mexico. a discussion about propose internet sales tax ♪ host: one of the issues to be discussed today when president obama meets with the new mexican president, enrique peña nieto, will be the war on drugs. that is what we want to talk to you about this morning on the "washington journal" as we go through the newspapers and the websites. if you support the war on drugs, (202) 585-3880 is the number for you to call. if you are opposed to it, you can also make a, and dash a comment on our facebook page. you can send it they tweet @cspanwj, and of course you can

e-mail us. again, we are talking about the war on drugs, one of the topics to be discussed when president obama meets with the new mexican president later today. they will be holding a news conference and cease and will be bringing that to you this evening as well. a piece in the washington peace -- the washington post last sunday with the lead story in the post -- mexico's changes, and anti-drug fight in peril.

host: dana priest writes -- and what is at stake should be

alliance be scaled back. u.s. officials got their first inkling that the relationship might change since two weeks after enrique peña nieto assumed office at the u.s. ambassador's request.

host: the miami herald editorialized yesterday, and the headline was on mexico's drug kit -- drug terminals -- don't even up.

host: that is is a little bit from "the miami herald," saying do not ease up on the war on drugs. we want to hear your views as well. we will begin with david on our oppose line. good morning. caller: good morning. first, i would like to see mexico and the u.s. become one as like social security numbers and all the paperwork. we could secure mexico a lot

easier that way if they did their police a little but more updated during -- updated. we need to get rid of prohibition because i have been here for 38 years, and i would like to try some freedom. and get rid of land tax because we are a minority with landowners. and gas tax -- host: we're going to leave it there. that was david and his views in north carolina. next is march. marge is gone. we will go to terrance. terrance in north carolina. what is your view on the war on drugs? caller: i just feel like there is really not a lot you can do at this point. this is been going on for so long, since clinton was president. there needs to be a different approach. it is basically like we are -- the more we try to stop it, the

more it grows, the more we put into it to stop the war on drugs, the more it grows. any to be a different approach on this. especially because i feel like a lot of people my age, i am 20 years old, a lot of people my age that are even younger get caught up in this drug war at a young age and don't even really know how to fight against it. i think there needs to be some kind of -- host: terrance, what is that new approach? legalization? legalization of certain drugs like marijuana. i think that would actually help. it would help a lot because if you look at these drug cartels, their main profit is marijuana. i think it would be easier if they legalize it. it would make it a lot harder for them to make money off of drugs like that. host: that is terrance in north carolina. foreign-policy magazine about

columbia and the war on drugs.

host: we have a call from waterloo, iowa. what are your thoughts on the war on drugs? caller: good morning. my thoughts have taken me a while to come up with. i have come to the conclusion is note war on drugs nixon's justsince

say no. it is evident that it is just not working. equated to prohibition. it did not work. we realize it is not work, and then we turned it around. i think the same thing has to happen with drugs. i am just going to be watching colorado and washington to see how that goes. thank you. tweetings is monte and to deal with the drug issue and miracle -- in mexico, we should do with consumption in america. lack of demand will kill supply. comments on our facebook page, there is also a poll. if you want to take a poll if you support our -- or oppose the war on drugs. you're so comments -- here are some comments -- the war on drugs is failing along with the

war on poverty. bill says, how could you not support the war on drugs unless you are a drug beeler or a pothead? richard says, it has been as successful as the war on poverty. huge waste of human capital locking people up for minor offenses. and kurt says, when you say war on drugs, i think he really mean the war on the bill of rights. tom says war on drugs has become a joke, how many lives have been destroyed by the government for something as little as hemp. and john says i support they will never win until the close the borders, and i will never happen with obama. indiana. you say you support the war on drugs. why? caller: yes, i supported. drugsing is, this war on started, i believe under reagan, vietnam,we went into

that is when all the high-grade marijuana come to the states. we go into afghanistan in the telethon -- the taliban and had pretty much eliminated. , hugeet what percentage increase in poppy production in afghanistan, which is where it probably all comes from. it is like all these other wars. it is warm poverty, war on terror, war on drugs, and now they want a war on weapons, really. sounds good, but they are not going to do what is necessary to control it. ,ost: so you say you support it though, so what is the approach? caller: close the borders,

protect the borders. the main drugs coming in, the marijuana and all of that stuff -- it is the cocaine and poppy production and all that. host: and that is gail and moreland, indiana. this is joanne and ohio. caller: hi. i oppose the war on drugs. first of all, the word war means death, killings, which i am against war. but anyway, it is ridiculous, including the concept of just say no. it is not working. it has not worked. as a few of your other commenters have said, all it has done is locked up a lot of innocent people. especially marijuana, and he is to be treated as a medical issue, not a moral issue, and

that is all i have to say, thank you. host: thank you, join. here's another piece -- host: this is from "the hill" newspaper --

host: that is from "the hill" newspaper. this is from politico.

host: that is from politico, and this is from "the hill." host: but i don't think the

senate bill is written to do that. that is from paul ryan in "the hill" newspaper. an issue we will be discussing -- the online sales tax issue -- in our last segment this morning on the "washington journal." and finally this gallup poll is out. the majority of the u.s. is still not concerned about sequestration. host: that is gallup poll from yesterday. back to your calls on the war on drugs. travis in yuba city, california. travis, good morning. what do you think about the war on drugs? caller: i believe that it is ast important to get people

mexico opposed to the war on their own streets on drugs. once you get the mexicans wanting to reject people with the drugs, what to reject the cartels and kicked him out of the country, then it becomes an issue of the mexicans taking it out. you have to empower the mexicans in order to put those people out of the country. we in america have no concept of 200 people dying in town squares everyday, until the cartels get their way. we cannot argue or debate with that. until we erase that fear in those weight off the mexican backs, we cannot fight. host: what about demand in the u.s.? demand in the u.s. -- if they cut off the routes, it is coming for mexico.

everybody knows it is coming up through the south. host: all right. where is yuba city, by the way? caller: about 45 minutes outside of sacramento. host: thank you for calling in this morning. brad calling from the shores of lake tahoe. hi, brad. you know, i mean, i do not support, i don't oppose. i just know that we just have to .et a handle on drugs coming in i mean, i was actually appalled by that -- it is not marijuana, or cannabis, as you call it, because it is a legalized -- isegal -- he cuts it legalized in colorado. they are walking around smoking or whatever. but it is what the cartel is. it is kind of scary.

when the cartel can do. $100, you is like, don't want to talk about the cartel in mexico, it is because you are scared of what could happen. brad.and that is back to dana priest. this piece in "the washington post."

host: u.s. involvement in mexico's deteriorating internal for speed in the mid- 1980's --

host: again, this is from "the washington post" on sunday. dana priest is the author. joe from bethesda, maryland. according to the note on my screen, it says you both support and oppose. no, opposite. i do not think there should be an issue. how do you address demand? there is a real demand in the united states. the second point is that you would to stop human ingenuity because if somebody wants something within this country,

they're going to find a way to get it. even if you build a fence, people build tunnels. so you'd have to go underground to forget -- to prevent entry into the u.s. and you have to prevent poverty in the u.s. so people would say, i do not want your $50,000. my final point is about drugs in general because i'll call is a drug, and it is killed -- alcohol is a drug candidates killed more people. so how do we address that. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you for taking my call -- thank you for calling in. justine. caller: i want to make two points. first, i am opposed to the war on drugs because it is turned into a class warfare and race warfare. and you look at drug use, the arrest for drug offenses, i mean, people of all backgrounds

use drugs. whether they are rich or poor, whatever race they come from, but you find that the majority of the drug arrests and people who are incarcerated for those are minorities and poor people. at least here in new york that is true anyway. i am guessing that something like that is going on in the rest of the country. if the only people i can see benefiting from it are the drug lords and whoever makes money from prisons, from the criminal justice system. is pretty much what happened during prohibition too because the rates were mostly on saloons that were where the working class people and immigrants drink. they did not raid the country clubs on long island. the second point is more of an anecdote, but my father was a coast guard reservist when the war on drugs started. during the late 1980's and

early 19 90's. he was involved at attempts at intercepting ships, boats that were smuggling drugs into your they did not succeed. they would have to turn around and run back out to sea. he always said that the war on drugs was the biggest waste of money and human lives in the history of this country. i thinkng i have seen supports what he says about that. host: we will leave it there. mark is in connecticut. mark, please go ahead. caller: yeah, i was telling the lady before, that the key is education. channel whereve a people can have access 20 47 -- 24/7. i think that if people are worried about these drug dealers

telling them that drugs are going to make you feel good, they will make you so great, they do not have an answer and there had already to say, you know, i don't think so. host: all right. rick is in philadelphia. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead. oppose the well i war on drugs, but i want to clarify that a little bit. personally, i think they need to leave the marijuana alone pretty much. you know what i'm saying i? to tell you the truth -- as a black man, who lives in the hood, i am so tired of seeing all these people strung out on crack. actually, i think the war on drugs is a misnomer. what they need to call it is a war against people getting strung out, whether it is legal

or illegal, people are still going to get strung out. that is what the real issue is. i think they need to deal with each one of those, cocaine, heroin, whatever, you know, as a chemical, on a chemical basis. that is really what this is about. if the people do drugs because they are unhappy, and that is just a superficial -- that is just something on the outside. you need to address what is going on with people on the inside. andneed to give them jobs opportunities and all that kind of sucks. that is what people do stuff. host: where in philly do you live? caller: i live in west philadelphia, sir. host: what kind of work do you do you go -- do you do? caller: i do delivery that night.

it is not just the people getting strung out, is people getting shot over turf and all that kind of stuff. if the whole thing. but that is really what the issue is. host: thank you for calling in and sharing your neighborhood experience with the this morning. some tweets that have come in. ,ike anything, guns, drugs booze, if somebody wants it, they will find a way to get it. look at prohibition. -- legalize says marijuana, it is no different than alcohol. quality -- caller is right, drugs are are the same as prohibition, can't stop it with a law. another says -- this seems like another extensive for we are not going to win. jim -- we need to legalize weed and stella, knife attacks, through sam's videos as strong spirits. kids in the joint jail waste resources. here are some more articles in the newspapers is morning. this is from "the washington post," a new cnn poll --

host: in about 15, 20 minutes, the former director of national intelligence, john negroponte, will be here. here is another article from the inside the beltway column in "the washington times."

host: that is an "the washington times" this morning. here is "usa today" --

host: this is from "usa today" this morning. this is from "the new york times" --

host: bruce in jacksonville, florida. thank you for holding. what are your thoughts on the war on drugs? caller: well, everybody has brought up road vision. that was the rise in the mafia.

and we got the sense to legalize it and tax it. so i think we should legalize all drugs and tax all of them. and you can go down to your local grocery, your local pharmacy and buy it. here in florida, of course, we have the pill mills that we had for a while and then we passed all of the restrictive laws. but everyone has forgotten the abuse of prescription drugs. so i don't know what we're going to do. on thelosing the battle trying to stop it come over the border and whatever because it is supply and demand, and as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. so if we legalize it and tax it, then we will get revenues and we can take part of that revenue to do rehabilitative work or preventative work. but we just them to be spending our wheels now. drugs, usingall heroin, methamphetamines, marijuana, do you see them in

the same pool? it was like, if with the booze during prohibition, if it is illegal, then there is going to be a demand. japan has zero tolerance. portugal has an open market. the netherlands have an open market. crime generates around drug distribution. so, you know, as one person tries to -- tried to play the race card earlier, it is a place for young minorities to make more money than they can make if they could get a job. it is a quandary that there is really no answer to, but we are losing the war on drugs. we have been losing the war on drugs for, like, 30 years. so the light needs to come on, and somebody needs to come up with a different idea. host: that is bruce and jacksonville. felicia is in alabama.

good morning, felicia. caller: hi. you look very nice this morning. i just want to tell you that. host: well, you just keep going. caller: i just want to say the war on drugs has devastated my community, my little, small town. all the minority around here, the young, black men have been put in jail and prison. aret 60% of the black men in gangs because they have been put in prison for long amounts of time. everybody uses drugs, but it has crippled my neighborhood. they can get jobs, they can get housing -- host: because of their records? caller: because of their records. a cousin of mine got caught with a dime bag of weed. he got five years. no other priors, no nothing.

he was in college. see, and it has an effect. he cannot pay child support. now they put him in prison and make them work for $.15 a day. how was he supposed to take care of his family? they say the war on drugs is good for us, but it has wiped out a whole bunch of black men. in alabama, if you don't sell it -- if you sell it, you will sell it for life. so i'm pleading to obama -- please, stop the war on drugs. these stop killing our young men. marijuana is the new jim crow in alabama. thank you. , felicia.k you nicholas in el paso, good morning. caller: good morning. i live on the frontier of where is on the drugs

border of el paso, texas. many of the mexican people who the -- to live now in united states are refugees from their own country because of the war on drugs. i support the war on drugs , these if you see here shootings ago across the border, the border is less than a mile from here. you see the rounds, and hit the city hall. here in el paso, i see rounds, when the cartels get in fights with police across the border in the hit the university of texas at el paso, you would think twice. the war on drugs down there in mexico -- they have killed over 100,000 people and have displaced many people. those who believe -- who could leave or have the money left mexico. they are renting a house, own a house, but they work in mexico.

-- the war is going on right now. but i believe a new president is making a mistake by trying to cut back. once you let the crime and, the organized cartels, they're going to take over. many people believe that if we legalize drugs, you know, we will tax it and sell it, but that is not what happens. in drug cartels are involved human trafficking, slave trade --oss the border, children they will expand. host: nicholas, thank you for your comments this morning from el paso. a couple of news articles from "the new york times."

host: that is from "the new york times." this is from "the washington post."

shortthat is a very portion on a long article of what is happening in boston. this is from the front page of "the new york times" this morning --

host: finally, a couple of articles about syria. this is from "the washington times." host: two editorials this morning about the president's and the administration pose an

n- administration's syria policy -- this is how he concludes such measures-- would have to be taken without a un resolution and it would upset mr. putin, but if mr. obama -- un" --"the baltimore son

host: william in indiana, thank you for holding, what are your thoughts on the war on drugs? caller: i am definitely opposed to the war on drugs. i feel like it does more harm than good. get caught with a small amount of marijuana, and then their lives or just ruined. they cannot get a job. in some cases, they cannot get drivers licenses. it just does more harm than good. industrialfeeds the

prison complex. there are a lot of people that want to keep the war on drugs because it makes them so much money. i just think it is a shame. i am definitely against hard drugs, cocaine and methamphetamines and heroin and such, but i think we should ease up on the marijuana and just plain legalize it. thank you. i love your show. host: stevenson indiana. hi, steve. what are your thoughts? caller: i think the biggest problem has not been addressed yet. it is our prescription drug problem in this country. it is what is most widespread and most deadly. i'm talking strictly about the paint hills and the nerve -- pain pills and the nerve pills. , -- xanax, nerve pills,

this is what is killing our people. ,he pharmaceutical companies the doctors. this war on drugs is ridiculous. last caller.the unfortunately, indiana is going backward. we are not doing anything about the prescription pill problem. that is what is killing us. we need to stop it. host: all right, thank you for calling in. coming up in just a minute will be the former director of national intelligence, a former ambassador to iraq, john negroponte, coming on to talk about your call, u.s. intelligence gathering. we were also be talking about the president's trip to mexico with carl meachem. i want to let you know also what is happening on booktv.org. in about 45 minutes, the executive chairman of google will be talking about his new book "the new digital age."

it is co-authored by jared cohen. they will be income recession at the aspen institute. you can watch it live online on booktv.org coming up at 8:30 a.m. this evening, live again online an authorcan watch talking about her newest book. and we have booktv in primetime, as well, and you just saw the schedule right there. you sell the book that we will be featuring this evening on booktv about presidents tonight. congressmanook on lincoln, a book on i can dig, and then that third book over there, which i can't quite see from where i am, and i forgot what it is. so you will have to tune into booktv on c-span2. you can watch it online or on c- span2.

john negroponte is next. ♪ , i think,reagan massively made mistakes on defense. the defense which it was not just a way for money in those eight years, it is what created the war machine that was used to create so much havoc in the world and create so much, you know, anger and problems throughout the world that were totally unnecessary that made us an imperial power. so that was a real negative. on the other hand, he did, for the first time since eisenhower, stand up for limiting the states.

government, big government, the state, is not the solution to every problem. in fact, it can weigh down the private economy. therefore, the idea of entrepreneur, the idea of technological change, the idea that peoplee -- should make their own decisions, he said for all those things. i agree with those things. so that puts the plus in his column. , he lost it.scally he really needed to stand up for closing more that deficit. ronald reagan spent a lifetime before 1980 as the greatest opponents of deficit spending there ever was. he launched a legacy of massive deficits, which permitted his followers to say reagan proved deficits don't matter. that was a historical error of enormous proportion. >> more with former reagan

budget director and the author david stockman sunday at 8:00 on c-span q&a. " continues.journal host: now joining us as the former director of national intelligence, john negroponte. he served as the first bni from 2005 two 2007. prior to that, he served as ambassador to several countries, including iraq, mexico, honduras. he served on the national security council. lots of different positions within the government. ambassador negroponte, is the dni structure effective, and is it working in your view? think so. i think the intelligence community needs a manager, somebody who does not have a day today operational responsibility, who can help deal with issues like budget, programs, priorities, and also

service the president of the chief intelligence adviser. host: when you were dni, did you do the daily intelligence briefing with the president? guest: it was done by two briefers during but i always install the process, and i accompanied them into the briefing with the president. edited six days a week. half an hour every day from 8:00 to 8:30 in the morning. i very much thought of myself as, in addition to being the dni, and being the president's chief intelligence adviser, i also saw myself as the person responsible for the analytical arctic of the intelligence -- product of the intelligence community. ultimately responsible. but if i saw material being repaired for him or for others that i thought needed to be looked at again or modified or iednged in some way, restud

-- remember, it was faulty analysis that got us into trouble with iraq in the first place. it was the fact that we believed intelligence that was not correct about the existence of weapons of mass distraction in iraq. that was just one of the main mistakes we want to avoid repeating. did the stoveor, biking -- stove piping of intelligence gathering -- and didn't in with the dni position? guest: things don't change from one eye to the next morning. i would say, actually, it was getting better even before the dni was being created, and it's continue to improve after. i think what happened is that 9/11 was a real wake-up call. it was a real ovation that there had to be more integration of our intelligence product and more sharing horizontally

across the community and more effort to timely integrated intelligence to our policy leaders. i think that began almost right away after 9/11. they did tend to behave in a somewhat stovepipe way. i think there was a particular problem in the law enforcement community, particularly the fbi, because a lot of their investigation records were being kept at the field office level. yellow legal pads, notes, stashed away in a safe in some field office around the country, and not enough effort made to centralize some of that information, analyze it for its intelligence value. i think the important thing and anue of intelligence and analysis was elevated in an organization like the fbi. it began a process of much

greater cooperation across the board, but visibly between the five or six key federal intelligence agencies. host: when you look at boston, and i know you are an outsider, but there has been some artists of them about information gathering.formation what are your observations about what happened in boston? guest: first of all, let's go back to pearl harbor for a moment. just to take a historic example of a classic case of surprise. isretrospect, what you see there was a lot of noise ,appening before pearl harbor that everybody felt there was something afoot, but people could not pick out which of those noises represented real signals, real signals of threat. so this is really the challenge in intelligence analysis,

particularly when you talk about threat assessments. how do you discern the real tremendousm a amount of background noise that is going on? i think that is part of the problem with respect to what happened in boston. the other point to remember is 20/20.ht is you can make anything that happens, intelligence, surprise, and look at it retrospectively, and you are going to see -- you are going to connect the dots. you're going to see signals or what appear to be signals that simply are not obvious when you are living through those events. one last point -- people have to make decisions based on imperfect knowledge. when you live in a present. that is very different when you have the luxury of somebody who is looking backwards at what has happened. host: current debate in this

country and congress about cyber security, privacy online. what are your thoughts as a former intelligence official? access toful to have people's e-mail, phone records -- is there a sense of overreach? guest: i think we do face a tremendous problem when it comes .o the issue of cyber security we should not be naïve about this. there are people who are really exploiting the weaknesses in the system, stealing an election will property. i think that is probably one of the most severe problems we face. there are people who steal by theial secrets millions and millions of dollars worth of value. so i think it is important come up first of all, that we take appropriate defensive measures. i do not mean the government, now, i mean industry, private wector, everybody else -- yo have to defend ourselves and lessen the chance that you are going to be hacked into or have

your materials stolen. and then i think there are certain things that the government can do. i do think we need some legislation. there have been efforts to legislate about internet security in the past couple of years that have founded on the issue of privacy. so there is always this tension theeen how do you protect security of your communications system and your internet and at the same time protect the privacy of our citizenry. i think both of those goals can be accomplished, but it has to be talked through terry society -- talked through. society as a whole and our congress has to reach a consensus on that. host: do you find it helpful to have access to e-mail, phone records? , it certainly -- myself, i was not operationally involved. as a matter of policy, the

answer to your question is yes. but this had to be done in a legal fashion, and it had to be limited to cases where we suspected some kind of foreign intelligence activity in connection with american -- with people in the united states. so a lot of these activities had to do with intercepting phone calls from abroad from suspicious area, from decisions people, two people in the united states. i believe, though, that as a result of the revelation of this program back in the middle of the last decade and in some of the subsequent legislation that we have had, i think there are ample legal safeguards with respect to the conduct of that row graham. -- that program. the classic statement that president bush made when he defended that program -- when al

qaeda is calling the united states, i want to know who they are calling. i don't think that is a bad summary statement at all. host: ambassador negroponte, you are currently -- what are you doing these days? guest: i am a private --sultant host: with the former chief of staff of bill clinton. guest: we help people do business abroad, market strategies, problem solving and so forth. and then i am a professor at yale university. icj couple of courses on diplomacy, national security. -- i teach a couple of courses on diplomacy, national security. i will probably be offering a course on intelligence, as well. host: what is reaction of students to you teaching a course? guest: the students i get tend to be interested in government

service. the number ofd by students i encounter who want to enter into public service. last class was my for this semester, and i asked studentsr of 20 or so for a show of hands how many expected to be working in washington next year, and i would say perhaps half of the class raised their hands hurt i was for he urged by that. are people who are going to go into the foreign service or the pentagon or they're going to work with a think tank or other ngo concerned with international relations. host: before we go to calls, ambassador, your time in iraq, when was that, how would you assess iraq today, and u.s. policy in iraq? guest: i was the first ambassador to the new iraq, so to speak, after we had the coalition provisional authority there, the occupation, which

ended at the end of june in 2004, and then i was assigned to iraq as the first investor. 30th ofere from the june 2004 to the middle of march in the following year. the main the conduct of elections in january of 2005. the first elections. -- everybody with pink-stained thumbs. stained thumbs. ordere able to restore to the city of fallujah. it was indispensable to a searching the authority of the critical timer a in that country. host: and, today, how do you assess iraq? guest: it is a work in progress.

has shownster maliki impressive dangerous. he has been in office seven years now. the political process continues. this is one of the few democratic countries, or only democratic country, in the middle east besides israel. i suppose you could argue lebanon. here is still a lot of violence. there are issues of sectarianism. thathave not fully worked issue out, the issue of tension between the shia majority and .he minority sunni you have to hope after what happened in 2006 and 2007 when they were effectively in a civil war that they do not want to go back to that kind of life and

existence. hopefully, things are going to get better. the other point about iraq is that the economic situation in the country continues to improve year on year. you would be surprised with the violence that goes on, in parallel with that, the economy is growing more than 10% per year. their oil production and exports is 3 million barrels a day. to become theack second-largest oil exporting country in the world one of these days. this country has plenty of promise. they still have serious political challenge. >> do you see a direct connection between the war in iraq and the toppling of who down -- dom hussain and the arab spring? that case is made.

my tendency is to try to think of each of these countries on their own merit. it seems that each one thing to develop in the unique and slightly different ways. it could be that the toppling of sit down hussain was a contributing factor -- the dow hussain was a contributing factor. ever since the -- sit down hussain was adam contributing factor. host: intelligence gathering is one topic. there are different topics on the table. the lines are up on the screen. we will begin with a call from kate in california. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning.

my comment is, the whole system of our intelligence gathering community is what five or six ?ifferent sections it seems they could combine those sections and the information coming in was available to all sections of the bee time, a lot more could accomplished rather than waiting for somebody to run a note across town. i am not sure how that information is passed on. somewhere along the line there are definite break down as the need to be addressed. backher comment is to go to the drove war. day isg war was lost the started. you are not going to control people to that point. not any more

dangerous than alcohol. in fact, it is less so. it also has amazing medicinal qualities. i am is 70 year-old woman and i suffer from arthritis. salve that iuana make myself, i am able to get off of the pain pills, prescription pain pills. i use them carry occasionally as opposed to every single day. host: let's hear from ambassador john negroponte. guest: the stock about your question about the different intelligence collection organizations and running the piece of paper across town. i think that maybe a caricature of what intelligence collection and analysis was like in earlier times. i mentioned pearl harbor

earlier. that is kind of how it happened back in the time of pearl harbor. they were intercepting japanese communications in the navy department and somebody was running across town to give summaries to the president and other people. they were not getting it out to high -- hawaii. this was one of the places that was attacked. we are far more advanced than that now. the nationalnsa, reconnaissance office -- the reason they are different agencies is because they represent different methods of intelligence collection, whether geospatial. --

nowadays, technologies is our friend. friend.ology is our in the interest of terrorism, whatever is collected by the differing methodologies is integrated into centralized databases and can be analyzed in real time. i would take one example for you. it is a good example. in iraq, when the head of al was finallyaq killed, there were all sorts of intelligence methodologies involved. it was through human intelligence, principally the responsibility of the cia although the pentagon does some of that. it was through him intelligence that we learned his telephone number and then it was his cell phone number and it was through signals intelligence and we intercepted. geospatialugh

intelligence that we were able to track the man and he was killed. that is a good example of floor- deployed forces benefiting from -- forward-deployed forces target a specific person. technology is definitely our friend and helps us integrate effectively and to produce an intelligence product rapidly. i am positive and upbeat about that. in your question about the war on drugs, this is a matter of national policy. thes a question that is in

purview of the congress and the president. i know there have been issues raised in the past about changing the objective award on drums. people who were in the executive branch carrying out government policy, we had no choice but to carry out the policy as it existed, which was to try to intercept and prevent the flow of illegal narcotics into the united states. the president is going to mexico today. that will not be the top subject of the agenda. they cannot avoid discussing it. when i was ambassador to mexico 20 years ago, the war on drugs was one important element of that multi-faceted relationship. host: mr. ambassador, what are ?our personal opinions george schulz against it.

william f. buckley against the war on drugs. what are your personal opinions? peoplewith respect to have expressed those kind of opinions, what really matters is the opinion you have you are in office and carrying out the policy. it is like the nuclear issue. as a whole, there are people going to zero nuclear weapons who were involved in defending our nuclear policies and negotiating arms control agreements. what is important is what your position is when you are in office. i do not want to second-guess the president. my job as an ambassador or an executive branch official was to carry out the policies set by the president and the congress. i do not think you are going to

see a significant change in the national drug policy of our federal government. we have no choice but to keep on carrying that policy out. our: bob is in missouri on republican line. go on with your question or comment for john negroponte. caller: the u.s. is building a $2 billion computer center in utah. are you collecting e-mail, faxes, and phone calls on american citizens without a warrant and archiving them double under what constitutional authority are you doing that? -- an archiving them? under what constitutional authority are you doing that? what: i do not know facility you are talking about out west. the kind of activity you just

described is not happening. there is no. interest on the parts of the u.s. government -- there is no interest on the part of the u.s. government in prying into the lives of american citizens. these things have to be done with a warrant and without permission. there is significant congressional oversight. the members of the intelligence committees of the house and the senate take their responsibilities seriously. ost: sam is in dearborn, michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: i want to thank you, mr. john negroponte, for helping us to get rid of saddam hussein. i am originally from iraq. it was wrong information about mass destruction in iraq.

, like any policy based on wrong intelligence gathering, the policy will be wrong, too. you carry any responsibility for what is the one on in iraq? united todayly dis more than any time before. in baghdad, i think we are in a similar war. do you think the policy that you imposed based on wrong information makes you carry responsibility for iraq? iraq?when did you live in caller: i left iraq in the 1980's.

my friends were killed and my family was wanted. baghdado work at the airport. i was wanted. iran away. oklahoma.d in tulsa, i worked for the faa for 8 years. i have five children. touch with iraq and involved. i was one of the 75 people representing the iraqi opposition. host: thank you for calling this morning. ambassador? guest: thank you for calling this morning, sam. statesly, the united bears some responsibility for what has happened in iraq. we went in. we overthrew the government of saddam.

we occupied the country for a year and wrote the basic laws for the country, many of which are being followed in spirit if not to the letter since then. let me suggest this to you. and others to syria authoritarian and dictatorial situations in the region and the world. that occursroblems when a regime is removed that -- aeen a dictator shape dictatorship, when that authority is removed, you do not know what this point to happen next because the political process these have been so suppress. one of the things you can expect is that there will be quite a bit of instability thereafter.

if you study the pattern of revolutions in past decades and centuries, you will see the that is what frequently happens. you have a lot of turbulence for a fairly long period of time. that is what you are seeing happening in iraq. hopefully, it will eventually settle down and it will settle down in a way that is reasonably thecratic and we are all of different tendencies and ways of political thinking in iraq turn a modicum of respect. they are going through a tough and challenging time. how much tweets, responsibility did the clinton administration have for the wmdrrectness of the intelligence. to blame bush for these

inaccuracies is in st.. guest: i do not blame the president as much as the bad stagecraft with respect to the wmd situation. we had a source. it has been laid out in this wmd report, which was laid out by the commissioner. we made the mistake of wanting so badly to believe him that we did not double check our information well enough. things wee of the sought to do, to try to build in more analytic safeguards so we could avoid the repetition of this egregious failure of intelligence stagecraft. host: which country or regional

areas pose the greatest risk to the u.s. and world in the next decade? how hard is it to get intelligence about them? remains aqaeda threat. you have been following where it has spread down into the horn of africa and somalia in and into northern africa. magreb is athe threat. it has reached into parts of sub-saharan africa and the situation we have been seeing in mali. al qaeda and these kind of formsist groups and other they feed activities,

on political instability and states failure. anywhere in the developing world where you see countries that are ,n the brink of state failure they have a lack of strong governmental institutions like rule of law and effective police. that is where the rest of these kinds of criminal and terrorist activities are the greatest. host: peters is double-speak is in kentucky and our republican line. -- peter is in kentucky on our republican line. has anybody been held for the violation of

human rights that were carried out? can he speak more about his consulting firm? guest: i cannot hear all of your question. if i got the drift, it was about honduras during the 1980's. i was ambassador from 1980 until 1985. i was not aware of the human rights violations going on. the time i was in honduras, during the early reagan demonstration, was a challenging time in central america. contours was surrounded by trouble. there was a civil war going on in el salvador. there was a takeover in nicaragua and there was a civil war and civil strife in guatemala. honduras has refugees from all those countries inside its borders. when i got there, they had just had presidential elections and had restored democracy after nine years of military rule.

they did have some problems with human rights issues. compared to their central american neighbors, they compare favorably. since then, honduras has been a democratic country. they have had seven or 8 successes. they are about to have their eighth successive presidential election this fall. they have problems of a different nature. that ave these gangs lot of countries in central america have that have been a threat. on the political front, the country has a reasonably good record to show for itself. host: have you visited nicaragua since daniel ortega has been president? would you be welcome? --st: i do not know how long

do not know if i would be welcome. i was ambassador to honduras when they were carrying out attacks against nicaragua. i have been back to honduras numerous times. contour andadopted children. contour us --- honduran children and they are a great source of joy in our life. we have a close tie to honduras. host: american hero is following about a comment you made. why didn't you mention all this is based on what one guy says? guest: why didn't i mentioned that? probably the bad

information that influenced our conclusion that iraq had wmd. there was a lot of planning going on for a long, long time to go into your route. it had been going on more than a couple of years. ofctically from the time 9/11, president lawyers w. bush's administration had iraq in the cross hairs. host: was the one guy you referred to challah be -- to lobby -- chalabi? guest: he was a source recruited by a german intelligence agency known as curveball. he may be known retrospectively

as curveball because he threw us a curve. i do not know what he was known by at the time he was giving us information. host: gregory is in state college, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i am exercising my recollection. four years ago in kansas there was a major exercise of intelligence the resulted of a totally integrated community that bore -- bordered on a culture. it was an abject failure and was destroyed or removed by the government. that was a disaster. the world trade center was inspired by the japanese the same as that particular culture in kansas city years ago and that turned out to be a major

disaster. i am curious to know if the japanese have any responsibility in in putting intelligence in our country that results in feasibility types of disasters. thank you. i am not aware of any connection between the japanese and what happened in 9/11. i associate 9/11 entirely with al qaeda. as you know, al qaeda was led by osama bin laden and he was based in afghanistan because the taliban had become an al qaeda sponsored state. he had a platform, a states platform from which to operate

and hatch his plots. a group of al qaeda extremists, all loyal to bin laden and committed to his perverse objectives are the ones who plotted this incredible attack against our country. clapper,you know james the current dni? is sequestration affecting current intelligence gathering? yesterday of course i know general clapper. he is one of my successes. i think he is doing a great job. he is highly respected. he keeps a low profile. he is not a front-page person. he provides invaluable experience and wisdom in the back stopping the intelligence

committee. he has been director of the dia now he is the director of national intelligence, among other important jobs he has had as an intelligence officer. just the kind of person we need to manage the community. i have forgotten your other question. host: sequestration and its affect on intel gathering. ofst: if there is a rule thumb and you think of our overall national intelligence as being 10% of the pentagon budget. to the extent that the pentagon budget is affected, so might the budget bece threatens. if there have to be some cuts or some deferred expenditures,

hopefully those are being done in areas that will not represent a threat to our national security. host: do you have a book in the works about your career in government? guest: not yet. i certainly do not rule that out. i have been too busy doing my consulting work in my teaching. at some point, if i have the time, i will sit down and put pen to paper. host: syria. what do you think the u.s. policy toward syria should be? when an authoritarian regime is removed, it is difficult to know what is going to ensue. therein lies the problem in my opinion. it is not difficult to envision the demise of bashar al-assad syria a group of armed rebels ultimately brings him down or a

foreign force goes in and remove some from power the way saddam was removed. it is not hard to remove the dictator from office. but the real question is what happens after that? be the going to challenge of managing and directing that situation? assad thinks about how goes, you have to think doubly hard about how we manage the consequences. host: charles is in oak park, illinois. caller: thanks for taking the call. powerng an authoritarian from power and not knowing what

will happen, it is safe to say another authoritarian power will take its place. anothert could be authoritarian figure or chaos. caller: of course. hashave been diplomatic in sent -- answering many of the questions. you teach diplomacy. you may have danced around the issue of what could be drilled war is harmful to national security. -- the drug war is harmful to national security. i would ask you to answer that question directly. if you would, i know we are getting late in the segment, i would like to listen to your answer. host: we are going to leave it there and we will get an answer from john negroponte.

guest: you ask my personal opinion. i was asked my personal opinion earlier. i do not think we should legalize drugs. it will add to our problems. we have an obligation to stop the illegal entry of drugs into our country and trafficking of drugs inside our country. one of the best ways -- we have no choice but to continue those kinds of efforts in the area of interdiction and law enforcement. to work on important the improvement of the economies of our countries. its history economic growth, employment, trying to reduce the kind of desperation that can lead to drug use. it is that kind of activity that will represent a solution to the problem. perhaps by way of concluding remarks, today, the president of

the united states is one to visit mexico. that is a country with which we have had a free trade agreement for the past 20 years. it is beneficial for the exchanges between our two countries. mexico has a growing middle class. it is through a first to promote our mutual prosperity that the drug problem, among many others, are going to be resolved. host: just a few minutes left with our guest, john negroponte. the u.s. senate agreed to john ambassador to the iraq may 6, 2004 by a vote of 95-3. caller: i will be as quick as possible. theuld like to speak to ambassador and thank you for your service to the country. you and i were both in the

military around the same time. i was an intelligence analyst in the early 1980's. a lot of my questions have been asked already. a size the war on drugs goes, it will never be won. inar on drugs is not a war that aspect. it is an individual war with a person individual within themselves and their family. my question would be about iran. i know it is the most dangerous country still left besides north korea. the people of iran -- i have worked with many people from iran. they love america and the idea of democracy and the ability to freely trade. what is the possibility there could be something had -- something that happens there that could be a positive

revolution? guest: there is nothing we would hope for more than a political change in iran. that is something a lot of americans and iranians inside iran and outside have called for fervently for a large number of years. ,he problem is, this radical revolutionary regime, the clerical regime, took over in 1979. it is the descendants of that regime the still have a strong grip on the country. if anything, they have strengthened their grip over the body politic. they started doing it in the 1990's by imposing a rigorous regime of control and it has gotten worse. they had a movement in iran a few years ago, a democratic movement. the government really crushed that.

politicalll for change in iran. there are a lot the iranians, a lot of well-meaning decent iranians who would like to see that kind of political change. i do not see it on the horizon just now. hopefully sunday it will happen. the best kinds of political change are the ones that are fomented from within. host: the last call for john negroponte comes from ohio. caller: back to iraq. i just saw on the history channel how the iraqi kurds were gassed by saddam hussein. they showed all of the dead bodies lying around. i do not think the intelligence agency was wrong at all. they used mustard gas or

something. most of that stuff went over to syria. i think george bush did the right call on that. you cannot blame anybody. bill clinton had three or four chances to get bin laden. you cannot really blame him. hindsight or couch quarterback ing. is that true? guest: it is true. in 1988, he said, reaching use saddam weapons -- the hussain regime used chemical weapons and killed thousands of horrific attack on the people of iraq itself. there is no question that sadda

m had used them and there is no question that he had them before. that is one of the reasons we were predisposed that he had them in 2002 and 2003. you are right on both those counts. tweets, didgirl enhanced interrogation techniques help us gather the intelligence to find osama bin laden? the intelligence from all elements of the intelligence program including debriefing and questioning of detainees. they provided useful information. host: we have been talking with ambassador john negroponte, former director of national intelligence. please come back to join us for "washington journal."

we will return with carl meachem and talk about the president's trip to mexico. and we will be looking at online sales taxes and its potential for passage in the senate. we will be right back after this update from c-span radio. >> before leaving for mexico today, president obama will appear in the white house rose garden to make two personnel announcements. announce a nominee for the commerce department and the next trade representative. live coverage that kennecott 3:00 pm eastern. 10:00he rose garden -- a.m. eastern. to theion being donated national trust for the national mall to jump-start fundraising

for the party in the nation's capitol. it is the largest private gifts and that restoring visitors to the national park. it receives more visitors than the grand canyon and yellowstone combined. an update on david petraeus. the university of southern california announced the retired general is joining the faculty rotcach classes and mentor members. general petraeus has a doctorate from princeton university. greats usc is a university that prices -- prizes academic excellence. studentcam contest had introduced from many

students. >> i thought he would be a good subject to follow. i followed his life. >> i had an introduction to lock course and i was learning there was a double standard for those under 18 and those over. i was into children's writes. cannot have a say in the creation of the debt. picked ouroriginally topic, infrastructure and the growing need for public transportation in this country, they were not excited about the topic. after i explained it to them, because on and while researching, we decided we should at high speed rail as one

of the segments because that was important to the topic in our country. >> more from the top three saturdaym winners morning on c-span. washington journal continues. host: we will return to the president's trip to mexico today. he talked about his trip on tuesday from the white house. here is a little about what he had to say. [video clip] on securityocused issues between the united states and mexico. sometimes we forget that this is a massive trading partner responsible for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border. we want to see how we can deepen and improve that and maintain that economic dialogue over a long period of time.

not does not mean we will be talking about security. in my first conversation with the president, he indicated he continues to be concerned about how we can work together to deal with national drug cartels. we have made great strides in the cooperation between our two governments over the last several years. my suspicion is that things can be improved. host: joining us from new york the americas'sm, program director. how would you describe the current state of u.s.-mexico relations? guest: good morning. good morning to all of the viewers. i am happen to be on today. your show is one of my favorites. as far as your question is concerned, he relationship is at a good place. we have a level of cooperation right now that we have not had

in the past. a lot of that have to do with the previous administration and the government of mr. calderon. same messageg the nieto.esident the president hit the nail on the head. he is saying they want to broaden this relationship even though we still have challenges with regard to security in mexico. it is a shared problem. we have something that provides a framework for us to be able to work on these issues. we want to broaden this relationship. we want to include new areas, energy being one of them. deepen our commercial relationship as well. withrend is occurring immigration reform as a backdrop to the president's visit. there is a lot to talk about and

a lot: on in this relationship. it is a vibrant relationship -- there is a lot going on in this relationship. host: how would you describe the current state of the mexican economy? inst: like most economists the world, there are challenges. they have demonstrated to be a little more resilient than we have seen in the past. a lot of this has to do with the fact that they have diverse sets of products that they produce. they are stuck to the united states through nafta. compared to what mexico was light in the early 1990's and late 1980's, they have come -- 1990's and early late 1980's, they have come a long way.

dealts country, we have with immigration as a domestic issue. the structure that we have in the united states congress, the committee that has jurisdiction of immigration reform is discretionary. this is the way we deal with it here. it is clear that the immigration emma -- has international implications. it mixes international and domestic issues. for the mexicans, this is a big issue of because of the large flow you have of mexicans coming to the united states. it is a big issue because of the labor demands we have in this country. so many mexicans, in this country to work. it has international affairs implications. we want to know who is coming into our country and what kind

of relationship we have with mexico to make sure the right folks are coming into the united states, not folks who are a threat to the united states. there are international implications and domestic ones. we are seeing that play itself out with immigration reform. we are seeing it played out with demographics. that folks ofet spanish descent and the biggest number of people of spanish descent in this country are coming from mexico and central america. this is the fastest-growing demographic in this country. these are folks who, if they do not vote now, will be voting. it hits all of these issues and should be relevant internationally and domestically. host: we started this program talking about the war on drugs.

president nieto changing policy on how to combat the drug cartels? guest: that is one of the biggest questions out there right now. the president of mexico demonstrated he has a willingness to continue working with the united states on these issues. he believes it is a share threat that we have and it is something we should work on together. it would not be as successful if there were not willing partners on both sides of the border working on the drug trade. that is clear. the question out there is if the level of intensity will continue. mexicans are tired of the violence. they are tired of the insecurity. during the last of administration, the mexican

demonstration, we saw an unprecedented level of violence. some of it had to do with unnecessary confrontations that have to happen between the government and the cartel's to neutralize them. -- cartels to neutralize them. will mr.ion is, enrique peña nieto tutor out new ways to deal with the heads of the cartels. there are ways to strengthen institutions of government to deal with this threat. there are ways to deal with the presence of the government in areas that did not have a presence of the mexican government. one of the issues that is presidentfor president nieto is what new policing structure can be created to deal with trafficking.

in mexico, you have a federal police, a state police and municipal police. you have thousands of police forces. some of them are good. some of them are not. some of them are corrupt. how are you want to make these police forces working in a more efficient and constructive way to go after the bad guys? the mexicans have come up with ry, like af a gendarme national guard to deal with these issues. it has not been implemented. there are questions on how can they be more effective if they want to get the military out of it. the mexican public favors the military more than they favor of the police because of issues of corruption. there are a lot of questions with regards to how to continue this fight. is there a willingness on the

part of mexicans? yes. do we need details on what do?ident peña nieto was to that has yet to be decided. president obama will try to get more substance from president peña nieto. host: we are talking about the president's trip to mexico and costa rica. for democrats. republicans. for e-mail. send an our guest is carl meachem, from americas program director. he worked on the senate floor late -- foreign relations with senator richard lugar and he worked on the staff

of two democratic senators. he was the cuban affairs bureau official at the department of state. he received his master's degree from american university and columbia university. the first call for him comes , om dale in st. charles missouri on the democrats' line. caller: we have been vacationing in mexico for over 20 years. noticedg that we have since the u.s. economy tanked along with the rest of the world economy is that more and more people have moved back from the united states where they learned language and job skills and are being fully employed in mexico. they actually came back. you never hear anything about immigration going back the other way.

these people were illegal immigrants to the u.s. in the first place. kindld like to hear some of statistic on the number of people who immigrate back. we are discussing all of this crime. yes, it is a serious problem. yesterday, i looked up the consulate statistics on the number of u.s. citizens who died by homicide. it was 69 people in the entire people. he st. louis people -- area kills four times that every year round -- the st. louis area kills four times that every year around this time. the you have a change in your own personal feeling of safety? vallarta has of only one industry and that is vallarta hasrta

only one industry and that is tourism. if you have any problem, all you have to do is scream and the locals will come to your aid. that will not happen in st. louis. the locals will get involved to protect foreign nationals. host: do you say in a hotel and do you rent a house in porta vallarta? caller: we rent a house down there. a greathat is description regarding being so -- circular nature of the immigration flow. when the economy is good in the united states, people come up from mexico and central american countries. when things died down, they go back. now you have the added benefit

that the economy in a lot of become muchies has more stable. doing their time in the u.s. they are saving in the to bit of money and they are going back to mexico. let's not forget a lot of folks come in from mexico to the united states are not coming because they always want to be american citizens. a lot of them are coming because they want economic opportunities and they have more opportunities in the u.s. than in their countries of origin. now they have the situation where they can go back to their countries of origin and begin their lives or take advantage of the economy improving and having more economic opportunity. that is something that needs to be highlighted.

daler as security issues, might be completely right that by our ition in porta might be more stable and there is less violent than other -- vallarta might be more stable than other parts of mexico. you have a huge number of folks being killed involved in the trafficking business who are sometimes just bystanders. a conservative figure is 50,000 people. some folks think it is much more than that. this is still a problem in mexico. luckily, it is something we are working together with the mexicans on. thelked about the merde initiative and the

contributions the americans have made with the mexicans. it is important to highlight that the mexicans are dealing with this. they are dealing with the brunt of this problem, not only with people that are dying, but also financially. most of the money being spent to fight this fight is mexican money. they are doing the most to deal with this. a lot of work is yet to be done to deal with this issue completely. have really demonstrated a commitment to fight against transnational crime, drug trafficking and the issues that come from this kind of lawlessness. things have improved, but we still need to work on a lot of issues. next call comes from newcing in manchester,

hampshire. caller: i do not understand why carlos slim will not give any help to the people in mexico. boggles my mind. carl meachem? believe that mr. slim has a lot of ways of providing assistance. i did not know what he gives on how much he does. i would not dare to speculate in what areas. usually when you have someone who is wealthy like that, they are usually involved in different philanthropic initiatives. wasuld not doubt if he doing that. i do not have more information on specifics on his

philanthropic interests. host: do you know how he made his money? privatet is mostly sector investment. wayas been able to work his into different areas. the technological industry. specifics, ihe cannot tell you. host: has president peña nieto called for reform of the telecommunications industry in mexico? guest: yes, he has. one of the key players that has slim.n opinions is mr. but ofue is, how to use different companies in mexico? how do you provide an environment for more competition. the leader anden

the dominant player in that sector. presidentthat what peña nieto is doing is opening it up to more competition. benefits from the previous structure. this is an ongoing issue. we had this issue when we split , been different companies through oil or other private sector ventures in this country. the mexicans are going through a lot of change right now. it is not just the issues we've highlighted with the security side. it is also on the energy side. they are looking at any reform to make themselves more attractive for international oil companies to do business. they are doing this reform the technologyth

side. they have done before having to dothey have also done a reform having to do with labor. it occurred at the end of the previous administration. so, i think the questions that are asked here are exactly the right ones, but it also serves to highlight the fact that mexico is going through a lot of changes. i would say these are good changes. these are things that are construct this, productive, things that we here in the united states should be cheering on because mexico needs to make these reforms in order to be more of a partner for the united states and to also play a bigger role with its own interests, not just in the north american context must -- but also globally. these are positive. host: pauline in north carolina. thanks for holding. you are on with carl meachem.

caller: i have had this question for a long time. why can't mexican -- mexico take care of their own people? as far as i am concerned, mexico is a very rich entry. out in theuch oil gulf of mexico as we have. they grow all kinds of wonderful things. united states companies have gone down there and opened up shop to give their people jobs. the drugems as though cartels are just so violent and just so obtrusive and just so far spread that i don't know what their problem is. they can't seem to get a handle on it. , ok, maybe theg united states needs to go down there and clean out the cartel like they did in columbia.

well, as you mentioned, there are still a lot of challenges that still exist in mexico. what we do have a much closer relationship today than we ever had in the past eared i would say and the last give or take six to eight years we really developed a different kind of relationship with mexico across the different government agencies, security agencies, that we have not had in the past. which has allowed for us to work in a cooperative way with the mexicans on a lot of these challenges that you highlight. that the caller highlights. right now, the united states and work on issues that range from weapons going from the united states into mexico and andld not be going there

working on a lot of judiciary reform, judiciary institutions are in need of reform in order to make them more effective to deal with a lot of the law enforcement issues. we are dealing with their ability to police their own borders . but the caller mentionedcolombia -- the caller mentioned colombia. that was a successful framework to help the colombians fight their fight. again, we have a lot of challenges in columbia and a lot of challenges all over the region with the drug trafficking. but we have made humongous progress, so much in this forct that in colombia, instance, officials that are involved with this are now working with the mexicans, so we can apply the lessons learned to what we are seeing in mexico right now. muchhis is really sort of

more effective fight against narco trafficking. i think the last thing the toted states wanted to is be this force that goes and imposes its will on to that country. i think what you are seeing now -- as partners,g working as partners with countries in the region and now the united states is working cooperatively with countries in the region, with the mexicans and colombians on these issues where once before it was so difficult again cooperation. now these countries are immense trading a willingness to do it with the united states as equals. so, is very important to highlight. very important to also state that there is no way we are going to be able to fight this fight, get the bad guys, as they say, if we are not working together.

initiative is a framework that highlight our ability to work together. the successes that occurred through the framework is now being applied with the mexicans. tweetsarl meachem, two -- can that guest comment on the widespread corruption of mexican government officials? and another asks -- do the drug gangs own the mexican government? guest: on the first question, corruption has been a problem in mexico. but again, the frameworks that we have, the ways of dealing with these issues, and the willingness of the mexican government has demonstrated to fight against corruption are all developments that we need to applaud, that we need to welcome. yes, there are still challenges in mexico, especially on the local level. but on the federal level, i

think you will find a very different environment. on the state level, i think it is different as well. i believe that a lot of the challenges that they had in the past, there are far fewer now than there have been in recent memory. but again, this is something that is not going to be taken care of from one day to the next. colombia is over 10 years old and we saw big ryegrass in dealing with the narco threat 5, 6, 7 yearster into the process. this process with mexico is very young still. so, we really need to -- i theeve the initiative was idea of the bush administration, was passed during the bush administration and began implementation during the obama administration.

of a young sort initiative. we are seeing progress. more has to be done. we have to deal more with corruption. but we can't ignore the fact that a lot of good things have occurred. and what was the second question? ?he second tweet host: do the drug gangs own the mexican government? were at some point earlier on, maybe four years ago, there were questions about the relationships that a lot of these cartels had with local government. , somepal government state government. a lot of folks also -- there were a lot of reports about cozy relationships between cartel inbers and some of the folk mexico's legislative branch. are still there.

but i believe that the executive branch, the senior officials of both the called the rome -- calderon government and pen in yet though are dealing with those things. to say that the mexican government is influenced or owned by the cartels is just not true. but there are issues and there are questions with regards to some officials that have close relationships or have had close relationships with members of cartels. mexico, again, has changed in many respects. and when they see these kinds of reports today they are more likely to deal with these issues man they have in the past. but bottom line, no, i would respond to the caller, i would not agree with the statement that mexico or the mexican government is owned by cartels. host: west chesterfield, new hampshire, ron on the democrats

line. carl meachem is our guest. caller: i am honored to speak with you this morning. i will speak quickly because i know time is limited. -- ist makes sense to me mean, we have been dumping money in this for decades, along with the war on drugs, trillions of dollars in just just decades. the one thing i agree, with anything mitt romney has ever said, is that there needs to be a more permanent solution to president obama 's partial solution here. i think it makes sense -- you can't look at your legal immigration from mexico the same as you look at illegal immigration from anywhere else. you have to look at it differently than if somebody it legally immigrating to the

united states from somewhere else -- if somebody were illegally immigrating to the united states. i am not talking annexation here, but i am just saying we should invite mexico to become a state of the united states. host: let's leave it there. meachem? guest: i understand the comment. i would disagree with the solution. mexico is a sovereign country. it is a country with a very distinguished culture. and i guess, different cultures, if you go to mexico, you see how interesting and how rich the mexican country is. you have such a diversity of people, even within mexico. yes, the issue of immigration is one that we have had for a while. i mean, it is not a recent issue.

there have been folks coming back and forth over the border for over 100 years between the united states and mexico. as the caller, i am sure he is aware, as well as others who are listening this morning, that we have a shared culture. texas,go to taxes -- new mexico, and arizona, you can see there is so much that we share culturally with mexico. this just part of discussion. there are so many similarities, so many things we share in common with the mexicans that we have to deal with when talking about immigration. we are a culture that is in many respects intertwined with the mexican culture. we have in our own country a diversity of roots from which we

all come from -- the european, the asian, hispanic, african -- all of these things together make who we are. and i would say that as the caller mentioned, we are landlocked, we are right next to mexicans, which actually adds to the complexity of dealing with the immigration question. -- earlier at this week, the program i direct at csis, we had the deputy minister of canada's immigration ministry talking about their immigration policy. i have a point system which focuses on bringing the most to canada,olks professionals to canada, and offers them permanent residents to do that. in the united states, the guiding principle that we have his family reunification.

it is because of the fact that we have this shared culture with the mexicans and this shared relationship -- we are right next-door, as the caller said. that adds to the complexity of this issue. as you know, these things are being debated now in the u.s. congress. hopefully we will be able to find the right kind of framework for this relationship. . it is not going away. and the folks at better here are not just going to pack up and leave as some political officials have sort of alluded to. this is something we will have to deal with. and i hope this opportunity that we are seeing now in congress, the conversation that is happening, we'll actually yield a framework that we can work with going forward. because this is a challenge that is not going away. host: carl meachem, a viewer tweets in --

what is the relationship with other south american countries and how does it impact the us- mexico relationship? guest: mexico has had an approach to foreign affairs that is non-interventionist, but because of a lot of the changes that have occurred with the commercial environment -- more investment coming from asia into the region. mexico now is also playing a larger role in cooperation on the narco trafficking threat with countries in central america. to sort ofing redefine its foreign policy to the rest of the region. let's not forget, mexico is part of north america. so, it makes it a very different than many the countries in the region. you have the brazilians that likes to lead in south america

-- that like to lead in south america and you have the mexicans taking a different approach. are they being more influential? yes, they are. one thing that has come up that i think has been positive and i hope the president and his senior officials would consider, is in the united states- european free trade agreement that is being discussed right space there and there as an interest and a desire by countries that are in the nafta, north american free trade agreement, to be participants in the negotiations. mexico is one of those countries. canada is another one. they both have relationships with the european union. but in this free trade agreement negotiations, to put these countries -- canadians and mexicans -- into the mix would really sort of, one, boost negotiation posture, because you are talking about a huge block of trade, and also it as a really have mexico

country really being involved in a first tier issue with first tier country. that signal is the united states wants to work with countries in latin america and content -- considers them equal partners. that is a very important signal or message to make regarding our willingness to work with countries in the region, especially because the united states, one, is always viewed as being able to do more with the region but does not do enough. and also because there is a history of the united states in the region that sometimes of the united states sort of imposed its will and at other times we have been able to work very well with other folks. latin america would like to see a relationship of equals between the united states and countries in the region, including mexico. into a first tier tree -- free trade agreement would show we

mean business. host: the u.s. trade representative's office from 2011, some facts. trade with mexico, $500 billion in 2011. ,xports to mexico, $224 billion imports, $277 billion. the article this morning on the president's trip in "usa today." tom from mason, ohio. republican line. carl meachem is our guest. please, go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. a privilege to talk to you. i am interested in knowing why you can look at this camera and this question -- truthfully why fast and furious is not brought to the fore when mr. holder has been even sanctioned and we still don't

have any answers as to how many people were killed in mexico because they do not have the ability to arm themselves. host: fast and furious. guest: fast and furious, a very controversial policy in which -- i guess the u.s. government officials were supposed to provide weapons to members of cartels or bad guys in mexico and follow the weapon to see where it would go. is a difficult situation. it is not a good situation. it was very unpopular in mexico when folks learned about it. i think the caller raises a very important issue. i think that the conversation has been had, though. i think that the united states has sort of tried to smooth this issue with the mexican government.

deal with a lot of these issues with weapons going south, you don't know where these weapons are going to go. you don't know what kind of damage these weapons are going to make. we have learned that the damage is pretty severe and that if any of the weapons that were involved in that government initiative were used to do harm or kill people, obviously that is something that is very, very bad. lots of sensitivities on the ,exican side because mexicans regular mexicans, i think, would look at that and say be americans are sending these weapons so they can try to figure out how to stop crimes from coming in the u.s. but they don't really care about the because theexico folks can use weapons to kill people. id the mexicans are very -- think they are right to be

concerned and to be saddened by this. but i believe that this is a conversation that has been had. the administration with the mexican government. and i think they are trying to probably find better and more construct of ways in a cooperative way to follow or to stop -- i'm sorry -- to stop weapons from going from the united states to mexico. i think that is really the objective here, to halt the entry of weapons into mexico and to lessen the ability of syndicatesal crime and cartels from having access to weapons to terrorize mexicans. , jim tweets in -- why is the president going to costa rica? first of all, the

president of costa rica has offered grace initially -- graciously to host all of the presidents of south american costa rica so the president can meet with all the president in one place. secondly, cost areca is probably the most democratic country in the region -- costa rica is probably the most democratic country in the region. they have a history of being a very solid democracy. they have a history of being very peaceful. they do not have a military. having said that, they are facing huge threats now just because of where they are geographically. with regards to the drug trade and drug trafficking. it happens around their country and probably happening through their country now because of where they are situated. panama, closero to countries like venezuela where drug trafficking is happening openly.

this is a very difficult situation for venezuelans. of centralthern part america, areas like guatemala and honduras, these are some of the most violent countries in the region where there is a lot of drug trafficking, a lack of government presence in large countries soe costa rica is also being dragged into a lot of this. so the president is going to s of to the president' central america and work with the costa ricans in areas that have to do with security. and other issues they will be able to deal with are issues that have to do -- do with energy. there is a conversation and the administration and with the presidents of different countries to create an

electricity grid that covers central america, mexico, and the united states. so, these are really interesting conversations that the president is going to be having with leaders in central america. but then again, i would highlight the fact that some of this is going to have to do with security and the security needs that they have that we can help them deal with. then there is also also issues like energy that are very important that the president is also going to add to that agenda in dealing with central america and mexico. csis carl meachem from has been our guest. we have been talking about the presidents trip to mexico and costa rica. thank you for your time this morning. one more segment left in the " washington journal" and we will look at the issue of online taxation with gautham nagesh from cq "roll call." the number of americans

seeking unemployment aid is now at its lowest level since january of 2008. it dropped to a seasonally adjusted three hundred 24,000, it points to fewer layoffs and possibly more hiring -- 324,000. .eekly applications fell u.s. worker productivity barely grew from january through march, after shrinking in the final three months of 2012. it could prompt employers to hire more as consumers and businesses continue to increase spending. turning to presidential politics, reid wilson of the hotline tweet that republican senator rand paul's cedar rapids fundraiser or the iowa gop is sold out. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> mrs. grant was also interesting.

they had had this extraordinary roller coaster existence. he wast of their lives, regarded as an abject failure. unable to provide for his own family. and then in almost no time at all, suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who had saved the union on and thenefield president of the united states. >> she loved >> she loved her time in the white house. she said in her memoirs that it was like a bright and beautiful dream. my most wonderful time of life. so, i think that gives you some idea of how much she enjoyed being first lady and how she felt that her husband has finally achieved the recognition he deserved. >> be part of our conversation on julia grant with your questions or comments by phone, facebook, and twitter, live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3 and also c-

span radio and www.c-span.org. washington journal" continues. host: joining us is gautham call, with cq roll technology reporter, and we will talk about online sales tax with him. going on in congress when it comes to online sales tax? guest: just before they left for the recess, the senate seat up legislation that would allow states to require online retailers charge a sales tax for purchases, even for people who buy out-of-state. essentially an online retailer here in dc would have to charge a sales tax for, say, michigan when somebody from michigan bought a product from them online. host: is it going to pass? guest: it looks very likely it will pass the senate. we are almost certain. it asked cloture twice and it has about three quarters of the

chamber's support. the house is less certain. there is still resistance. house leadership is not fond of tax increases or anything perceived as a tax increase. there is concerned about the implementation of the bill itself, how difficult it would be for online retailers. what i think it is fair to say that this is something that has momentum and it will get a strong look in the house and if it does not happen this year i think it is something we could see in the next year or two. host: what is the name of the vehicle or the building are debating and who are the prime sponsors? guest: arco place fairness act. that is really part of the theme, fairness -- marketplace fairness act. the main sponsors are senators michael enzi, lamar alexander and dick durbin and enzi in particular has been focused on this for about a dozen years. this has been around since the -- since the mid- 1990s. in the house we have

representative steve womack, a republican who is very strongly in favor of the bill. host: the republican from arkansas, is there a walmart factor there? guest: walmart is very strongly in favor, as are most of the major retailers because they have to pay a sales tax. the rule right now is you have to charge a sales tax if you have a physical presence in a state. walmart has stores in most dates, i believe, so therefore they have to charge online sales tax for every state essentially. amazon.com used to oppose this heavily. they have seen their physical presence increase so they also had to start charging a sales tax, so we have seen them support this legislation as of last year. big retailers. retailers industry in general are already collecting the sales tax and they think they are at a disadvantage of -- to online retailers that do not. host: is this considered a revenue bill? wouldn't have to start in the house before it being debated in the senate?

guest: a point of contention that the small group of senators who opposed the bill, which include mostly senators from states that do not have a sales tax currently, they have actually tried to introduce mendments that would cause -- nottor durbin framed it as a tech or revenue bill but essentially an administrative bill that gives states the authority to extend something already do to them. the argument is the sales tax is not new. consumers oh sales taxes when they i products on amazon.com or anyplace else they are not charged. the fact most consumers do not , it doesir sales taxes not change the fact. we may see it come up in the house if the opposition there coalesces. host: gautham nagesh, what are the arguments against this bill and who is leading that charge? guest: as i said, senators from

states that do not have a sales tax strongly oppose this. that is a pretty broad coalition. senator max baucus, the finance committee chairman, he says also that his committee was bypassed with its bill, which is somewhat true, actually, because the senate majority leader harry reid brought it directly to the floor rather than sending it through the regular process this ashen. as i said, baucus opposes the bill. montana does not have a sales tax. senator wyden from oregon has also been strongly opposed. obviously from the moral liberal wing of the senate, but businesseshis as taking over government responsibility. oregon does not have a sales tax. he sought exemptions for those sorts of states and retailers. the problem with that, senator and see points out, that if certain they cannot forced to comply by all likelihood those states would become the center of online retailer progress -- retailing gossip -- retailing

because everyone would move there. host: how much could be raised? guest: $23 billion has been going around. ,t would go to states, counties localities, whoever collects sales taxes. host: are there still companies that are not charging sales tax on internet purchases? guest: absolutely. i think it is fair to say most companies don't. the retailers and companies do, maybe not the majority but gradually an increasing number of online purchases have sales tax assessed. however, most retailers still do ,ot -- they are not required to especially when selling out-of- state, so they generally only collect from purchases in state. host: gautham nagesh, what about international purchases? guest: there are some things like the vat and other countries that resemble a sales tax. if you purchase things physically in another country you can apply to have it

remitted and customs. it depends. these things are not enforced uniformly. a lot of countries do not have a sales tax. air is an argument online retailers will move abroad if we assess this -- there is an argument online retailers will move abroad. it is a valid concern and we could see enforcement on that and also. host: we have been talking with gautham nagesh from "cq roll call" about the online tax debate in congress. we would like you to participate. you can also send in a tweet as well as an e-mail. we will begin with a call from sabrina in royal oak michigan. independent mind. caller: i can't believe they want to charge us more taxes for buying things online. because all of these companies

are buying their goods out of other nations and they are avoiding taxes and they are taking their businesses to other countries to avoid paying u.s. revenue to the united states for their taxes, like candy bar companies going to mexico to avoid tax to the united states government. hundreds of millions of dollars. and they -- and that is where all the businesses are going, overseas. but we are still being charged taxes for buying goods for our homes. i live in michigan. funny you should say that about getting taxed if you are buying something from washington, because whenever i buy anything online, most often i am charged a sales tax. i don't know how that works. but i am not getting out of sales tax here in michigan. but it grinds me that businesses are not paying taxes and they are operating here in the united states, selling us their goods and getting junk from indonesia, billing --

bangladesh and china and taiwan and the list goes on. host: we got the point, sabrina. thank you so much. gautham nagesh? guest: i think it is fair to say there are strong objections from people who see it as a tax increase. those include the heritage foundation, americans for tax reform. heritage foundation in particular argues that this is an overreach of states rights because this is forcing starts to enforce other state laws on their own citizens. they have scored this as a key vote and are holding their conservative members accountable essentially for this, as if this is a tax increase. this is definitely something that has sparked concern on both sides of the aisle. and there is a concern in the house that it will be perceived as raising taxes on internet goods. host: here is a chart from "the washington post." u.s. census.

five percent of all u.s. purchases in 2012, according to the u.s. census. mark from ohio on the republican line. please, go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i sell things online. i have been unemployed for about a year and i am surviving selling things i bought and owned. i don't know what the sales tax is in michigan, in north carolina, especially since in ohio the sales tax varies from county to county. i would have to keep track or someone would have to help me keep track. or i am just basically out of business. host: what kind of business do you have and how much are your sales? what is the range? guest: -- caller: it is basically just to keep me in vegetable soup. selling things i bought years

ago. host: are you on ebay? caller: i have sold on ebay but i have not sold anything on there for a long time. host: thank you. let's hear what gautham nagesh has to say. i believe mark probably would not be affected by this law because it only affects companies that have more than a million dollars annually in online sales. be a according to senator durbin, less than 1000 companies. essentially major online retailers. if you are doing more than a million dollars in online sales, and there are small businesses and individuals on ebay and that sort of thing who do high- volume, and they may be affected. the concern about small businesses is something that sponsors are hoping to address two fold. states can either choose to streamline their sales tax procedures, therefore making it for people to calculate the state rate. the state rate would supersede the local rate almost in every

case. in that case it would make it easier. there would be one uniform rate for every state essentially. or states and vendors would to be provided with software that would automatically calculate and ad sales tax at the time of purchase. again, supporters contend that this is very easy and how retailers handle it now that have to collect sales tax. host: somebody like mark would probably not be affected at all. guest: exactly. if you are under $1 million, which is most people, then you should not be affected. host: c-span democrat tweeps in -- tweets in -- guest: opponents have thrown in the number 9600, 96 -- 9600 counties, municipalities and cities that impose a sales tax. there are very the word -- diverse forms of government. we see different states and localities impose them differently.

however, as i said, that would have to be simplified under the statute in some fashion. we don't have an exact number but sponsors say there would be at most 46 different rates. host: just in vermont, independent line. good morning. caller: hello. couple of different questions that they are not really discussing. er, like everyone in vermont and new york and bordering states, we always go to new hampshire to buy stuff from the hamster businesses. right now, brick-and-mortar, you are supposed to pay on your taxes anything you buy from a brick-and-mortar, too, and pay the difference. you are supposed to pay the difference. so if you buy something in new hampshire with zero percent sales tax and you go back to massachusetts you are supposed to remit the 6.5% for your purchase. why they are not going to then after they do this -- they are putting this huge burden on

internet sales and there is no real contact or anything. they just have the information because of the shipping address and why aren't they going to go and do that now, the next step would be requiring you to give your address if you buy a purchase at a walmart where ever brick-and-mortar? isn't this the next up? isn't this a slippery slope? you are not really using the state's resources for something that is shipped. host: thank you. gautham nagesh? guest: there is concern that first of all this will leave the door open to greater cross- state requirements in terms of imposing fees and regulations. that is part of the federalism argument cited by conservative opponents. of theely, supporters bill, conservative, have framed it as a states rights issue and this is about state forcing retailers who want to do business with in their borders to comply with state laws. the caller brought up a

relevant point that, yes, consumers owe sales taxes on other things that they often do not pay. that is why supporters have framed this as an enforcement measure rather than a tax increase. it is simply shifting the burden of collection onto the retailers to enforce the tax that is already old. did we see other similar taxes that consumers as opposed to self-report essentially be shifted? technology makes these possible. previously one of the barriers would be it would be very difficult to keep track of where everyone was and where they lived and where they are spending money. but in theory now, a credit card would tell where everyone has spent money. it has a detailed record of that sort of thing. then, yes, in theory you could access a sales tax. that is not something that has been discussed that it is definitely something technology has made possible. host: where do republicans stand on this issue in the house? guest: that is the question really. they expressed concerns about

this. i think it is fair to say visible not be a priority to the same extent as the senate. do not see this as being intractable, because the lobby interest lined up behind it -- the retail industry is very large and lucrative and it supports a lot of jobs in a lot of home districts. that is why this is not really a partisan issue so much as a regional issue or an issue of who is in your home district and what they are pushing for. as you said, we have seen a representative from arkansas be the main sponsor. how's judiciary chairman bob the house judiciary chairman will have a lot to say. he is definitely concerned about the perceived burden of calculating the various tax rates and forcing businesses to do that. so, how easy the supporters can make it if they can get it going and show it is working on a more limited basis as, say, and

amazon is doing -- if they can make the case then this is something that could take place in the next year. host: why is this a priority for dick durbin? guest: senator durbin, he says it is because illinois, his home state, is really hurting financially. that is something a lot of states and localities are complaining about. they are saying the online become a larger portion of the economy. that is more and more money consumers are spending at amazon, walmart.com, instead of their local retailers. no tax revenue coming back, so governments are watching the tax base woodinville and they are getting nothing back in return. this is seen by both the retail industry and local government as sort of a lifesaver, a ray of hope in a very bleak fiscal climate. in --gregory tweets

leverage small business sales against giants and protect retailers from amazon models. this is really the main argument by supporters of this legislation. they trotted out small business people who say that they have to collect the sales tax, and when large retailers don't it puts them at a further disadvantage. we have seen certain industries -- bookstores, other small businesses that sell physical goods have been cannibalized by online markets. that is not exclusively because of the sales tax. large corporations, ones that do not have physical footprints, they have some efficiencies. they are able to charge lower prices on some goods in some cases for other reasons besides sales tax. if you combine it with another four percent or seven percent discount because they do not charge the sales tax, small retailers say they do not have a chance. they believe this will make a difference. --t: to tweets -- two tweets

host: gautham nagesh, again, why is that amazon has changed its on this bill? or years they fought and kept it out of congress. guest: amazon has become the face of the struggle because they were the leading opposition for quite a while. it is mostly because as amazon has grown, they have had to build more warehouses and their infrastructure has grown and there has been debate in the courts about what constitutes a physical presence. as i said, it all dates back to 1992 supreme court decision thomas and it rolled that catalog sales did not have to charge a sales tax because they did not use the resources of the state in which they were selling.

it was extended to internet sales eventually when the internet got it. amazon has maintained essentially for a long time. however, as they built more physical buildings and had more employees, courts challenged what constitutes physical presence and they have been forced to collect more sales taxes. as they are already doing this, they are now on the side of the dismisses see this as a disadvantage if other companies are not forced to do the same thing. host: the next call for gautham nagesh on online sales tax comes from geraldine from montana. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. montanaion is, since does not have a sales tax, would this force us to have a sales tax with our online purchases? when we buy, asked coming from montana, no sales tax, and generally it is on it and we do not have a tax added on. but what advantage in?

i realize they would have revenue, but we voted down repeatedly this sales tax. so why would the montana people have an advantage? we would have more of an advantage without the sales tax on our online purchases because if it generated interest in companies moving to montana, we need jobs. and it would be much more to our advantage to not have a sales tax and montana on our internet products. as senator durbin emphasized, this bill would not impose new sales taxes on states that do not have them, like montana. so essentially, as a citizen of montana, you should not be affected by this legislation in terms of making purchases. there will not be a sales tax, no matter where you buy your goods from, because the sales tax is assessed by the state where the residents is and not whether retailer is. however, she did touch on the

other point which i think is the point that opponents of this legislation are playing down, but it is essentially the major caveat. , eveners and montana though montana does not have a sales tax, would have to start charging sales tax for residents of other states if they are selling more than a million dollars of goods on line every year. that would be an additional process that montana retailers would have to undergo that they currently do not. and montana could foreseeably become, a home for online commerce if they become one of the few states that does not charge sales tax, and just sort of continue in that fashion. therefore, that is a concern about retailers based in man cannot -- in montana did regular citizens should not be affected. host: tony irvine tweets in -- empower states to collect taxes and did not impose another edible mandate. guest: the legislation as framed is empowering states

essentially that they collect sales taxes. a federal mandate, difficult wording. what this does is it does expand states'authority over retailers not in their borders. for some it is an overreach. tot: could states refused do it? guest: states could refuse to be part of this program and therefore they would not require retailers to charge sales tax. however, retailers within their states would still be required to charge the sales tax to other states. way to makelly no an exemption to that and make this legislation work. , nevadady tweets in grandma. i shop online a lot, not necessarily to save dollars but for convenient delivery. i support taxing online commerce. fred in virginia, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am a conservative and i am very much against increased federal taxes because i think we have too much. but i am a strong states rights supporter and i think that states lay a very important part in our society. in order to function, many of them impose a sales tax, which i have no problem with. therefore i really support fromcting the sales tax online sales. i wife says it is going to cost us money, but it is only money we owe. i am a retired cpa. tosed to encourage clients include the sales tax on their tax return. some of them did, and many did not. i personally did include what i felt i owed.

that is my comments. i will listen. thank you. that ourwould say caller is in the minority, according to the studies we have seen in the fact that he did pay the sales tax he old on purchases when it was not assessed at the point-of-sale. that is really the underlying contention of the bill. , $23is why the figure billion, is so much. the majority do not remit sales taxes unless they are charged at the point-of-sale. that is a fact. whether that can be changed, probably to some extent, but not completely. however, it remains a fact that states and localities are owed this money and in most cases do not receive it. as legislation attempts to address that. the manner in which it does it is contentious, but some taxing internet sales and in some form assessing the sales tax has been a very heated contentious issue for over 15 years, so this is really an accumulation of a long effort on behalf of the retail industry. host: gautham nagesh, liz tweets

in -- if you travel to another state you pay sales tax when you purchase, so why not pay sales tax where internet company is located? guest: that is really a philosophical question. , issales tax, i suppose really viewed as a consumption in some form, in the sense that you are not taxing the retailer but you are taxing the person who wants the good. that is the justification used why in some areas of state things like food and water are not taxed as sales. thathat reason, i think the way we have done it has always been the sales tax is based on where the resident lives. dom not a tax attorney -- not know why that is, i cannot explain. but i have not seen the opposite proposal. len in washington. please, go ahead. a few minutes left. caller: my question is, article

one thomas section nine, says no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state -- article one, section nine. host: is that from the constitution? caller: yes, it is. host: thank you. guest: he makes an argument about federalism and states rights, and that is an argument the heritage foundation is making. this could be viewed by some as an interstate commerce type of tax because it is one state charging a tax on residents of another state. i have not seen strong legal objections. i have spoken to attorneys about this bill, and they have not raised that contention yet, so i do not know whether it would be something that could hold up to a court challenge. supporters of this though believe they are on strong legal ground. opponents are arguing this is exactly what our caller implied, an attempt by the federal government to impose the laws

of one state on another. the house will be where this is sorted out. host: jim gilmore, former governor of virginia, presuming this is his tweet. @govgilmore. host: john in riverview, florida. democrat. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i am a small business and i do a lot of -- host: we're listening. john, are you still with us? all her co-yes, sir. iem. -- , iem.: yes with shipping and handling it will be turning people from buying from us and hurt our business and run us out of business. host: what kind of business do you do?

sales, parts.et competitors? your what type of place? caller: amazon is my competitors, walmart pretty much does not sell what i do, because i do lawnmower and small equipment. but i am just saying, shipping and handling and taxes on top of that will deter -- it will hurt a lot of small businesses who are just struggling to stay alive. -- john, gautham nagesh is on the line. do you do over a million dollars of business? caller: no, sir. not even close. host: does he have to collect a sales tax? guest: if you are selling less than a million dollars, you do not have to. host: he would be exempt. caller: is that in the bill? guest: yes.

host: john would have an advantage over amazon? guest: this would be written in a way it would advantage john and you would not have to collect sales tax on anyone until you see the million-dollar threshold. so that would be your advantage. is that total sales? guest: annually, but online only. host: doesn't answer any questions? any comments? caller: no, sir. have a great day. host: by the way, it was jim gilmore who tweeted in the anti- online sales tax tweet. former governor of virginia and president and ceo of the free congress elevation. @gov_gilmore. martin from oklahoma city, oklahoma. caller: thank you for taking my call. i love c-span. it is my drug of choice. i am vehemently opposed to the marketplace unfairness act.

the small business administration defines a small businesses based upon their code. for my particular business, it would be $30 million a year, not a million dollars a year. i think this proposed legislation showed up by by the guidelines of the small business administration. number two -- and i have three comments -- number two, the free software that senator good andn -- that senator durbin his gang are touting, there are 45 different states of that charge a sales tax and there are, i believe, territories and dependencies and so forth in the united states. potentially roughly 50 pieces of software we would have to incorporate into our website. very difficult to do. i have been in i.t. for 36 years. i know the difficulties in incorporating this code. it is not simple like they are

saying. number three, the big threat to small businesses on main street are the big retailers like walmart. host: all right, thank you very much. gautham nagesh? really speaks to the core arguments of opponents. the $30 million is exactly the figure we saw some senators opposed to this speak of, particularly also ebay which has led the opposition to this legislation because they do have a lot of people who would be affected and what have to charge the sales tax. ebay sought an exemption of the dirty million dollars. that was unexcelled bowl to the people sponsoring the legislation -- that was not acceptable to the people sponsoring the legislation. they believed that size would be large enough to have to charge the sales tax. it started at a half-million dollar threshold and it reached a million bucks $30 million was not on the table. we also have seen contentions of

how difficult it would be to include the software. it is difficult to say. i am not a software engineer. i know it is probably easier for big companies with large computer department. it would in theory be more difficult for a small business with over a million dollars in sales but not a lot of technical expertise. they would probably have to hire someone to do it. there is some imposition. we see big retailers supporting this legislation and small businesses. both sides claim that this is hurting small business, both the failure to sales tax online is hurting snail -- hurting small businesses or forcing businesses .ith do -- to do it whether small online businesses or small physical businesses. really no distinction. small physical businesses are under assault for a variety of reasons. .ig-box retailers pose a threat the changing habits of americans pose a threat. it is a very difficult retail

landscape in a lot of ways. the recession has not helped. however, small retailers do feel and in their industry trade groups, they have strongly supported the legislation. we have seen smaller web companies come out against them. but the ebay-led opposition is really the strength. , when willam nagesh we see this debated in the senate? guest: the senate is set to vote immediately when it comes back from recess. monday hopefully. host: gautham nagesh grew up in jackson, michigan, went to cornell and covered technology for years and is also an amateur boxer on top of everything else. thank you for being on "washington journal" this morning. three final comments from twitterers --

host: that is the end of our washington journal program today pretty will be back tomorrow morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up in 15 minutes, president obama is expected to come down to the rose garden to announce his nominee for commerce secretary and u.s. trade representative kirk in the president -- economic advisor michael froman as the t r