something to start growing this economy, and so it's back to those discussions of tax code, regulatory code, the way we deal with trade, because the numbers in this are devastating. host: do you think some of those discussions might take place this afternoon when house g.o.p. leaders go over to the white house? guest: yeah, guest: that is my great hope. let's say you are a person of the left and you care deeply about the future of medicare. you've got a be honest, there is a math problem. it comes crashing down when we hit this explosion of debt. there is ways to fix that. we all know this. the president has talked about it in his state of the union address, that we need to deal with our long-term fiscal crisis coming could he says it beautifully in his speech and there is never ever follow up. maybe this meeting at the white house will start dealing with the big picture and big issues ahead of us and a lot of the

date today and -- day to day noise that seems to be treated more like a horse race of who is up and it was down instead of the future of our country. host: do you wish you could go to that meeting? guest: oh -- host: the president made a point of trying to invite all the republicans and there is dispute over whether to invite just the committee chairman. so manyhen you bring voices, often you don't get a concentration on the issue. there's is sort of a running joke here in washington that everything may have said but not said by everyone. let's face it, we elect a lot of people who are really good communicators. my great hope is that we build the process to take those folks that own calculators and start focusing on the realities of what is going on to this country.

our: mike in virginia on line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to just say first, i am proud of republicans for the standard they have taken on this issue. i had a question about the vote .n the house on the clean cr there has been debate on whether or not there are the votes there to actually pass the clean cr. i wanted to hear the congressman's take on that. and i'm curious to know -- there is been a norms are sure -- in norms pressure based on has to pass a clean cr. has there even been a request of the senator look at the proposal sent over to the senate? guest: bless you. have you noticed particularly the political class, but particularly the fifth estate, the media, they have been willing to bite on that story of house, you need to go pass a clean cr -- where is the same

level of press stories saying, been given have multiple pieces of legislation from the house, and it is more than just the 4 cr bills. we literally give them a dozen incremental budgeting bills. they seem to disappear in id's desk drawer could you are seeing the duplicity of the way the national media works, where you hear lots of dancing and fussing and gnashing of teeth and wailing about why does in the house do this -- why doesn't the house to this? i would be elated to open up my newspaper and see the same questions addressed to the democratic-controlled senate. host: here is the lead editorial in "the washington times." napoleon." " president obama imagines he is

napoleon on his way back from austerlitz, refusing to take anything from his rivals but laurels. he won't negotiate until after the other side has given him everything he wants." guest: look, i have to agree with that. structurally, what the president is doing is devastatingly bad, multiple levels. for anotheresident three years. are those three years going to be a wasteland, particularly when you are a lame duck resident -- president? yous the relationships build with members of congress to allow you to move forward with policy in the future. this type of scorched-earth policy is devastating from the standpoint that when the president is not having to run again, this should be the time that you are meeting with members of the republican- controlled house, democratic- controlled senate, and trying to

put together the big deal that deals with financial armageddon in the future that there is ways to do this. andlieve the president's except destroy those relationships -- president's antics have destroy those relationships that we had hoped would be an opportunity over the next year or two. host: you are on with congressman david schweikert, a republican from the sixth district of arizona. guest: ronald. caller: thank you, commerce man. good morning. we are talking about not raising the debt, house members needing to get together to raise the debt. we saw what happened last week. 26 americans got killed. $100,000,get their .hey still got some more money way are they -- where are they

going to get the money from? i am retired. master sergeant. guest: thank you for your service. caller: thank you, sir. that is a big thing. we need to get together and raise the debt ceiling and put these people back to work, sir. let's all get together and, you and get the country back online could all this bickering, obama's fault, republicans' fault -- we need to stop, sir. guest: master sergeant, how do i talk you into running for congress? it is more than just raising the debt ceiling could we have a 60% shortfall going into 2014. we have an obligation to pay back the accounts that have been used in the extort an area measures.

-- extraordinary measures. i believe we have to cover the shortfall. what i am proposing is that there are multiple ways to get there. there are things that will help grow the economy. one of my personal passions has been trying to expand the discussion beyond saying let's just raise the debt ceiling and looked the other way. government,und the cover the operation, and be and that it does not need to work the same way it always has. washington lacks a certain creativity when it comes to saying there are other ways to address these mechanics. host: are other member signing onto the debt ceiling alternative act? guest: the debt ceiling alternative act was put together by me and a number of -- just to sort of demonstrate the assets that are available to us.

we all went to this a couple years ago -- it is being woven into this discussion of do we use that but do we also use other assets? we have great data now over the number of european countries that have been most successful working themselves out of their crisis were the ones that did not just raise taxes and pilot that. those countries had the slowest growth. the assets ended up creating expansion for the economy. we have pretty good models to look to. host: tim is up next from westlake, ohio on our line for independents. guest: good morning, tim. questions.ave 2 i don't understand how federal and please you are being furloughed are getting paid for their days off through the

legislation that you guys created. i know of no other state or locality or corporations, for that matter, the one-day furlough people they pay them for those days per that is what one implement insurance is for. -- that is what unemployment insurance is for. the second question i have is when you talk about entitlements , and you talk about food stamps medicaid,ted -- and but why don't we talk about corporate entitlements, like the tax loopholes that corporations get, the bailouts, and you can go on and on? it always seems to me to be on the back of the less fortunate that we are always speaking to it. is it the mentality in progress that allows for that? guest: no, no, tim -- it was tim, right? host: yes. guest: you are asking a brilliant question, and that is why it is time for a revolution in our tax code. i believe that dave camp,

chairman of ways and means and house, has spent two years of is like putting together a revision of the u.s. tax code that will get rid of a lot of that lobbyists-created him playing in the tax code. -- game playing in the tax code. i know this is counter to a lot of the political class' belief system -- the business is not republican. in many ways they are not democrat. they are self-interested. any member of commerce who carves out a special deal, special tax category, special depreciation, whatever it may be, that is something that will be defended. thereality of it is entitlement curve is devastating financially, with the retirement of the baby boomers. it is just math. the tax code, i believe, suppresses economic growth because it creates an allocation problem for resources and a being put.

-- resources and effort being put. if we can deal with the reality coming at us democratically instead of waiting until we are in the midst of a crisis and adopt a much more rational tax code that stops fusing the choosing winners and losers, i am incredibly optimistic about our future. but if we don't do these things, sorry, but the math is already ahead of us. host: some questions about what we would be selling to help cover that shortfall that you are talking about earlier. @boringifleclerk writes in guest: well, i am not sure you want to give them back the statue of liberty. i've never met a boring file clerk. there are certain assets we hold that would have a multiplier effect in the economy.

if we change the timeline on selling of spectrum -- think about the handheld device we all carry with the new generation out there -- they gobble up bandwidth. very valuable. it is on the books because we have a bureaucratic system of rolling those off. we believe there is a couple trillion dollars in different types of negotiable instruments at fannie and freddie. they could be dyestuff and rolled off and better managed -- diced off and rolled off and better managed outside institution. even if it is just a portion, it is a revolutionary change in the way we think about financing should think of -- the way we think about financing our government. spend money we -- here is the

reality of what we have allowed to happen and here is how we deal with it. host: our last caller on this segment from tennessee on our line for republicans. genevieve, you are on with congressman david schweikert of arizona. caller: good money. guest: genevieve, you have a great first name. caller: oh, thank you. i need to talk about the bailouts that we have. all these big companies taking money out of the american taxpayers pockets. bailing these big companies out. how many have gone bankrupt? why don't we get our money back from the ones that made it and withhem be paying us back tax included and pay off our deficit? why don't we go after these people? we sit back and cry about money, money, money. republicans are blamed for taking all the money. the government has taken the american people's money and i feel like we are the ones who have been done dirty.

51 years i had a hair salon. 24 of those years i sold a real estate. i raised 2 sons myself. no money from everythin -- from anything. my husband, he died and left nothing. he was in the service. i feel sorry for the servicemen today. my husband was a servicemen. he stayed in the service for 20 years. i want to talk about something else, i want to talk about this irs mess. the american people need to stand up to the democrats and let them get off our backs and quit damning us and george bush for everything that has happened. she broke the law and now she is getting paid for breaking the law. why don't we do something about the mess in washington? call, andnks for the thank you for raising your sons and working hard for so many years. look, there is this intellectual duplicity that does go on in this town.

had handledcandal -- happened under a republican president, how would the press have handled, how would the left have handled it? if there is any truth to the revelations yesterday that private tax filing information was migrating to the white it, we arereality of heading towards a big deal. you can almost hear the voices of 40 years ago in the back of about the white house, what did they know and when did they know what? is a good guy,sa taking a very serious the -- host: chairman of the house oversight committee. guest: instead of doing it politically, i believe they are doing it workmanlike, digging

through. but the facts that are starting up i think are devastating for this white house. host: congressman david schweikert, thank you for joining us. guest: john, i appreciate it. host: coming up, the impacts of national security efforts during the government shutdown. we will be right back. >> the president had us all down to the white house last week only to remind me that he was not going to negotiate over keeping the government open or over the looming need to

increase the debt limit. >> democrats agree, we are willing to negotiate but won't negotiate to a with a gun to our heads. we say to our republican colleagues, and this irresponsible government shutdown. >> we are not going to negotiate under the threat of a prolonged shutdown until republicans get 100% of what they want. coverageith c-span for of the government shutdown and your input into the conversation. >> i am disgusted that obama cannot compromise. he refuses to negotiate. the shutdown is that republicans are playing stupid games and if everybody play these games long-term, the entire government shutdown. something assembly treason. >-- something resuming treason. -- we bring public

affairs event from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the table tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." in this last segment today we will talk about the impacts of the shutdown on national security efforts. this is a subject that the national security director -- director of national intelligence james clapper talked about last week at a hearing before the senate judiciary committee. here is a bit of what he had to say then. [video clip] >> i have been in the intelligence business for about 50 years.

i've never seen anything like this. my view, this, on top of sequestration cuts that were , it series the damages our ability to protect the safety of the nation and our citizens. i would come and you senator feinstein's superb statement yesterday on the senate floor, outlining her concerns with which i completely agree. this is not just the beltway issue. affects our global capability to support the military, support diplomacy, and to support our policymakers. the danger here is that this will accumulate over time. the damage will be insidious. , theday that goes by jeopardy increases. this is a dreamland for foreign intelligence service to recruit, particularly as our employees, already many of whom are subject

to furloughs driven by sequestration, are going to have, i believe, greater financial challenges. we spend our time with counseling services for employees to help them manage their finances. from my standpoint this is extremely damaging and will increase so as this shutdown drags on. host: joining us at the desk now to talk about the subject is john bellinger, former legal adviser to the national security council, curly a partner at the law firm arnold and porter here in d.c. in the days since director clapper made the comments, the intelligence community and the pentagon have recalled many if not most of their furloughed staff. in light of that, do you believe the shutdown continues to pose a threat to national security? guest: john, i do. i was in the situation room on 9/11 and spent the next 7.5 years in the bush in this ration, the first three in the white house, the next 4 and the

state department, working on counterterrorism issues. we were a country at war then and we ran a country at war now. this shot -- we remain a country or more now. this shutdown of the government poses a substantial risk to our national security. we have a number of employees of intelligence agencies, cia, nsa, fbi, the defense department, department of homeland security, all important security agencies who are still out of work. some of them have been called back now. but even more important than that, the leaders of these who undoubtedly the american people expect should be focusing on leading their agencies to protect terrorist threats, are spending a substantial part of each day managing the shutdown figuring out which employees need to be furloughed, what the messages to their employees to keep up or out. down theors are up-and- chain trying to counsel their

employees. morrell has plummeted. some people are being told, oh, you are not important, we are letting you go. and the employees themselves are not even getting paid, even the ones who remain on the job. host: how much do we know about what isn't getting done? story talking about concerns about defending against cyber attacks, keeping a on ballistic missile launches around the world, possibly impacted by the shutdown, and sadly analyzing the raw intelligence data for those who make the decisions. right, and obviously, the president and leaders of these agencies have to make do with the resources that they've got. they have kept some employees on as a central. that means -- they have kept some employees on as essential. the critical issues are being addressed. but other issues, longer-term issues, on not being covered. there is a real substantial risk to our national security.

i'm really quite surprised that the tea party republicans who have shutdown the government in this case are not focused on the governmenteat to the . if we were in the middle of world war ii no one would've shut down the government in world war ii. in ather believe we are war or were don't believe we are in a war. for: john bellinger writes lawfareblog.com. one of your recent columns, "has the two-party forgotten about 9/11 -- has the tea party forgotten about 9/11?" guest: it was a scarring experience for those of us who served in the bush administration. we heard a director clapper, who is now the director of national intelligence. we set up the department of homeland security. president bush pledged he would do everything he could to keep the country safe. i fear that the tea party, many

of them are new to government, really don't understand the threats that are posed and are still out there. i personally believe that even if the constituents are concerned about health care, which they undoubtedly are, it is up to these members of congress to say "i understand that," but from my vantage point in washington, there are substantial threats to the united states and we cannot these important as intelligence and law-enforcement agencies and tie up the leadership of those departments at a time when we remain under serious terrorist threat. host: you say in your column that members are falling down in their response validity to educate their constituents about this issue -- responsibility to educate their constituents about this issue. is it members on both sides of the aisle? guest: primarily, i believe, it is the tea party republicans, because they are the ones who have insisted on keeping the government shutdown. have chastised the

president in the past four not understanding that we are in a war. and yet here being in a war with al qaeda around the world, we are shutting down the government and posing really serious risks to the market people. -- to the american people. host: we are talking to john bellinger, a former legal adviser to the national security council and served in the bush administration from 2001 to 2005. afterwards he went over to the state department? guest: that's right. host: what did you do their? guest: i spent all four years with secretary condoleezza rice, managed or confirmation process, and became the general counsel of the state department. manyight years after 9/11, of the legal issues facing us both at the white house and at

the state department were issues relating to terrorism. host: if you want to talk to john bellinger about this issue, our phone lines are open. the numbers are on the screen there. we go to kelly from georgia on our land for republicans. caller: yes, sir. i have a question. what i would like to understand is does the furloughs and everything -- the national security that i saw at the -- iial, the monument understand that they are furloughed. i have heard that all the furloughed workers are going to be getting back pay. and they possibly could be getting unemployment. i am very concerned about the

national security. i hope the administration would keep the essential workers. then i had one other question. i can't remember -- i'm a little bit younger, but has this administration -- i can't remember during the clinton administration, but did clinton everything,s and -- as far asuments national security goes, the obama administration would keep essential workers for national security, the nsa, dod and everything would keep everything in place to keep us up and , without terrorism and that's and everything -- we know

what they're doing as far as vets are concerned -- host: on your unemployment and back pay question, we had the head of the federal employees union on the show on saturday and he addressed this issue. the bill that is moving through backpay addressing would mean that federal employees got an employment -- got unemployment during the furlough would get back pay and would have to pay back unemployment rate i will let john bellinger pick up on the national security side. guest: great, and kelly, it is a great question. it has not been worked out whether people will receive backpay. it seems likely that that will happen. but right now it appears that that receiveyees backpay later, the checks may be late. probably the next paycheck that even the essential personnel at the fbi and the people who are

working, the next paycheck will be reduced. government workers like many people across the united states are living paycheck to paycheck. even if they are an essential employee of an intelligence agency working on a counterterrorism mission gets half a paycheck, hope that they will maybe later on get paid, not be able to make a mortgage payment or car payment, and at the same time be told you are essential and have to be focusing on town of terrorism issues on it is really -- focusing on counterterrorism issues, it is terrible for morale. want agency heads who we to be focused on our security threats are spending a good chunk of every day having to work on pay issues, shutdown issues, deciding who is essential and he was not, reassuring the people that they will get paid, or if they are

considered nonessential, that they are still valued employees. it is causing terrible morale problems. with respect to your point about do you have essential people on board, those are the major decisions that the agency spends hours every day shifting priorities around. we are certainly, as i ,nderstand it as an outsider agency heads are shifting people to the highest priorities of the day. but that means that longer-term analyses are going undone. as to the furlough status of those who work in the national security sector of the federal government, on saturday, secretary of defense hagel recalled most of not all of the 250,000 employees that had been on furlough for the pentagon. the cia director john brennan recalled a lot of his staffers this week. there is a story in the washington post and in that story in notes that u.s.

officials said other intelligence agencies besides the cia were taking similar steps but they declined to disclose specifics on how many and which categories of employees would be summoned back to their jobs. "a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, james clapper, said that copper had authorized the recall of some employees at the national counterterrorism center, the national counter proliferation center, the office of national counterintelligence executive, and the national intelligence council." that from "the washington post" earlier this week. we are talking to john bellinger about these issues, a former legal adviser to the national security council. rick is up next from north carolina on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. you are talking about all these wars and stuff we get into. towe hadn't have gotten in these last two wars we got in, we would not be in the same shape financially.

we worry too much about what some else might think about us instead of what we think about ourselves. to get it is time for us out of these wars, time for us to take care of our people at home, and these guys who go over and fight and die for us, we should be ashamed of ourselves. i am a democrat, i'm ashamed of the democrats, i'm ashamed of the republicans. let's work on this together, let's get back to taking care of the united states of america. host: john bellinger, on twitter guest: i guess i would have to disagree on that point. i am also quite concerned about the budget and the budget deficit.

we have to address that. that is a threat to our national security. at the same time, i don't think anybody across the united states wants to have another terrorist attack of the type that we had on 9/11. that is where we really depend heavily on the professionals in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the department of defense. think that the health care plan is so, get it that most people don't understand it. it is something that is worth having a discussion about. but as somebody who spent most of my career in national security, i think it poses a very substantial this to our country to be shutting down important national security agencies at a time the hands -- and tying the hands of our department heads and professionals we want to be protecting the country. host: you work at the law firm arnold and porter in the sea what do you do there? guest: i continue to work on

national spirit issues. or exportns laws control laws, the revelation of businesses for national security reasons. -- regulation of businesses for national security reasons. host: we are taking to john bellinger and taking your comments. david is up next on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i have been trying to get on the radio for a while now. i don't believe that the nsa and the cia needs all the money and all the men they have working for them. i don't believe people like snowden is a traitor. he is a patriot. there should be more people like him blowing the whistle on secrecy. i do believe in secrecy from the people of the united states. it is supposed to be government of the people, for the people, not for corporations --

: we will leave out the cussing but let john bellinger respond to your comments. guest: the intelligence agencies most people believe are performing extremely important services for us, after 9/11, and i was the principal lawyer dealing with the investigation of what went wrong . the american people expect our intelligence agencies to be doing everything they can to detect terrorist threats around the world. that is one of the reasons we set up the director of national intelligence to pull together the work of domestic law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies to set up the department of homeland security. again, i was in the white house in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. there were people marching in the streets, victims of the 9/11 attacks saying to the

administration you need to do everything you can do to keep the country safe from another attack. yes, in response to a question from an earlier caller, all of us went to get out of the war with al qaeda around the world. unfortunately, we can't just surrender unilaterally. the threats continue, the attacks continue. we have seen the attacks on -- by al-shabaab, on the mall in kenya. the fed continues to be out there. host -- that threat continues to be out there. lawfareblogiece in asks has the tea party forgotten 9/11? here's a comment from ted cruz saying the obama administration has forgotten national security.

host: is the president playing politics? guest: i don't think the president is. the president is keeping these agencies opened to the best that he can and keeping essential personnel on the job. when, frankly, a lot of republicans have criticized the president for not understanding that we are in a , 14 party republicans to insist on keeping the government tea partyn -- for republicans to insist on keeping the government closed down fails to recognize there is a serious threat. i am someone who served for eight years in a republican administration. but i don't think that the tea party republicans can have it both ways to criticize the president for not taking security seriously and at the same time shut down the government over their concerns

on health care. those concerns may be absolutely legitimate but it ignores the fact that we are in a continued state of terrorist threat where we expect our intelligence and law enforcement and defense agencies to be keeping the country safe. host: larry is up next from texas on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to know, you have social security. we have 15 million illegals over here taking our jobs. why isn't our government doing something about these illegals? 15 million. anybody can come across our borders. i think it is a waste of money. they've not done nothing. we've got 15 million illegals taking our jobs and trashing our country. host: john bellinger, are we seeing impact on border security as well during the federal shutdown? guest: i haven't seen the actual

numbers on the border control and border security. my assumption is that those people remain on the job as an essential function -- host: department of homeland -- guest: department of homeland security. while they may remain on the job, they are not sure whether they can get paid. a lot of these people are not highly paid workers to begin with. on the one hand they are told by the government that you essentially have to stay on the job but we are not sure we are going to be able to pay you. in any case, your paycheck may be late. we are relying on these individuals, whether it is border patrol, counterterrorism analysts, fbi agents, to do their jobs. we are told they are essential, but they may not get paid. it is a tremendous distraction to them to do their jobs. host: during the shutdown we have seen 2 high-profile counterterror operations

overseas. guest: the kenya attack, which was carried out by al-shabaab on a mall in kenya, shows in fact that there is a continued terrorist threat, that al qaeda, which back in the time of 2011 was primarily in afghanistan, has spread out to other countries around the world, pakistan and yemen and somalia, and they are carrying out attacks in other places. there were not many americans in the mall at the time, but it shows that a group like al-shabaab, and there are other al qaeda affiliates and other places, are still intent on carrying out terrorist attacks. that is what we happen to call a soft target was not well defended. our embassies around the world,

as well as our country at home, remain at risk of attack. if there were to be an attack later on, whether it is on the scale of 9/11 or something much less, the american people would then be saying "why didn't you do anything and everything you could to keep the country safe?" host: twentynine palms in california -- tammy, you are on with john bellinger. caller: good morning could i want to say thank you to the national security for all the work that they do. my husband works for the department of defense, and i realize how important national security is. it doesn't do this out of w -- it does keep us out of war. i hear people say that we need to get out of war and all the stuff but national security is a big part of that. i want to know why there is not nationalet up for the

security, an important agency like the department of defense and things like that, so that when there is a shutdown of the government, those agencies still continue to be able to do their jobs and take care of the business of the security of the nation. host: before you go, was her husband furloughed? guest ye caller: yes. he went back on monday because they determined that his job was absolutely imperative an important. my husband works with the readiness and training programs, and he prepares all the weapons. host: john bellinger, if you want to talk about the money for the shutdown -- planning for the shutdown. guest: tammy, thanks for your call. as somebody who spent much of my

career in the government handling national security issues, i hope that the families of those employees in all of these different agencies will in fact make their views known. i know it causes a terrible impact on them personally. if they are declared nonessential, that hurts morale, and even if they come back and are not being paid, and i suspect it is not clear to you or your husband whether you will , we haven time hundreds of thousands of workers in these agencies who are keeping the rest of the country safe, performing vital services. perhaps there are others in other parts of the country who are not fully aware of the sacrifices and the work that is being done by the intelligence and defense professionals all across the country. just to give one example, the fbi, which we value as an important agency on the

frontline of detecting terrorist threats, is unable to train new agents. they have virtually shut down their training academy at quantico. just this past week they brought in law enforcement professionals from other countries to train them. those people are ready to train at the fbi in quantico and they have been sent back. they were brought to washington and economy was closed down, and those people left and sent home. host: with 350 employees at the department of defense being furloughed, and the 350,000 being furloughed and then call back, and the cia calling back a lot of employees this week him a good agencies have been better and planning for the shutdown? guest: i have talked to people in these agencies -- the leaders

of these agencies expected the shutdown was going to be a few and as with a holiday period over christmas tom at the agencies can get by for a few days, but as they began to realize -- the secretary of shutdown could go on for weeks, this is causing serious damage to our national , putting the country at risk. bringing back almost all of those employees and whether they will get paid later on or when they will get paid is another issue. but i think the heads of these agencies just can't get by having so many people furloughed , so they just brought them back in and made the decision that we are going to declare them to be essential whether they get paid or not. host: rachel is up next from texas on our line for independents. caller: yes, in the constitution, article one,

wagesn six, we are to pay of representatives -- i'm sorry, i'm nervous -- we pay their wages. it has nothing in there about us paying for the insurance. ok? comedy representatives are taking the free government insurance that we pay -- how many representatives are taking the free government assurance that we pay for or are they paying out of their own dam pockets? host: members of congress? caller: yes, we pay for their insurance. awayhen to take checks from young men that died out there -- they are heartless people we have in government. they are tied to companies. you don't give it -- they don't give a damn about us. they are looking out for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and who

puts money in their pockets for their campaigns. host: rachel from texas. chris from new jersey on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i'm calling because i'm very bellinger,know, mr. you stated that you were -- you participated during the 9/11, i keep mentioning the word "terrorist." with the state of the country is in, you see the emotion of the last caller, i think a lot of americans feel that emotion. i think a lot of us are at this point -- why do you continue to say the word "terrorist"? why do you continue to allow subjects and conversations when we need to be productive, like the last caller just said? people have died, our soldiers have died.

coming home, and we have nothing to give them. yet money is being directed to other things. why can't the people that have the ability to make these decisions keep in mind that these are people's lives? please do not continue to say the word "terrorist." guest: i'm not quite sure what you mean about whether -- whether you are questioning whether terrorism actually still exists. certainly i think that all of our nations leaders, on the republican or democratic side, recognize that the country remains under threat of attack from members of al qaeda or affiliated groups, just as we were attacked on 9/11, that our embassies were attacked in africa, and that there remains a very serious threat of terrorism . there's nothing else to call it. -- extremistseme

from different groups, either al qaeda itself or affiliates of al qaeda in different countries. the united states and want to attack us and kill our people, whether it is here in the united states or around the world. it is certainly unfortunate -- when i began to serve in the white house in february 2001, we were a country that seem to be at peace. after 9/11, we realized we were being attacked all around the world. we have done over the last 12 years between two administrations of tremendous amount to try to decimate the .eadership of al qaeda we hope that we can say that that thread is over. aware of anybody suggests that the does and still remain a threat from terrorism

-- that the dozens to remain a threat from terrorism here and abroad. sadly. host: you represented the white house in its dealings with the 9/11 commission. what was at work about? -- what was that work about? guest: the 9/11 commission was set up, a bipartisan group, to determine what were the causes of the terrorist attack on the how it had come about, but also had the u.s. government done everything it could? was it sufficiently well organized to prevent the last attack and future attacks? we turned over an enormous amount of documents to show that we knew the secretary -- condoleezza rice testified in well-known testimony. the commission recommended that the government be reorganized to create a new agency, the directorate of national

intelligence, and many of the surviving victims came to washington to tell us that we had to do everything we could to reorganize the government. one of the 9/11 commission's recommendations was that one of risk istest periods of between administrations after an election because the old senior leadership is leaving and the new leadership is not common -- has not come in. it is a period of disorganization. the 9/11 commission said that we need to make sure we always have leaders rapidly appointing -- appointed and confirmed by the senate could although we are not between administrations, we are in a period where we are oftracting the leadership law-enforcement agencies and the secretary of defense will have to do deal with the shutdown

issues and the morality -- morale of their people. we want them to be focused on doing their jobs. host: a few minutes left your with john bellinger, former legal advisor to the national security council. a question on twitter. guest: that is a great question, and something that has vexed 2 administrations as to whether the government in afghanistan, the karzai government and his successors will be able to maintain a stable democracy in afghanistan, what the taliban will do whether the taliban will take care of the government. it is a matter of great concern

to the bush administration and continues to be a matter of concern to the obama administration. we have done everything we can through to administration's to ensure stability in afghanistan so we don't have what happens prior to 9/11, a failed, unstable state where al qaeda has been able to go and train. we want to have a governed area that will prevent things like that from happening. but it is just a very difficult part of the world right now. host: denise from florida on our line for democrats. you are on with john bellinger. caller: i was just going to sit that i think that john bellinger is a very intelligent man. guest: thank you. caller: i think you are very correct about the tea party conservatives shutting down the government. let's not mention the nuts on the news. the second, and i would like to make is about president obama.

racism is alive and well in this country. everything that president obama attempts to do, the republican somehow organize it into a crisis. yet,nk he hasn't said that but i think you will see that in the history books later on. host: denise from florida. richard is from texas on our line for independents. you are on with mr. bellinger. caller: yes, i -- host: turn down your tv and go ahead with your caller question. caller: ok, how are you doing? host: go ahead, we are here. caller: can you hear me? host: keep talking, turn on your tv. caller: i am on disability. i make $710 a month. after my bills are paid, i might

have $26 left. but to keep an incident like or any other incident, especially the incident with the military families that can't see loved ones that give all they can give for this country, i give everythan happy penny that i have. host: richard from texas this money -- guest: he is a real hatred to say that. one of the articles i read in the paper this morning is that one thing the defense department does not have money to do is pay death benefits for family members of military members who have been killed in afghanistan. normally the defense department will make a payment that will allow the family members to travel to washington or to go

for, where the remains are brought back. there is not even money for that. groups around the country have been privately donating to support our troops around the world. this is the point i am trying to make here. i don't want to get involved in the politics of all of this. i've been a national security professional. my point is sadly that the -- my pointcausing is sadly that the shutdown is causing tremendous damage to our national security industries and poses enormous risk and having a tremendous impact on the men and women who serve us every day in our intelligence, law enforcement, and defense agencies. it seems to be saying to them from our congress that we don't value the work that you are doing, we want you to be there to keep us safe but we are not sure whether some of you are essential or not, not clear if you are going to get paid. it is a real distraction to these departments that we rely

on heavily. from ohio on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how are you folks today? host: good, go ahead. caller: john, i've been listening to your comments about the shutdown. you guys live in washington too long. we could do without half of you all in washington. minor out here where we live. it is nothing. i understand you're upset about the national security. the national security is fine. we could do without half of the wall. arrore overpaid, you're gant -- host: all right, john, we wanted our guests talking about the issues today. john bellinger, just to clear

things up, does not work for the federal government now. he is in the private sector now. the caller was talking about the need for such a large national security effort in the united states. are there places that could be cut, from your perspective? guest: i'm sure there are. i'm certainly not going to suggest that there can't be cuts that could be made all across the defense department or the intelligence agencies. but certainly, after 9/11, when we had the world trade center collapse after having planes flown into them, the pentagon attack, the planes hijacked, 3000 people dead, the country ndeed,ed -- i demanded -- that we be better organize and pay more attention to protecting ourselves. this has caused headaches and expense.

nobody likes to stand in line at airports. we wish that we didn't have to have tsa, that we didn't have to take off our shoes and belts. but we were attacked on 9/11 just the way we were attacked on pearl harbor. these are important functions that the government is performing. host: in the last minute or so, you talked about the impact of national security domestically. that about the impact to the u.s. -- what about the impact of the u.s.'s global partners? guest: it is a good question. it is probably twofold. one is probably surprise that the strongest country in the world is unable to govern itself in this way. other countries expect better of the united states. but more practically, we train the military, the security agencies of other countries around the world so that particularly in less developed

countries that don't have strong intelligence and law horsemen agencies are military -- law- enforcement agencies or military, we train them to do a better job so that it is a forward-deployed defense for all of us so we don't have to do it ourselves. that is something that has largely been cut out right now. we are not doing it. host: john bellinger is a former legal adviser to the national security council in the budget administration, served from 2001 to 2005. thanks for joining us this money. guest: nice to be with you. host: we will take you live to the house floor and we will see you tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. for "washington journal." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] l be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., october 10, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable kerry l. bentivolio to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a.