a primary care physician. there are a lot of things you can do to save money without cutting benefits. second point, he talks about stimulus. let me be very clear -- when the infrastructure of this country is collapsing, when in vermont and all over this nation we

need to put huge amounts of money into rebuilding bridges, many of which are now unsafe, our roads, rail system, and when we can create jobs, yes, that is the right thing to do. he talks about raising taxes. what we are talking about is ending loopholes. maybe mitch mcconnell thinks it is a good idea that companies like the bank of america can put their profits into the cayman islands and go through a year in 2010 where a hugely profitable corporation does not pay a nickel in taxes. if that is what mitch mcconnell thinks is but, i strongly disagree with him. but what you are seeing is a big philosophical debate. in my view, the republicans are standing with these large corporations. one out of four are not paying a nickel in taxes. and we say before you cut social security, medicare, medicaid, and -- and education, gifted to pay their fair share. host: senator mcconnell talked about balancing the budget.

a twitter user want to know -- ryan's budget balances in 10 years. what is your budget balance out ? another want to ask why deficits don't matter. guest: deficits do matter. in our budget, deficits do matter. and that talk about how we got to where we are right now, sometimes forget about that. when clinton left office in 2000 and bush took over, this country had a $236 billion surplus. then what happened in the next two years as we went to war in iraq and afghanistan. we do not pay for those wars at all. we give huge tax rates to the wealthy, we did not offset it. because wall street was deregulated -- when i was in the house, i thought that very hard. they got deregulated and they

come up with these complicated financial procedures, which ended up leading wall street to the verge of collapse. that led to a recession which led to less revenue coming in. that is why we are in an 800 and -- it hundred 50,000 -- $ 850,000 trillion deficit say. maybe mitch mcconnell things i should cut social security for an elderly person living in vermont on $15,000 a year. maybe mr. mcconnell thinks we should cut benefits for disabled veterans, those who have lost their arms and legs fighting in iraq and afghanistan. or maybe the widow of somebody who died in the wars. cut their benefits. i disagree with that. i will not support without. host: senator bernie sanders, he

serves on the budget committee. he also sits on environment and public works, veterans affairs, education, labor and pension. he served in the house of representatives in 1991 until he was elected to the senate. let's go now to wichita falls, ruby joins us. caller: good morning. host: ternium -- turned on your tv and go ahead. -- turn down your tv and go ahead. what is your question? caller: if you are going to cut spending, why don't start with the president and his family? if i personally have problems with money, and he has the charge of our country, i would start with my own spending that the government is paying for. having a separate plane, expensive vacations.

the spending and the working of working on a budget, i do not understand how a president and his present -- and his family has been the amount of money when the country is in dire need -- host: do you want to see them change because of the savings or the example that they may be setting? caller: i think an example -- they make good income. guest: i think they do spend their own money on vacations, ruby. allah would ask you to consider is there are a lot of unbalanced people out there and a lot of lifets on the president's and there is important to keep them safe. host: matt, independent from new hampshire.

caller: good morning, c-span. i am a disabled person. i was disabled and understand us industr dent -- in and ial accident. i was a windows and/or expert. i worked my whole career to get there. when i took my social security, what i was eligible for on a social security retirement was cut in half. i get medicare, i do not take medicaid because the state of new hampshire is a recovery state, and i do not want to deal with it. i have a wife and grandchildren to look out for. so i agreed to take half of my social security in my mid 40's. i was disabled. no doctor in the world can figure out what is wrong with me. i was electrocuted.

every month i have to pay a medigap insurance on top of paying $100 out of my check for medicare. my medigap i am billed as an 84- year-old, and i am currently 55. i am billed at an 84-year-old age because no doctor can figure out what is wrong with me, so they cannot really give me a straight diagnosis. i was declared an epileptic -- host: matt, let's go to senator sanders. guest: matt, this is what i would tell you -- it sounds like you have a very tough situation. what i will simply tell you is the plight that you have described, you are injured on the job, you are disabled and cannot go out and get another job, there are i guess millions

of people in the same boat as you are. there are mothers out there trying to raise a family and trying to build -- bring up some kids. what america is supposed to be about, and some of us believe has got to be about, is to make sure that nobody is behind. you cannot earn a living, but you are entitled to live with dignity. if a woman loses her husband on the job has two kids, she is entitled to bring up those kids with dignity. summary 70 years of age is sick, he is in -- if somebody 70 years of age is sick, he is entitled to get care. let me be clear, the disability programs that you are enjoying right now that you think are inadequate, they will be cut by republicans. if you don't bring in revenue and you want to move very rapidly to deficit reduction, that is what takes to do it. medicare will no longer be the program. there is no debate about this.

what people would be forced to do is to get a check trying to find a doctor. but what dr. is going to take you in? it will come out of your own pocket or you will not get the healthcare you need need. if today you are on medicaid and you lose that and the republican plan puts millions of people off of medicaid, what do you do if you are a mom with a kid who is sick and you not have a lot of money? what happens to you? republicans do not want to think about it. it is not their issue. the story that you have just told is a story reflected in millions of families. we say together as a nation that we are going to take care of everybody, provide everybody a minimum standard of living, or we are involved in a society where a few people are on top have it all, the middle class shrinks and people down below are left to scramble for themselves. that is not the america i believe in. host: we have the latest

numbers on appointments benefit from the associated press. fewer americans searched for it last week, bringing it to a five-year low. fewer late ross -- fewer layouts are strengthening the job market. the applications fell by 10,000, bringing the adjustment to 322,000. guest: that is great news. americans have short memories. if we remember five years ago, after the wall street disaster, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. now we have gained a few hundred jobs. that is good. we are clawing our way out of this terrible recession. but let me reiterate -- the unemployment numbers of people talk about -- if you count people who have given up looking for work, or you are working 20

hours when you want to work 40 hours, we are over 14%. so are we making some progress in rebuilding the economy? yes. do we have a long way to go? yes. host: color on the democrat line, go ahead. on the democrat line. caller: i do not want you to think that you are not appreciated. i will tell you that i am absolutely behind you 100%. i agree with your views. i am just wondering how come they don't tie the debt and the sequester to the wealth gap. it looks like to me that we work and we get paid twice a month.

but i am thinking about how many checks these people are getting. they get a check from offshore banking, from tax cuts, a check from the loopholes, a check from corporate subsidies. that is on top of personal because the supreme court made corporations people too. so i do not get all of that. i am wondering what is wrong with mr. ryan where he is looking at little people who are getting one check from a job and five and six checks for these corporations in the 1%. and how much money is offshore in total? they have been doing this for over 50 years. host: let's get a response from

senator sanders. guest: let me give you the simple answer, the bottom line. i will tell you what very few senators tell the american people. big money controls what go on -- what goes on in washington to a degree. the party has been moved to a white -- right wing extremists party. that is what the ryan budget is about. it is about at a time when the middle class is disappearing and so may people are hurting, they will cut programs or people who are hurting and give tax breaks to the wealthy. but as an independent, i'm not going to sit here and tell you the democrats are just great. they are fighting day and night for working families feared that is not the case. they are also influenced by

money. what is happened in recent years to make a bad situation worse in terms of the power of money over the political process that we have is her rent is. -- is horrendous. if you are a with that decision says if you are corporate leader who wants to make it even easier to send jobs to china, now you can put as much money as you want into the political process. you can put tens of millions of dollars of public tv ads on the air and radio ads and whatnot. that has given even more power to big money and has made the average senator or member of congress even more fearful about standing up to wall street or the big energy companies. and it has made a bad situation worse. in terms of offshore, it's a very important issue.

most americans work and pay taxes. what large corporations to set up subsidiaries in the statement allen's -- in the cayman islands and elsewhere. five years ago when wall street was on the verge of collapse, they went begging to the president and the congress and said bail us out, we need hundreds of billions of dollars, we are good american companies. i voted against that bailout, but they got it. $650 billion. but when it comes to paying taxes, they're not so patriotic. they prefer to raise the retirement age to 70. we have legislation dealing with that issue to end the outbreak is corporate loopholes. host: our guest has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the citizens united ruling.

here's the story -- who are you getting support from? guest: we are working with a congressman from cordoba. it has been introduced in the house and senate. what we are seeing is all over this country hundreds of cities , i think nine states that have gone on record to making it very clear that they think citizens united is an obscenity, that corporations are not people. i don't know how many americans think corporations are people. good old exxonmobil, no one believes they are just like you and me. we have to give power back to congress and the states to regulate campaign finance. we cannot have billionaires' buying elections. not what it is's supposed to be about.

host: let's hear from lorraine, independents, san diego. caller: i am concerned the president does not uphold democratic principles primarily with regard to social security. i have read that he's willing to put the chained cpi on the table in his budget discussions with republicans in order to achieve the grand bargain. i understand this issue was discussed in the meeting he had with a group of democrats yesterday or the day before. i read that you approached him about this. i would like you to discuss it more in depth. i would really like to understand why he feels that he has to betray americans and democrats in particular with his support of this program. he does not seem to be communicating and cooperating well with democrats in congress,

both in the house and in the senate. guest: lorraine, i wish i could say what you said was not factually correct, but it was. you are exactly right. this is an issue i have been working on with a number of other senators and members of the house for quite some time. let me explain what the chained cpi is. if you are a senior citizen, you will start laughing when i tell you this, but this is what people believe. right now the government has to calculate what inflation is every year. so we make adjustments, cost-of- living adjustments for seniors, disabled veterans, other people receiving government programs. if you take a minute, you realize it's hard to do. we have an 18-year-old kid, but they spent is different from what an 85-year-old person suffering from cancer will spend. in any case, there are some

right-wing folks who came up with the theory that what we give to seniors and disabled veterans, it's been too generous and we have to reconfigure how we determine those numbers, with the goal of cutting them back. if the chained cpi, this is the new configuration, or to go into affect, if you are 65 today a, you are 75, you get $650 per year less. by the time you're 85, you get $1,000 per year less. if you are disabled veterans today, interest in iraq, and you are 30 years of age, your 65, you will get thousands of dollars a year less in benefits as a result of the new configuration. lorraine asks why did the president, with this idea. i have talked about this on several occasions. i think he's dead wrong. i and others are doing our best

to try to get him to rethink this position. the truth of the matter is the president has been quite good in funding the veterans administration. we have seen significant increases there. i speak now as the chairman of the committee of veterans affairs in the senate. i don't know why it he would be thinking about cutting back benefits on disabled veterans. so we will work with him. it's not just the president pick. mitch mcconnell and all the republicans are fighting for this chained cpi. there would rather save money by cutting benefits on disabled veterans and people on social security rather than ask large corporations for not paying any taxes to pay something. host: on twitter -- do you feel the same way about unions?

guest: of course, what i'm saying is it's not just billionaires. no one, nine unions, not wall street should able to buy elections. absolutely. host: paul in michigan on the democratic line. caller: mr. sanders, the wealthy people for the last 40 years have been not spending as much or paying as much taxes as they should. i would suggest that perhaps it's time to recover some of that past. an annual tax on income is never going to do it. perhaps it's time to set up a net worth tax, a very strong and aggressive one. your thoughts? guest: we have looked at that. he talked about a tax on wealth, which i believe does exist in

some countries. it is something worth examining. i think there are people who would say there are constitutional issues involved. paul raises a profound question which the media does not talk about much and certainly is not talked about in the halls of congress. that is the danger that in our country today -- and i don't know how many members of congress will tell you this -- the real danger we have is we are losing not only the middle class in this country, not only our democratic positions through citizens united, but this country is into an oligarchic form of government where there are powerful entities and family's controlling the economic and political life of this country. when you have a situation where one% of the families in america own 38% of the wealth and the bottom 60% owbn 2.3%.

the gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider. when these people can buy elections and these people can avoid paying taxes by putting their money in tax havens and these people can ship jobs to china and other low-wage countries, we have a real problem in this country. what we need is a very strong grass-roots political move meant that basically says the united states government has to start working for all of us and not just a handful of people who make campaign contributions. host: on twitter -- tells about your experience engaging in your own filibuster. would you do it again, something like entitlement reform? guest: the answer is at the proper time and for the proper cause, i would. i would prefer not to do it

alone. i would prefer to bring forth a group of people, members of the senate to agree with me on many issues. i think the issue here that we have got to be talking about is that in america, with the middle class in so much pain, with unemployment so high, with the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else, whose side should government be on? do you stand with working families even though they cannot contribute $100 million into a campaign? i think you do. what the number of us have to focus on in terms of tax reform, in terms of protecting and expanding -- let me give you an example. many viewers may not notice. we argue about medicare and medicaid. today the united states is the only major country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. i think as a result of the

affordable care act, we will bring more people into health care. that's good. we will have more primary health care. but we need to make healthcare has a right for all people. yet today we are spending almost twice as much as any other country on health care. what do we? do we how do you create a health care system that is stronger and protect all our people? how did you create millions of jobs we desperately need? how do we deal with wall street? i have made a number of points, so let me make one which is important. we bailed out wall street's. i'm sure all the viewers spoke be delighted to know that every single one of these major wall street institutions, bank of america, citigroup, jpmorgan chase, is today far larger than they were before we bailed them out. the top six wall street institutions is two-thirds of the gdp of the united states. the people and that is healthy for our economy? i don't. host: your book writes about

your poll of eight hours on the senate floor. -- this article writes. guest: the idea of a filibuster is something i support. i disagree strongly with rand paul, but he has the right to filibuster. i believe it that we have to and the absurdity in the seenate where the republicans are demanding a 60 votes on almost every important piece of legislation. if somebody wants to go up and make their point, they should have the right. if they want to go on for two days, do it. but 51 votes to prevail at the end of it. host: republican, florida. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you, senator sanders, for being on here.

you spoke of the cayman islands and cutting prices for the cayman islands for people to keep their money there. why is it the smart play for people to keep their money in the cayman islands when that is the smart play? we are 15th in the world for the best place to keep your money. the roads and bridges, we paid 35.9 since per gallon already for building roads and bridges. why do we need to add more money into building more roads and bridges? guest: let me answer the question from austin, texas. taxes in the cayman islands are zero. that's why. in fact, the effective corporate tax rates today is 12%. nominal its 35%. very few people pay that. very few corporations. its 12%. the percentage of revenue and

that corporations are contributing to the federal government as part of gdp has gone down from where it was before. if you are a large bank, you have zero and that's better than paying anything in the united states. that's why they are doing that. that's my answer to that. i just think that's wrong. we are a nation and it's wrong for some of the wealthiest and most powerful entities, especially in the middle of a serious deficit situation, to say i don't want to pay any taxes in the united states, i'm putting my money in the cayman islands. host: senator bernie sanders sits on the budget committee and is the chairman of the veterans affairs, help, labor and pensions among others. thanks for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: next week talk with a former pakistani ambassador to the u.s. about the u.s.-pakistan will asian chip. he will ask whether it is an alliance worth preserving. that's coming up. first news radio updates from c-

span radio. >> more on the jobless numbers. they show the number of americans filing for applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly dropped last week the lowest level in almost two months, adding to signs the labor market is strengthening. the labor department report first-time jobless claims fell dropped byand to -- 10,000. the forecast called for increased. before you are-week average declined to a five-year low. managers are maintaining its staffing levels as consumers continue spending, even after a 2% increase in the payroll tax at the start of the year reduced paychecks. blumberg says there remains a risk that the recent pickup in employment will be cut short as federal budget cutbacks prompt companies and government

agencies to trim their payrolls. the labor department says wholesale prices rose in february by the most in five months, pushed higher by more expensive gasoline and pharmaceuticals. outside those increases, inflation was mild. those are some of the latest headlines from c-span radio. [video clip] >> the public is not paying as much attention as i am and you are and those of us who are part of the political community. there is what i call the political community, which is about 10 million people. it is the people that watch c- span, the watch meet the press, a watch fox news, they watch msnbc and to a lesser extent cnn, but they're really care about politics a lot. we had 130 million voters. most people get a lot of what goes on in politics in washington and in journalism as background noise. the background noise comes

pretty much from the mainstream media in people forming an opinion of romney and obama and so on. fox news does not reach most of those people. fox gets great ratings and has a loyal audience, but look at the show of bill o'reilly, the most popular one on cable news, it gets 2 million or 3 million people per night. that's not the electorate. we have a big country. the conservative media only reaches a tiny chunk of it. >> more with a political commentator fred barnes, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: our guest served as the pakistani ambassador to the united states from 2008 to 2011.

he's the director of the center for international relations and professor at boston university, among serving in other positions. thanks for being here. guest: thank you. host: you recently wrote "breaking up is not hard to do: why the u.s. pakistan the alliance is not worth the trouble." guest: first, pakistan and the u.s. have traditionally it had very divergent expectations of their alliance. i'm not advocating an end of relationship. they are important countries. pakistan remains important to the u.s. and the u.s. being the world's sole superpower is important to pakistan. the idea of an alliance, they both have different expectations, divergent ideas of who is the enemy is what has caused so much trouble between the two allies. no other american ally has been the source of so much misgiving as pakistan has. opinion polling shows 92% of

pakistani think of the united states negatively. 74% of americans think of pakistan negatively. in an environment such as that, is more important to build trust between the two countries first and think of having military or intelligence alliances later. host: you mentioned the people and their perceptions. what about leadership in pakistan? how does the leadership receive the united states? guest: pakistan has had intermittent military and civilian rule. the military leaders always look to the united states for assistance, economic aid, and military aid, which they usually want that against india. america is not in the's enemy, so america gives the aid in hopes of turning pakistan away from its traditional paradigms. in the case of afghanistan, the pakistani military and intelligence leaders would want

a more pro-pakistan regina. that usually hazmat groups such as the taliban. -- that usually has meant groups such as the taliban. pakistani military leaders pretend to be what they're not. and america makes promises they're not able to people. host: our guest is ambassador husain haqqani. he wrote in foreign affairs recently that pakistani sent to think of the u.s. as a bully and that washington provides desperately needed aid intermittently, yanking it away whenever u.s. officials want to force a policy change. how can that perception be changed? guest: america needs a clear view of what is the purpose of aid to pakistan. its purpose is to help the poor people in pakistan and the we ak and the weak-- india has 92% of its school-age children in school.

india and pakistan were born together as twins and got independence from the british &. india has 92% of school-age children in school. pakistan only has 58% of school- age children in school. if pakistan leaders want to reverse that and the u.s. wants to assist, that is welcome. but providing pakistan with more military materials is only going to fuel conflict in the region and will serve no american purpose and no pakistani purpose. host: husain haqqani served as the pakistani ambassador to the united states, the 24th ambassador to serve in that position. there's a long history. you talk about the founding of pakistan. there's a long history of a relationship. guest: absolutely. in 1947, pakistan was born under difficult circumstances. most people did not expect the country to last this long. it was the will of the people accepted going.

at the same time, a lot of american assistance was helpful. pakistan could not meet its budget targets for the first few years and still does have a very strong revenue base. american aid has helped sustain itself. pakistan got one-third of but onlyn the's army 70% of the revenue sources. pakistan had a bigger army than it could financially and economically support. leaders at the time came to america and said look at our geographic location, you can use us as a base for operations against the soviets. there was an intelligence base in the 1960's in pakistan from which flights took place in the war against the soviets. pakistan was the staging ground against jihadist. america's global strategy and still did not make pakistan and

the u.s. allies, because what pakistan wanted, they did not get and what america expected was not fulfil completely either. host: if you would like to talk to our guest, call -- you have written in foreign affairs that the may 20, 1911 u.s. covert operation in abbotabad that killed osama bin laden brought their relationship to an unusually low point. guest: from the pakistani point of view, the elite shape public opinion, one of the leaders from pakistan could have said you don't want terrorists in the country and we are grateful for the americans. instead of what happened was pakistanis were very angry and they were told to get angry by their leaders that the americans

came into pakistan to conduct the operation against osama bin laden without the approval of pakistan. they just changed the focus. on the american side, the position was osama bin laden, an international terrorist, what was he doing in pakistan? since then, the two countries have had a total lack of trust, but there was much trust before. pakistan's conduct in afghanistan has not been particularly helpful to the u.s. it has been said pakistan has often been hedging against an american withdrawal. what pakistan's military and intelligence has been doing in afghanistan is it has been helping people who were the enemy of america was trying to fight. another occasion where the alliance was not working. the moment the americans stop accepting what can best be

described as inexactitudes and the pakistani start stating honestly what they really want in the region, the two countries can have an honest dialogue. you can have an honest dialogue without being allies or enemies. but pretending you our allies and not having an honest dialogue creates a problem. host: you spoke about the aftermath of the killing of osama bin laden, but what was pakistan's official and unofficial role? guest: there was no official role. i was ambassador at the time. there was no official role. the americans did not notify pakistan. if we did not know the operation was coming. as far as unofficial, the people have not been treated positively in pakistan subsequently. osama bin laden had some network of support.

that network may not have been within the government that is something the pakistani government needs to explain to the world. until we do this, there will be suspicion. even if it was a totally unofficial network, it means there are forces in pakistan that are not in the control of the government that have enormous power. pakistan hardly has a day that goes by without a terrorist attack inside pakistan. so pakistan needs to fight terrorism for pakistan say. because of the alliance with the united states, everything related to terrorism becomes about the united states and the pakistani discourse and people don't face up to the reality that terrorism is a threat to pakistan and pakistanis should make peace with israel for the sake of pakistan and pakistan needs a positive relationship with a tennis fan and to have a stable government there that does not allow terrorism to grow

in afghanistan that an overlap into pakistan. none of that discourse takes place because of that happens is america needs to help us. when it does not, it is automatically spoiled. that's not a healthy debate for any country to afford. host: new resigned as ambassador in the wake of the raid. guest: i did not resign immediately. i was ambassador from may until november even after the raid. i defended pakistan's from a lot of chris and after some -- from a lot of criticism even after the raid. i am still encouraging cooperation between the two countries. i'm not asking for a breaking up of the relations between the people of pakistan and the people of the u.s. or between the two nation completely. i'm talking about the notion of a military alliance. that needs to be broken. i defended pakistan's actively during that time prevent a gentleman who was an american businessman of pakistani origin

came up with a fantastic notion that somehow i had asked him for help in approaching the u.s. government to forestall a coup in pakistan. there was no coup. i did not need help talking to the u.s. government. but what it created was a scandal that i was batting for the american side while being the pakistani ambassador. a charge of treason was created that has never been formed into a formal legal charge. it created a media noise and political noise that made it difficult for me to continue to serve as ambassador. i was pretty tired of a really tough job. i took the opportunity to resign, asking for an opportunity to clear my name. that did not happen. now i'm back in the united states working at the hudson institute as a scholar and teaching, something i am enjoying. host: our first phone call is

from mitchell in wichita, kansas, democrat. caller: good morning. i just wondered why we should have an interest in communicating with pakistan, being that there is such an islamic base and not forgetting about the nuclear holding that they have. other than maybe pakistan would continue enjoying u.s. tax money. guest: that's a good question. we must understand that the different layers of relationships between nations. there is communication. you communicate even with enemies, remember that. you don't stop communicating. the u.s. communicates even with north korea. second, having an engagement in which you actually talk to each other and say how do we solve

this problem and that problem. the third is working together and having an alliance. i'm saying exactly the same thing. the alliance and the terms of the alliance, what we need is greater honesty an acknowledgement of the issues within nuclear proliferation. pakistan has not answered some tough questions and they need to be answered. in pakistan's interest and in america's interest. communication cannot be given up. however, the alliance needs to be rethought. host: paul in tupelo, mississippi, republican. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i want to thank the gentleman from being opened and objective like the is being. i was a former combat officer in the air force. i was a nuclear weapons officer. in my younger days. what does he really feel about

the drone policy, if it is being effective? and if he thinks that it is justified, because we are killing people overseas without anybody else's authority? and also about iran and their nuclear weapons capability, how he thinks that will play out, because in my opinion and having been somewhat involved in that area, they were not -- there will not stop until they get a nuclear weapon? host: thank you. guest: we have seen that country determined to get nuclear weapons to get them. there needs to be a global rethinking about nuclear weapons in which the u.s. must take the lead. we will continue to have specific countries pursuing. we can try to stop them. india was. not was -- india was not stopped.

we will see whether measures work or not. the drones are an instrument. they cannot be policy. they can be an instrument of policy. question is what is the policy? if the policy just to kill individual that you discovered to have been involved in terrorism or is the policy to try to make them effective? the way they have been deployed in northwest pakistan and parts of yemen is because the government does not have full control over these parts. to say that these are a violation of those countries sovereignty is a little weak, because their sovereignty does not fully extended those parts of the country anyway. can the drones along stop terrorism? i don't think so, because terrorists will continue to recruit and there will always be people joining terrorist networks about american intelligence is not fully aware. keeping counter-terrorism

operations limited to just eliminating terrorists you already know is not necessarily substantive policy in dealing with terrorism. its special in the case of pakistan, we know that drone strikes peul anti-americanism. although i don't think international issues would be about being like in a foreign country. even if people don't like it, it's the policy really worked completely and effectively, then it would have made more progress. host: on twitter -- guest: there have been mixed views on it. sometimes areas where the drums strikes take place are areas where people actually have a less unsympathetic view of the stones because they really don't want terrorists in their neighborhood. something comes from the sky and blows them up, they don't really mind. there have been innocent people

killed and that has consequences. i think the united states needs to review its policy of keeping. the drones keeping. the whole operation is secret. nothing is shared. if the u.s. came clean publicly and said are drones killed x ,y,z yesterday and this is what this man did, maybe opinions would be different. pakistani are victims of terrorism and they are tired of terrorists attacking them in the major cities of pakistan. host: in texas, independents, rick. caller: hi, libby. what you are saying is they would not mind being hit by drones if they knew x,y,z which came out in the next day's paper of this is why we hit that neighborhood because we were trying to get a guy bellaterra

stew was in the neighborhood, you are saying they would not mind because they want the terrorists gone even though collateral damage might be a couple families killed? guest: first of all, a couple families don't get killed in drawn strikes. because the u.s. never give details, therefore it gives people the opportunity to say a couple families were killed. usually the drone strikes are a lot more precise than is reported in the media. what i am saying is if people were on board and they understood that this was just one of the means of trying to eliminate terrorists, people would be less hostile than they are right now. of course terrorism needs more than just drones and anything that results in civilian deaths will cause far more negative reaction than those who want to persist with that policy. host: in new york, robert, a democrat. caller: my question is the

relationship between the united states and unitedand how the conflict between pakistan and india play into that relationship. guest: we must understand from the pakistani military strategic point of view, the conventional view has always been that india is a threat to pakistan. i as a pakistani don't believe that, but my viewpoint is in the minority. most pakistanis look on india as an existential threat. my view is that no country is an existential threat to anybody on a permanent basis. friends become enemies and enemies become friends and think tank in the world. -- and things change. pakistan needs to review its outlook on that. the united states wants

friendship with india and pakistan. the problem has been during the cold war, india wanted not to be an ally of the soviet union or the united states. india wanted to build a friendship with the united states without being a military ally. india got what it wanted. now we have there's greater good will for india in the united states than there is for pakistan. that is to the disadvantage of pakistan. instead of working around the problem by increasing good will between pakistan and the americans, a lot of people in pakistan react and turn more and more hostile to the united states, which undermines the relationship and the potential for french and -- for friendship even further. pakistan needs good relations with india and with all its neighboring countries. pakistan needs to focus inward.

one-third of pakistani to live below the poverty line and another one-third lived above it. pakistan spends far too much on its military. in terms of building up against the potential threat from india instead of dealing with the real threats of illiteracy, of disease, of ignorance that is widespread. host: husain haqqani served as pakistani ambassador to the united states from 2008 to 2011. he's a senior fellow and director for south and central asia at the hudson institute. mr. rector at the center for international patients. and professor of the practice of international galatians and boston university. -- he is the director at the center for international affairs. we have seen recent polling data on pakistani is perspective on u.s. leadership. here are the numbers. president obama's first term

characterized by a strained relationships between pakistan and the u.s., nine out of 10 pakistani is disapproved of u.s. leadership. 4% approved. that's the lowest approval rating pakistani step ever given. you can see the disapproval rating going up. one of our callers on twitter -- is there an nuance in the perspectives? guest: absolutely. pakistan is a multi-ethnic country. it has several linguistic groups. it has many tribes. when pakistan was created and we must remember 1947, the country that was created out of india included an eastern wing but subsequently broke away to become bangladesh, pakistan, the idea was that the muslims of south asia and muslims of india would have a homeland. one-third of the muslims stayed behind in india. now muslims, one-third are in

pakistan and one-third are in india and one-third are in bangladesh on the continent. they have been trying to unite the disparate groups. what we see is that the larger ethnic groups who are more powerful, they have a far more anti-american views than the smaller groups, some of home look towards the u.s. as potential source of help in obtaining their own objectives of more autonomy and greater strength. but right now 92% basically means the negativity about president obama and the united states is more or less across the board and it is partly affected by a-pakistani media and unwillingness on the part of any pakistani leader to speak up for the relationship. that's the basis of our conversation today and will be the basis of a book i'm writing

which should be out by october. the book is called a " magnificent illusion: pakistan, the united states, and an epic misunderstanding." the point i would like to make is my own case, an individual who set out to try to make u.s.- pakistan relations grow and to try to bridge the mistrust, i tried to explain to americans what pakistan really needed, explain to pakistan why they should not mistrust the united states, a person like me immediately got accused of treason, as if the only way forward in u.s.-pakistan relations is to play a double game. get the assistance secretly and publicly accused the united states of all kinds of things, which does happen in pakistan. host: your piece in foreign affairs, which is published by the council on foreign relations, is called a breaking up is not hard to do." roy in connecticut, independent

line. caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, mr. ambassador. a problem with a relationship with pakistan is giving military aid to the way we do, i don't think helps either one of us. what we should do is help with the schools. when i have seen on tv with the madrassas and the way some of the young people are being dedicated is not really helping pakistan or helping us. the other problem is one of the reasons we have such a negative view in the united states is it almost goes back to kahn and county's considered a hero in pakistan get typing most people would consider him a pariah for what he did selling nuclear weapons and nuclear secrets to north korea also libya and possibly iran. that's also part of the issue. guest: i would endorse your view

on this. i think pakistan has to overcome this major lapse that people who are considered terrorists will believe, there are several groups from pakistan which have been designated terrorist groups, but their leaders are still considered heroes in pakistan because of their willingness to attack india or afghanistan. dr. kahn as well. pakistan developed nuclear- weapons to protect itself from nuclear blackmail from india or other countries, but that did not give anybody the right to be the source of onward nuclear proliferation. scientists leaking secrets to third countries. that dr. sold by rastan's nuclear designs to other countries. he should have been considered a criminal. the fact that he has been considered a hero by pakistan

and islamist politicians reflect a more fundamental problem in pakistan, which is an inability to grant how to be part of the world without necessarily having a world view that is hostile and negative towards the rest of the world. antisemitism is considered acceptable in some parts of pakistan. it should not be. hard-line ideologue to call police about the islamist extremists are not acceptable around the world. ical rd-line ideologue to ca beliefs. and none of these things are positive for pakistan. pakistan has a negative image in the united states. it's not only the image that needs to be rectified.

not all of my countrymen appreciate that those who question the wrongs happening within our country are actually patriots who want to change the country for the better, to make it part of a globalized economy. having heroes that are heroes not only to pakistani is but also to the rest of the world. kahn and the terrorist leader certainly are not. host: on twitter -- guest: i don't think anybody is a for having nuclear weapons. adelstein has nuclear weapons primarily to guard against the potential of india, which is much larger, overrunning the country. on one level it is more secure. in the will not able to do that. at the same time, having nuclear weapons has made the country now very worried about a potential

american covert operation to try to deprive pakistan of nuclear weapons. it is like somebody who keeps buying guns to feel secure and then stays up all night to try to ensure the protection and safety of the guns. that is what has happened to pakistan. we acquired nuclear weapons to become safe and now we're worried about the safety of the nuclear weapons. that's not a very sensible way to go forward. host: we hear from milwaukee, wisconsin, jeff, independent caller. caller: i would like to thank him for being on today. a pretty quick question. i just want to see how he feels regarding the the haqqani network and pakistan having an aiding approach rather than tackling approached. guest: i have nothing to do with the the haqqani network, i hope you know. i just happen to share part of

the last name. the the haqqani network is one of the various jihadist terrorist groups. it was part of the war against the soviet union at one time. it has since morton to a group that acts as a warlord in one part. -- it has morphed into a group that acts as a warlord. and it does kidnappings for ransom. none of those are positive activities. pakistan has been reluctant to go against the the haqqani network and the u.s. government bills pakistan has been supportive of it. admiral mullen went to the extent of saying it is a veritable arm of the pakistani military. the idea of supporting a group like that, to have influence once the americans leave, is not an idea that is reasonable to a

person like myself. are they going to be an influence for good? will they be positive for pakistan after the americans have gone? i feel pakistan should stop supporting the the haqqani network and all other such groups. pakistan will be stable and strong when there are no malicious and militant groups in pakistan. any group that is in pakistan, even if it is intended for afghanistan, will inevitably create instability inside pakistan as well. host: husain haqqani, former pakistani ambassador to the u.s. from 2008 to 2011, senior fellow of the south and central asia at the the spin institute. eureka, california, mark is an independent. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i want to ask does he still lives in pakistan? does he fear for his life?

also, some of the distrust in america comes from the pakistani taliban has been coming across into afghanistan and creating hardships and killing american soldiers, personally i believe we should of left a long time ago, but that's neither here nor there. the third question is, does he think that americans will be able to get out safely through pakistan without problems with the pakistani taliban or any other groups, because we are going to have to drive out through that way? thank you. guest: i would love to be back

in pakistan. it's my homeland, my country, a country that i've observed and a country i wish to change. right now i'm not going back because i feel there is a security threat to my life. various groups, various individuals want me dead. we have seen that security in pakistan is relatively poor. we saw the governor of put down being killed by his own security guards -- governor of punjab. someone like me whose outspoken will not necessarily be protected. i'm not traveling back to pakistan. i would like to do that. it's my homeland. until that time, i'm happy to be in a country that i'm very fond of, which is the united states of america, where i have students and scholars i interact with and people like yourself with whom i like to have a dialogue. as part appellate taliban, -- as

far as the taliban goes, they are a group with an ideologies. the pakistani taliban and the rest of the taliban divide assistance to one another. they provide help to each other. an effort to get rid of both of them is necessary for the security of afghanistan, pakistan, and for american troops in afghanistan. to the extent that has not been accomplished is a failure for all concerned. as far as the american withdrawal from afghanistan, i would have preferred if the president of the u.s. had not announced a date for the withdrawal, because the taliban has a saying that the americans have watches but we have the time. the taliban got to understand this is the date we have to wait

them out until. therefore it creates a serious threat beyond that date. now that the date has been given and the process of withdrawal has started, i think the pakistani military will show that the withdrawal is safe and secure, because if americans are attacked inside pakistan while withdrawing, it would have implications. for implications the u.s. may consider actions against pakistan that pakistan may not want. i think the withdrawal is not something the americans need to worry about. what they need to worry about is what will happen in afghanistan opposed withdrawal. you went into afghanistan to prevent it from becoming a failed state used by terrorists such as al qaeda. will a situation like that return? that's what needed to be guarded against. host: husain haqqani is a

professor at boston university. he served as pakistani ambassador to the u.s. and also worked for a variety of prime ministers including benazir bhutto, as her spokesman. elaborate on how the safety situation works for you and your family and your experience in pakistan working for people who were under dthreat? guest: things were not as bad under benazir bhutto as they have become since then appeared there were extremist groups, but we could move around pakistan pretty easily. she held large rallies in the 1990's. people came and sugar hand and women hugged her. she was very popular in the country. in 2007 when she returned from exile, she was assassinated. there was a bomb blast to try to get her. the second time they attacked again just outside islamabad at

and there they succeeded. the situation has deteriorated considerably. the deterioration is primarily because the state of pakistan has not clearly made up its mind that all militants, all jihadist groups, all extremists are bad. as long as the state continues to make a distinction and say some of the jihadist groups are an instrument for influencing the region and we have to tolerate them but some of them are really bad guys, the situation is not going to improve. a terrorist is a terrorist. that is something pakistan needs to make a policy. the president of pakistan and the current government which has been in office five years, it's the first civilian government ever to complete its term in pakistan, they have been clear from the first day. they do want to fight all terrorists, but circumstances in

pakistan have not allow them to do so. and so, still there are groups that have the ability to organize within pakistan's cities and the tribal areas and there are groups that are outlawed groups. at some point pakistan needs to go after all these terrorist groups. host: north carolina, bob, independence. -- independent caller. caller: thank you, c-span. and i think you are fair minded individual that takes a view of the situation with your country and international galatians and the war -- your country and the international situation and the war. my condolences for you in your service to benazir bhutto. she was assassinated in your country and there was political

upheaval and eternal conflict. my soul goes out to you. the catholic church elected a new pope yesterday. the christian religion, i am speaking at up for the blaspheming reactions in your country to kill christians. i think your country would do well to protect its christian minorities and to speak out as best you can to influence the situation. host: we will have to leave it there. guest: pakistan poses blasphemy laws need to be reviewed. the whole approach of the relationship between religion and politics in pakistan needs to be reviewed. in the presence of extremist threats, threats of violence against those who advocate that change, it's not easy to think about the change -- to bring about the change. anyone who takes a lead in trying to change the law