looks at efforts underway to hunt and fish by amending state constitutions. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is host: good morning. we have a three-hour "washington journal. theill be talking about state of bridges and highways. we will get to all of that this morning. it is college commencement season and we're asking our --wers to write in about with your messages for graduates. we want to bring you through some of the commencement address highlights so far this year. we want to hear who you would pick if you are graduating

today. if you are a recent college graduate, there is a special line for you. can catch up with us on all of your favorite social media. happy memorial day weekend. i want to start off talking about commencement addresses. they are leading some of these papers in the last several days. page of thefront washington post metro section on graduation at the naval academy. defense secretary chuck hagel was the speaker. sexual offense in the

military. storyw york times had a about janet yellen's speech at nyu. there is a picture of the chairwoman of the federal reserve there. abramson connection that was getting so much attention earlier this week. the washington post about her commencement address at wake forest university. we are asking you to call in. message be tor the graduates of 2014? who would be your commencement speaker if you could pick?

some powerful quotes from governor martin o'malley who spoke at the university of maryland. he had a jab at climate change deniers. of the quote that they round up was the governor of massachusetts. his speeches is at the university of massachusetts at amherst. he wanted the state to go coal free. some clips from recent commencement addresses. we will start with bobby jindal, louisiana.r of

>> what happens when our government decides it does not need a religious people? mired incan people are a silent war. it threatens our communities and the health of our public square. is a war against the propositions and declarations of independence. it is war against the spirit that motivated abolitionists. ofis a war against the soul acts of charity. it is a war that drives social change. it is a war against people that bind us together. it is a war. a silent war against religious liberty. this is waged in our courts and the halls of political power. it is pursued with relentless determination by like-minded

elites determined to transform our country. is silenced,face their vision is not of 10 years ago. it is a vision in which isividual devotion considered a hobby. these elites have faced little opposition. .here is a remnant my question to our graduates is will you be a part of that remnants? >> that was bobby jindal this month. we are asking what your message would be to college graduates. that is happening on our facebook page. his message would be to not believe the lie that everybody wins.

only the strong survive. compete and be driven. we will be going through facebook comments and twitter posts as well throughout the first four to five minutes of the "washington journal." her message would be to buckle up. is nothing like what you've been taught in liberal colleges. we want to hear from viewers this morning. if you are recent college graduate we would love to hear your comments. the recent for college some headlines about challenges to recent graduates. the path to a career is bumpy is

the headline. this is the wall street journal. the high unemployment rate for recent grads is at 8.3% this last year. this is well above the past several decades. they're not putting their degree to use either. some of the challenges facing graduates.s -- employment rates may be low. this is from the washington post yesterday. educational differences are a big factor in growing inequality according to a recent study.

the college premium increased by $28,000. the washington post notes in that story. we want to hear from you. if you were giving a commencement speech today, what would be your message to recent college graduates. who would you pick as your commencement speaker? we will start with matthew in washington on our democrat line. caller: i told your guy on the phone that i would pick snowden. i would pick roger federer. craft with so much passion. what would be the message that you would give if you are given a speech? caller: don't be afraid to take risks and do it you love.

host: matthew was calling from tacoma, washington. brandon, good morning. my message to college let -- notould be do let the government expand anymore. invest in yourself. don't rely of for a job. empowerment message. my choice of speaker would be ron paul. host: do you think commencement speakers still matter these days? caller: i think they matter. i think that they do deliver powerful messages. i think that universities have become a key -- picky, letting

student bodies choose their own pictures -- speakers. host: brandis from rhode island. our phone lines are open and we want to hear your message to college graduates. bonnie has a similar just. the americaneve in spirit and your self. trust god to help you get there. brandon also brought up some of the controversy surrounding some commencement speakers, some this invitations that went out this month that garnered headlines. the forbes column talks about the this invitation.

if you want to read more of this column, that is at forbes. our phone lines are open. we went to hear your message to graduates as the graduating class of 2014 is graduating. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say to everybody to stay hopeful. things have a way of working out. believe in yourself. find people that are optimistic. things do work out.

i am proud of this young generation, i think they're going to do great. host: who would you pick as your commencement speaker? i like richard moore. religious, but a person that talks about growth and change. he gives me a lot of hope. host: val is condon from louisiana. another recent graduation speech that garnered attention was an address at wake forest university this week. she talked about overcoming challenges and disappointment. here is a bit of what she had to say. >> some of you have faced danger loss.n a soul scorching most of you haven't.

leaving school must seem scary. you will probably have a dozen different jobs-- and try different things. losing a job you love hurts. the work i revere and journalism that is powerful and holds people accountable is what makes our democracy so resilient. this is the work i will remain a part of. my only reluctance and showing up to date was the media circus following me would attract -- detract attention away from you. what total knockouts you are. [applause]

what is next for me? i don't know. in exactly the same boat as many of you. [laughter] areur facebook page people saying he would pick. pickwrites that he would -- says they are boring. marco's picks are mitt romney and ronald reagan. do they matter? who would you pick? claudia is calling on online for nts.pende caller: i would like to say to

the graduates be all you can because we are being sold to the highest bidder. twitter, american hero -- we have few role models to choose from. no politicians need apply. georges cullinan from knoxville, tennessee on our line for independents. caller: i don't have a message myself. my parents came over from europe. i watched the commencement , and hethe navy admiral described seal training. lessons for that to how to conduct yourself and your life.

i would encourage c-span to replay that if you haven't -- have it in your library. it is a wonderful lesson to people. determination overcoming obstacles. don't be afraid to fail and realize you have a lot of people supporting you. you can't do it alone. host: it seems like you're in the category that you mentioned speakers and speeches still matter? caller: very much. this idea of political correctness. that is not a very good idea. you, do you ask think colleges should pay for commencement speakers? caller: i really don't have an opinion. i would not think so. i used to be.

dwight eisenhower was my graduation speaker at penn state. he was president at the time. -- brother was the pet president of penn state at the time. i think the idea of an honorary degree is a good idea. host: thank you for the call from knoxville, and a c. -- tennessee. this is a story from the new jersey news on speakers in new jersey that have been paid.

on that same topic, the washington post says the commencement speech racket. stems from our celebration culture in which every milestone is elevated the ranks of a mira.

what would be your message to the graduating class of 2014? arizona ontucson, the line for independents. caller: my message would be remember constitutionality. the fourth amendment. rand paul has been making good points. remember where we are economically. host: we will go to dd

fredericks. i would tell them to start planning for their retirement savings. a retirementw have plan. let's go to daniel on the line for emma kratz. what would be your message? iller: of a right of things. promise the screener i would use pleasant language. my message would be the federal ofernment should get out education from the top down. get the federal government out of the education business. rates areion exploding.

they started making unlimited financing available to collegians. that, i would say climate change is bunk. -- power is a hoax. -- gridd one power good that has when the power. how about greta? she is so fabulous. i know people, men hurl the time. good speaker as well. host: thank you. michiganin sterling, on our line for republicans.

host: good caller: good morning. be leery of who you trust and spend lesshat you than you make and you will get ahead in life. thank you for letting me give my comment. host: peter from michigan on the subject of this invitations going out and controversy surrounding some graduation speakers. this is from the washington post.

if you want to read more on that it is in the washington post. this is one of the post writinges

this is a column from the washington post. we are showing some recent graduation speeches. ate's one from a john lewis the university of mississippi law school talking about how far the country has, when it comes to race relations. this is with the civil rights icon had to say. of dr. king and the action of rosa park inspired me. we went down to the little town of troy. we went to the public library and tried to check out looks and get library cards. we were told by the librarian

that the library was for whites only. i never went back to the public library until 1998 for a book signing. whiteds of locks and citizens showed up. i signed a lot of books. i had a wonderful reception. reception,of the they gave me a library card. be important, but when people tell me nothing has or the in mississippi american south, i say come and walk in my shoes. this state is a different state. our region is a different region and we are a better people and we are on our way to lay down the burden of the vision. we are on our way to being a

beloved community. must-- young lawyers, you find a way to get in necessary trouble. that is your moral obligation. that is your responsibility. host: that is john lewis. messagesking about your to the graduating class of 2014. we are taking your e-mails and tweets. in.h writes do for living what you love to do. chances are you'll be good at it. e-mail, carol writes in that it is your duty to keep yourselves informed. and expands power your interest and curiosity. you will avoid total devastation of the spirit.

,et's go to murray in portland connecticut on the democrat line. caller: thank you for making my call. i like to give a message to the students. first i would like to say to the rutgers students who were for protesting condoleezza rice as their speaker, thank god. they have more courage and integrity than those who have chosen to forget or condone the fact that rice was one of the enablers that propagated the wmd lies that took so many lives. lies.be fooled by he and activist. i am 72 years old. you are the stewards of our precious environment. be informed and be active. i believe in god.

i believe god wants you to be following your conscience. host: marie from connecticut. chris writes in on our twitter page. freedom is only one generation away from extension. this is his message to recent college grads. scott is on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. say it is good to have principles and to stand by them on but don't fall for the us versus them mentality. you need to recognize that when dealing with others. stay away from the group mentality. don't let that be something that blinds you to the truth that there are good and bad people in every category. you need to judge them as

individuals. host: who would you pick as a graduation speaker? i always liked reagan's speeches. are you a college graduate? your member your commencement beaker? caller: i graduated quite a while ago. i cannot remember her name. she was the energy secretary at the time. i am kind of political. i thought it was too much holiday for my state -- taste. i can are member anything she said. scott is from cincinnati. twitter, individual freedom

is the way to prosperity. let's go to paul from florida on our democrat line. good morning. i would nominate david steinberg. most of our viewers do not know him. he is one of the deans at georgetown university. he was one of the proponents of myanmar.policy toward he wanted to eliminate the sanctions as a way to change the burmese of the then government. he is written six books and hundreds of articles, all of

them very lucid. he looks at the facts. this is not the weight he wishes things -- way he wishes. he is an excellent scholar and representative of the fact that you don't need a phd to master a subject. i have a masters but not a phd. he is an outstanding scholar. host: are you a college graduate? caller: very much so. i do remember the speech, even though it was 52 years ago. dupontthe president of at the university. this is at the university of pennsylvania. i only number one thing that he said. he said it is wonderful to have outstanding bright people, a company and the world would do a

lot better if everybody in the performed 10% above what they think their capacity is. was a minor lesson for a major university. there is some validity to that. i think we also need a lot of very bright people besides the 10%. host: paul is in jacksonville, florida. we're taking her comments for the next 10 or 15 minutes in this first segment. we are asking your message to recent college graduates. who would you pick if you are graduating as your commencement speaker? george franks writes in on facebook, any world war ii veteran.

let's go to bruce in kansas city, missouri on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. my choice would be tom colburn. he went to medical school. he served his community as a doctor in oklahoma. successful business associated with the medical profession. ingave that up and served congress. he stands for limited government.

i think that is when the problems we face today. i wish him the best. i read some of his books and i think he has a lot of good things to say. host: he is retiring this year. -- there have been so many dis-invitations from commencement addresses -- do you think they still matter to the students themselves and mark caller: i think they matter. i think the messages that people get sent off with can have a lasting affect. i think they're somewhat

important. --t: justice he was some just to give you some updates on news. juliannt obama nominated castro of san antonio to replace shaun donovan as the housing secretary. there is a picture of the three of them. has steered a housing boom in san antonio. this is a clip of that ceremony yesterday. >> as mayor, he has been the focus of revitalizing one of our most wonderful cities. he is planned housing units downtown and attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of investments. he has relationships with mayors across the country. he is become a leader in economic development. creating jobs in

san antonio. citizens and the federal government are working together to remake the community family by family and block by block. cares about the people that he serves and the city that he loves. it is also a reminder that he is never forgotten where he comes from. if he receives would become he the first housing secretary whose parents live and work in public housing roger ask. that is according to the our times. one other story in many of the kerry to testify june 12 before the oversight reform committee.

he state department says will not be going before the new select committee on benghazi. the state department said that he is open to testifying about benghazi in june. testify andenaed to he was unable to make that date. he will testify june 12th or june 20. there's a picture of him as well. we have about five or 10 minutes left to take your message to the graduating class of 2014. go caller: to dave waiting and clinton, connecticut. caller: good morning. understand you have a mother and father if you are lucky. i went through the marine corps.

i am 60 years old. to see the political movement the way that it is with opposition, they should work together. way the united states has gone it, i don't agree with. best, that they have minds to create and do what they have to do. that is my main comment. page, heour twitter would like to see a passionate speaker who inspires. a john kerry, he spoke a deal university about overcoming indifference and hopelessness. r u.s.led for a greate

role globally. >> if you're willing to challenge the conventional wisdom, you can avoid the dangerous byproducts of indifference, hopelessness, and cynicism. it is indifference it says our problems are so great, let's not try. we have to reject that. it is hopelessness that says that our best days are behind us. i could not disagree more. we areynicism that says powerless to effect real change and the era of american leadership is over. i don't believe that for a second and neither does the president. we refuse to limit our vision of the possibilities for our country and so should you. accept therefuse to downsizing of america's role in a very complicated world. eliot's j alfred

prufrock. up using do i dare disturb the universe? your job is to disturb the universe. host: that was john kerry on sunday. c-span coverage of commencement addresses is continuing all weekend. sheryl sandberg of facebook and others as we continue to highlight speeches monday, you can see antonin scalia at the college of william and mary.

make sure to check c-span.org if you would to see the whole listing. we have a few more of your comments for the graduating class of 2014. darrell is in bethlehem, pennsylvania on the line for democrats. there was a gentleman in philadelphia who did a survey of recent college graduates regarding so security. year,.u earn $5 million we are in trouble. sanders to do

some commencement speeches. he should be running for president. he is the only one who represents the average citizen in this country. host: doug is in virginia on the democrat line. caller: how are you doing? thank you for c-span. you guys do a good job. get a job andt work with the public where you meet everybody. you will make more contacts. this is the ultimate way to get a good interview if you see somebody day in and day out. they get to know you. as a work with the public, are you saying a government job question mark caller: sac groceries, deliver papers. the world and be seen

and let people see who you are. if you work a job like that, people will remember you when you show up for the interview. host: doug in virginia. here are a few tweets from members of congress that -- about commencement features. steny hoyer talks about how he was proud to deliver the university of maryland address. you can see a picture of congressman hoyer there. rob portman can graduates the 90-year-old graduating from xavier university. from chuckweet at stonyf new york brook university talking to the class of 2014.

just keep you updated on to other stories going on, the focus on russia as that vote in ukraine nears on sunday. we will talk about that tomorrow on "washington journal." more than 1000 international observers are in place to watch that vote. if you want to hear more about --, tomorrow in washington journal. a federal judge orders john conyers on the ballot. a lifeline on friday ordering the detroit democrat onto the primary ballot because of his lawsuit overturned on election law in michigan. the ruling capped a whirlwind day for the longest-serving member of congress. he seeks a 26th term in office.

the secretary of state agreed with the county clerk that he was ineligible to run and found shorte was 500 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. a judge ordered that his name be back on the august 5 ballot. we have time for one more call. roger is in connecticut on the line for democrats your message for the ride to its? -- graduates? whenr: i attended you know john kerry was the speaker. graduated 50 years ago. he'd married a billionaire. he talked about not having cynicism or discouraged. that is easy for him to say because his finances are all set there it --.

if the university brings in recent graduates and give them an idea of what is going on in the real world, people that graduated in five or six years, and were able to tell people , it is really going on would go better for these graduates. have a happy memorial day. in connecticut. i agree with john kerry. i don't like it when people say we can't change. it is too powerful to resist. that is going to do it for our first segment this morning. we will discuss the defense authorization bill with todd harrison. later we will talk about infrastructure spending on bridges and highways on this more memorial -- memorial day weekend. bynewsmakers, we were joined

senator bernie sanders from for mont. he is the chairman of the veterans affairs committee. he talked about whether or not eric shinseki should be fired. is that the v.a. is a huge institution. itrk. in some ways the secretary has done a good job. people who feared -- have heard about the backlog. under bush, we did claims by paper. an individual veteran could have files this thick here in mother by that by hunhousands of files.

he said that he would convert the system. at the end of five years, we will have those claims down to 125 days with 95% accuracy. iny have cut the backlog half. they are on the way to fulfilling that goal. one of the embarrassments that we remember is the homelessness since he hass. been in office, we reduce that i 24%. the wars in iraq and afghanistan, we have seen a huge increase of people coming in. nobody denies that there are problems. if you go out and talk to the average veteran who is in the we held a hearing last week and i asked the veterans

goodizations if is it a health care system? without exception they said it is and it is getting better. i have criticisms and there are problems. aggressive as you should be in some things. i don't think he should resign. >> washington journal continues. a seniord harrison is fellow. you're here to talk about the defense authorization bill. remind us of difference between an authorization and an appropriation in legislative language. that is confusing about this. the house and senate have their own armed services committees. they produce a defense authorization act. that is a policy bill.

it sets broad policy like changing don't ask the hotel. they can prohibit the military from supplier -- retiring weapon systems or moving units or bases. it can close bases. it sets broad policy. this has an implication on defense spending. bill does notion give the money to spend. that is the appropriations bill. that is a separate process that goes to the house and senate and different committees. that won't happen until the fall. area that is an place of agreement on capitol hill. guest: if you sit in on the hearings, it is surprising. there is a lot more by predators and -- bipartisan agreement. downssues don't write

easily along partisan lines. you see a lot of cooperation. the senate authorization bill that passed this week, the vote the committee.n the bill isbout how affecting these measures as it moved through congress. control act inet 2011, that set at it caps on defense and nondefense spending. those cats are still in effect until 2015 and beyond, up to 2021. that is going to limit defense spending this year. previously they had wanted to spend $550 billion. the budget cap is going to limit

the dod share to 400 and 6 billion. that is a much tighter constraints than they were expecting a few years ago. don'the house and senate like this constraint. they want to spend more. they recognize that they are stuck with this. they will not be able to alter the budget cap this year. host: what are the areas of spending under the budget cap? guest: the base defense budget, not including the wars, you have compensation, pay and benefits. you've got operations and maintenance accounts. that funds the peacetime operations of our forces. everything from buying fuel to pain for the maintenance of equipment in peacetime. training operations.

this is the back office for defense. funding all of the administrative functions. the other big part of the budget is acquisition. that pays for research and development. components.e big it does the big pots of money they are working with. the house and senate take the president's request. they like to tinker with that in make changes. host: we will go through what the pentagon has requested. we want our viewers to call in. we have a special and for

members of the military in this segment. let's start with with what the penning on is proposing. all, what isof notable is this the first time they proposed a budget that fit within the budget caps that are required by law. 2015, they spent $496 billion. fit, theyo make this retired a number of weapon systems that they don't think they need any more. the big highlight is the a-10 aircraft. they will be retiring the entire fleet of them. they're proposing retiring them and meeting stiff resistance on the hill. they propose doing things that the nav navy ships.

there are a number of changes like that. changes has made some in their core structure. they're taking some helicopters into the active c component and taking helicopters and moving them into the guard and the reserve. there has been a lot of resistance on that. dod has some other cost savings. they have another round of days closures. as the military gets smaller, it will be more like that. they will have another round of base closures to get rid of some of that excess inventory. host: this is the process we have heard before? guest: that would save money in the long run, getting rid of waste in the budget. they would have changes in military compensation. they would reduce the amount of pay raises.

they would only get a one percent pay raise this year. not a big change, but it adds up to quite a bit. they want to reduce the housing around -- allowance. in addition to regular pay, you get a housing allowance. it is tax-free. it pays 100% of rental cost and what ever market they live in. back andscaling it instead of covering 100%, it would cover 95%. they want to change the military health care system. active-duty,affect but it would affect retirees who have a retirement than if it. they would raise premiums and co-pays. it would consolidate things into a single plan. some would be increased with -- affected. it is a broad package of

changes. host: how many of those is congress ok with? guest: very few. most of these are very controversial. house and senate have said no to base closures. it is an inefficiency, it supports jobs in local districts. then i want to do base closures in an election year. both the house and senate have said no to retiring weapon systems like the a-10 in particular. then i want to let the air force retire them. these things cost money. they have also said no to the changes in the military health care system and increases in co-pays. they said no to that. seem tothing that they be ok with is the pay raise. both the house and senate are willing to let dod do the one

percent pay raise instead of the 1.8%. that happened last year as well. the dod got a lower-than-expected payraise. host: we want to get into collars. stacy is from maryland on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a quick comment. is ridiculous to put a cap on pay and make them pay more for their health care. there are weapon systems that need to be shut down. there should be a cap on corporate profits. the corporate profits should be managed. top-secret of these

programs know we has visibility to? guest: what she is talking about is the defense acquisition regulations. that governs how they buy weapon systems. there has been quite a bit of emphasis in this administration on looking at the actual costs of contractors. that actually does get to the point she is talking about looking at corporate profits. price you are paying for it and you can determine the profit. i think that is misguided. dod should be focused on the price. that is what matters. is the product worth the price?

is it a fair price in terms of what other people are paying? it is a comparable service or product. compared to what you paid in the go out to you are i buy something, we buy a car what you're focused on is the price. you have no visibility what it cost that country to provide it. it's not really relevant to you, you just need to know am i willing to pay that? is that a good price compared to the price other people are offering? is it a good price compared to what i've paid in the past? so i think d.o.d. is actually going down the rabbit hole here and trying to figure out the internal cost of companies. >> for people who want to know that, how much transparency is there? >> to looking into company profits, the d.o.d. can actually force companies, if they want to contract with them, to reveal this kind of information.

the problem with that is for companies that do mix business between government and commercial clients, it's very difficult for them segregate out their cost. if you read the financial reports of any major companies, they go to great extremes to twist themselves and contort themselves to define what their costs are, how you portion those costs across different parts of the business, over the long run, especially up front capital costs that are, you're buying equipment or a facility that might last 10, 20, 30 years. it's very complicated for companies to calculate this. it's even more complicated when the government gets involved and man tate how they calculate these things. host: a veteran and democrat calling in. good morning. come good morning, how are you? thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead, quest.

caller: i know the d.o.d. has priorities, and on this memorial day i would like to know why the president of the united states was able to have tim geitner bailout wall street and the banks and these corporations, yet he can't depth them to bailout the veterans and their families, which would be a lot less money than it took to bailout the banks and the corporations, you know. and the housing people, speculators. so why can't the department of defense bailout the veterans for the back log and take care of the veterans and their families? because without the veterans and their families, you don't have a military. guest: the difference as you're explaining this between the d.o.d. budget and the veterans

affair budget as well. a lot of people miss this fact. the d.o.d. budget does not include the cost of veterans spending, veterans benefit services. that's in the department of veterans affairs budget. if you actually look at what the administration has done, in 2009, the v.a. budget was about $96 billion a year. now, today, in 2014, it's over $150 billion a year. so there's been a huge increase in spending on veterans benefits and services. that's not part of the defense budget or these defense budget caps or anything. a huge increase in veteran spending, a lot of people assume it's because of veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan with all the injuries they've incurred there. actually the growth in veteran spending is due more to the vietnam era of veterans. many of those veterans now are reaching, you know, they're part of the baby boomer generation. they're reaching retirement age, and you know, when you get

older, your health care costs go up. that's a lot of what we're seeing. the other thing that's happened benefits and services who qualifies and what's provided have expanded under the obama administration so more and more people are qualifying now. that has contributed to the back log, and seen patients and in processing claims for veterans benefits. you know, could they have done better in tackling just the mountain of work they've got before them? probably. but i'm not an expert on how they process all of these claims. but it's not for lack of spending money. host: you talk about the veterans affair budget. here's the department of defense budget, that's the dark blue here from the year 1948 through 2014. you can see defense spending. the orange part of this chart here is the supplemental war funding, and explain what that is and how that fits into the

military's budget. >> sure, the wars in iraq and afghanistan have been funded a bit differently than previous wars. you see a spike for the korean wars in the early 1950's there. you see another bomb for the vietnam war, and then the next bump you see, was not for a war, but for the reagan's arms build-up in the 1980's, then the drawdown at the end of the cold war. wars in iraq and afghanistan were funded a bit differently because they've been funded consistently through supplement supplement funding. it's not part of the regular defense budget, it's submitted separately. it gets expedited procedures, considered emergency funding, it's not subject to the budget caps that are in place right now. so as a budget analyst, that's convenient because it allows us to segregate that money and analyze it separately. now, you see it drops off suddenly after 2014, that's because there's no future projection of what that war funding will be after 2014.

we've not even seen the request from the administration yet for what the 2015 war budget will be. i imagine it will probably be so. d $50 billion or now the light blue section you see on the chart, that's actually the budget caps that are in effect for the next several years. that's what we're talking about, if congress doesn't change the budget caps, it will be limited to the level you see there. now, it doesn't look like a cut. if you look at it in that graph. but it is a cut relative to what d.o.d. had been planning to spend. they had been planning to significantly increase funding over the coming years to pay for things like military compensation, which has been growing much faster than inflation, been growing about 4% a year, faster than inflation for the past decade. and pay for all these excess bases and facility that congress won't let him retire. to pay for all these legacy weapons systems congress won't let them retire.

legacy weapons systems, you know, planes and ships and tanks, they're kind of like an old car. as they get older they cost more and more to operate and maintain. there's a lot of internal cost growth within d.o.d. that basically means if we want to maintain the same size military we have today, it will cost more and more year after year unless we do somethings to fundamentally reform it. host: a big picture question for you from twitter. is military build-up in rich nations individually and as a group like nato, seen by poor nations as a threat directed against them? guest: that's a good question. we're not at a point right now where we are building up. not only is the u.s. reducing its defense spending and reducing the size of its military, our nato allies are doing that as well. and many of them are moved faster than we have. in the united kingdom, they moved rather quickly to down size their military.

so, we are seeing that it's not just a matter of the u.s. having more constrained resources for defense. many of our partners and allies around the world have similar constraints. host: let's go to jim waiting in massachusetts on our line for democrats. jim, good morning. caller: hi, how are you? do you hear me? host: yes. caller: you know, this is my point. i understand and i appreciate everything you're saying. i've learned somethings from you, but it seems to me that you're speaking in an extremely mariah carey ro sense. and a lot -- speaking in an extremely macro sense. where it's about the waste in defense spending. a couple of months ago i saw a congresswoman on the floor, you know, presenting this stuff like paying ten times what a plastic elbow is worth, and meals

overseas for soldiers that we're paying for that they throw in the dumpster because they make them whether the soldier's going to eat them or not, because they get paid for it. so i wonder if you could address are of those things that really down low on the radar, and i think it's really connected directly with pork fat spending and whatever, and government officials getting contracts for friends and so on and so forth. anyway, sorry to be so long. host: we'll let todd harrison give you a response. guest: jim, i think you give a good example. waste in the defense budget is not like fat around the slice of the meat that you can cut off

neatly, it is marbled into the meat. it's not unique to d.o.d., it's any large bureaucracy, any large corporation really. there will be waste and inefficiency, but it is marbled down in the meat, it's down at the very low level, a lot of it, so it's very hard to get to. i think the only real solution is we've got to find a way to enable and empower middle and lower level managers to actually root out this waste. that's a hard thing to do, i hope we can crack that nut one day. but in the meantime, we've got to keep every time you find an example of waste like that, you got to bring it to people's attentions and try to get it fixed one by one, little by little. we can start to make some improvements. >> todd harrison, you've been on the program before, but for those who aren't familiar with your group, talk about it. guest: sure, we're a nonpartisan, nonprofit defense think tank. our goal is to help educate and

inform issues about issues of defense strategy in the defense budget. so i lead the budget side, so i focus on how we resource for defense. online.org. ba and we'll talk to paul in south carolina on our line for independents. paul, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a military retiree, 10 years in the marine corps, and 10 in the air force. in the marines and air force, we pulled our own mess duty, and we pulled our own guard duty. but i noticed at fort jackson sow here in columbia, the guard , or m.p.'s we used to call them, are civilian, and i understand the mess hall is even contracted out to civilians.

the soldiers should be doing their own jobs, not civilians. and that's my comment. thank you. guest: i'd be interested in when he served because he's absolutely right. it used to be that way. also very unusual for someone to have served in one service and transfer to another branch. to going from the marine corps to the air force, be very interested to talk to the caller. host: too bad we still don't have him on the line. [laughter] guest: the idea of contractors, now the way the military operates, we have a much more highly educated force today, a much more highly skilled force today, they're better compensated. you know, as a result, it's an all volunteer military. and we focus on making sure our troops are highly trained to do the jobs, their primary military jobs, and we use contractors more to do the other work that's not, you don't need a military

person necessarily doing it. so, this actually extends into war zones as well. if you look in iraq and afghanistan, we didn't have our troops over there peeling potatos working in the mess hall. our troops are over there to prosecute the war. and we hired contractors to come in and do things like food services, laundry services. a lot of the base upkeep. even some of the engineering work, we were bringing in contractors to do it. in afghanistan for example, we've had about as many contractors as we've had troops at any given point in time doing all these. and these contractors, many of them are actually third party foreign nationals, so they're not from afghanistan, they're not from the u.s. they're from other places around the world who have been brought in. and in many cases, it's much more cost effective. these people work for lower wages, we don't owe them long-term benefits, and you know, we can use them when we need them in a conflict and when we don't need them we don't have to pay them anymore. they're not on the government

payroll anymore. so, it has been a significant change, but actually i think it goes back to 1973 when we ended the draft, and we transitioned to an all volunteer military. that meant we're going to have a professional force and going to have to change the way we use members of the military. when we need to search, we're not going surge those professionals, because it's all voluntarily, and we'll have to fill in with contractors to do some of the jobs that you don't necessarily need a member of the military to do. host: go to murriel in new haven, connecticut. caller: good morning. i would like for you to reveal the how rank influences pending cuts in benefits, such as housing and health. is it accurate to say that some

with fullitary retire pay, and could you p specific and the cuts in housing health as regards to the enlisteders nell and the top military commanders? thank you. depoip sure. one of the things i did not mention with the reduction and the pay raise is that it would be 1% pay raise for everyone, except general officers, they would get a 0% pay raise. from a budget perspective, it's trivial, it doesn't add up to much money, but i think it sets a good example. so i'm glad they're doing that. in terms of -- host: and that's general rank? poip yes, for generals and

admirals. for things like, well, i should get to the retirement pay. you can get 100% retirement pay but you have to serve 40 years. to serve 40 years, it's an up and out system in terms of rank, so by definition if you reach 40 years, you're very high rank or whether an officer. so it is possible and some people do that. but not many. in terms of the health care benefits? the proposed changes from d.o.d., which again, these are being largely -- it's not going to happen this year, maybe in the future. but what d.o.d. proposed, there's actually a different scale in what people would pay for their health care benefits in retirement, and officers and higher ranking officers would pay more, and enlisted retirees would pay less. i forget all the numbers, it's a very complicated table, and it's gradually based in overtime so it wouldn't hit people suddenly. but they do make a difference in

what people would pay based on their rank and their retirement pay. host: on our twitter page is want to go back to congress's involvement here in the pentagon budget. why is congress hesitant to cut some of these weapons systems specifically? do they disagree with the generals and admirals of what the future wars are going to look like? >> you know, not to be too cynical but it boils down to jobs in people's district. so if you're going to retire, then that means that the units that fly a-10's, some of those jobs are going to go away. that's in someone's district and this is an election year after all. it's congress's prerogative to intervene and provide oversight and direction in these kind of matters. but that is driving a lot of it.

it's just a simple jobs issue. but, there are some legitimate disagreements as well about whether or not we need some of these weapons systems. there are people who really think the a-10 is a valuable aircraft to have in our inventory because it can form important missions. so they want to keep it in the inventory for that reason. people on the other side who think while that's important, we have to prioritize. in a constrained budget environment you've got to make some cuts somewhere and this is a lower priority and we have other aircraft that can do the same mission as well. so, it's a back and forth debate in terms of strategy. but i think really what's behind a lot of it, especially when it comes to compensation reform is votes, and it's very hard to do something like this, it's going to ruffle some feathers. guest: we said the senate is working on its version, the house passed its version. the white house has threatened to veto the house version of

that bill. here's part of the veto statement, veto threat statement from the white house. is a veto threat on the bills unusual? >> it's not too unusual. there are different levels of veto threats. this is a medium level threat. i believe the wording was the president senior's advisors would recommend he veto the bill. host: the advisors would recommend to the president he veto the bill? guest: the highest level of threat is when the president says i will veto this bill. so the president isn't promising to veto, people would recommend he veto it. it's interesting to observe the language there with the

different type of veto threats. this is not unusual. i think what the white house is frustrated with, i can tell you talking to senior leaders in the pentagon, they're very frustrated with the fact that congress has put these budget constraints on the department, but then they're not allowing the department the flexibility to make the changes it needs to operate efficiently wide receiver the budget constraints. they're not letting them change compensation, or retiring, or letting them do all the things they need to do to cut spending, and so what's left? and you know, i'll tell you, what d.o.d. will end up doing if they're forced to keep all of these things they don't want, but they're not given more money to do it, is they're going to cut back on training for the troops. that's the one thing you can cut back in the near term. you can cut back on training and you can cut back on maintenance. and that's what they're likely to do, and that's what we talk about in terms of harming military readiness. and always like to remind people it's easy to talk about keeping faith with the troops, and a lot

of time people say keep faith with the troops when they talk about keeping benefits. but keeping faith with the troops is also making sure best trained, best equipped military in the world and we don't send them into combat without sufficient training or equipment, as we have done in the past. this memorial day weekend i think we should all think about what do we really mean when we talk about keeping faith with the troops? it's not just about paying benefits, but about a balanced force, a balanced military budget. host: we've got a line for veterans. gary is on that line from new jersey. gary, good morning, thanks for calling "washington journal." caller: good morning. i would just like to answer a all the in reference to commissaries they're trying to close down. i just left an army over in korea and i noticed that's what they're doing. they don't understand, if they

do that, they'll only push outous on the economy and what and ave to end up paying it will cost a lot of american people more money. guest: i'm glad he mentioned the commissaryries, i forgot to mention that before. the commissaries, people aren't familiar with them, they're d.o.d. run grocery stores, basically a grocery store in the military base run by the department of defense. the reasons they exist, goes back to when military posts were very isolated out in the frontier and folks who lived there, they didn't have the ability to go out and by groceries anywhere, so the military completed these commissaries on the bases. today they serve a different function, really. they provide subsidized groceries to service members. so they sell groceries at a below cost level. it tends to be about a 30% lower cost than what equivilent product would provide, would cost you on the outside. what d.o.d. has proposed is actually not closing all the

commissaries. what they propose is reducing the subsidary. so the subsidary right now cost about $1.4 billion a year in the defense budget to subsidize groceries for military families and retirees in the commissaryries. they proposed scaling that back. so that means you would get something at 10% discount or less. what hasn't been proposed is letting them sell generic brands. right now they don't sell any generic. so that would help if you could buy generic, that would help make up for the lack of the subsidary for the name-brand product. that is something, the reduction and subsidary is something both the house and the senate have rejected. that doesn't look like it will happen in the near term. host: the debate over private contractors, defense contractors continues on our twitter page. we're talked --

with todd harrison. one thing i want to ask you about is some news that came out yesterday of the pentagon looking to close 21 facilities in europe. here's the story about it. it's a move the department said would save some $60 million annually. the hill notes that the closure is comprised mostly of recreational and housing facilities at u.s. and nato bases across europe, such as a hotel, golf course. part of a previously announced effort, in light of the u.s. attempts to assure european of russian's nnex yation of the crimea. guest: those restrictions apply to the u.s. they do not apply to foreign bases. and so d.o.d. can do a lot on its own to close bases in europe

and other places around the world. they actually have. if you look back over the past deak cade, we've closed a lot of facilities in europe, so they're continuing to do more of that and get more efficient, and if they want to close skeet shooting ranges and golf courses, by all means, i think we should. but the problem is we can't close those in the u.s. without congressional approval. if we want to get more efficient, d.o.d. can do a lot overseas and they're already doing that. but we're talking about 80, 85% of the bases that need to be closed there in the u.s. and congress has got to give them permission to do that. as long as they don't, you've got built in waste in the defense budget year after year. host: five minutes or so left with todd harrison. if you want to see more of their work, or you can follow todd harrison on twitter, @todd harrison dc. we're going to go to joe waiting in florida on our line for

republicans. joe, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i was wondering how it's going to be impacted given the fact that already forced structure for this army, is that going to be reduced versus the impact of this sequester a year ago? thanks. guest: so the army forestructure that the caller is referring to, basically the size of the army, overall number of people in the army, and the number of brigade combat teams. it's already being reduced. they're already in the from sess of scaling down to 490,000 in the active duty army, and about 42 b.c.p.'s. and just for perspective, at the peak of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, i think that the active duty army was well over 550,000, higher than that, i

forget the exact number. so they're already scaling down the army structure considerably. what the army has said if these budget caps, if they remain in effect for the rest of this decade, the army's going to have get even smaller. they're going to have to go down to 420,000 in strength, possibly as for as 24 combat teams. now, that's in the future though, that's not in 2015. so in 2015, the down sizing the army is basically not an issue because they're going to continue on that trend line, and get to about 490,000 and 32 b.c.t.'s in 2015. so congress doesn't need to make a decision on whether or not the army is allowed to make smaller. that's a decision they'll have to make in the future. but they actually are making that decision right now when they don't allow base closures, they don't allow compensation or the retirement of legacy weapons systems. and in the case of the army, if they force them to continue to

buy them tanks that the army said they don't need right now, then all of that will take away resources, and force deeper cuts and force structure in the future. but, that's not a decision that they're actually making right now. that's a decision they're going to have to face up to in the next couple of years. host: frank is waiting in new york on that line we have for veterans and members of the military. frank, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, frank. caller: i have a question. when will the v.a. or even the d.o.d. ever have a way of communication with not from the top down but from the bottom up when it comes to people who actually work for the v.a. and see the waste in mismanagement, which i have for 20 years, and are able to really get something to actually be considered, as far as solutions? i worked there for 20 years, and i just saw a huge amount of waste and mismanagement.

the managers from the lowest level on the way up get these monster bonuses which are absolutely ridiculous? guest: you raise a great issue. the problem of any large organization. i've worked in private companies that were rather large, and you have the same issue that the folks, you know, kind of at the working level around the front edge, you see exactly what's going on. they know,000 make operations efficient. it's a matter of getting the senior management to realize that and make some of the changes and empower the people at the lower levels to do things more efficiently. and to do better. that's something the d.o.d. and the v.a. is going to continue to struggle with, but you know, what we've got to look for is for good people, like the caller and like others who are out there, to want to be part of the solution. and to go to work for d.o.d., go to work for the veterans administration, and try to work from the bottom up, and from inside out. to make these organizations better. that's what it's going to take. a lot of good people that are

properly motivated to do the right thing. host: last call is from johnny from texas on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to understand why you don't see the connection between wall street and the contractors? because, the contractors that civilians, these they're usually cost plus. i don't know what dummy couldn't afford to produce some of the stuff the d.o.d. requires at cost plus. on s far as cutting costs military retirees, i don't see them cutting costs on congressional retirees, or past president retirees. and that's all i have to say. guest: you've got some great callers who know their stuff. cost plus is one type of way the d.o.d. acquires systems.

i agree, i think it should be rarely used, but unfortunately it's used quite often. a cost plus contract is where d.o.d. basically says to the contractor, we'll pay you whatever your cost is, your actual cost for doing the service or providing the goods that we're contracting for, plus we'll give you profit on top of that. so, from a contractor perspective this is great because there's no risk. you're always going to make profit. and so, if your incentive is to bid really low and say hey we can do this for a very small amount of money, once you get the contract you say oh look, it's going to cost more than we thought. as you overrun the cost, d.o.d. pays you a higher cost and they pay you a higher profit on top of that. because the cost plus, the plus part of that is a percentage of the cost. so, it's a financial incentive to overrun cost. this happens quite a bit in

d.o.d. i think it's a terrible way of contracting. congress has actually put it in effect to make it harder for d.o.d. to use cost plus type of contracts. they're trying to get them to use what are called firm fixed price contracts. but what i've seen the way d.o.d. will contract for firm fixed price, it's neither firm nor fixed because a lot of times what they'll do is they'll write the contract and say we'll pay you a certain amount of money to produce what we're asking for, but if you overrun your expected cost, we will share the cost overrun with you, so it actually ends up costing more and d.o.d. pays for some of that cost overrun. host: that's better than cost plus where d.o.d. pays, but it still doesn't provide the proper incentive we need for contractors. host: before we let you go, we talk about the house bill. when is the senate version supposed to move through the pipeline? guest: you can never predict how these things are going to move through in the senate. this week it passed through

committees so now it's waiting for consideration by the full senate. so i think odds are good they'll get a pass this summer. and you know, the house as well and they can go to conference committee and get this taken care of before they want to leave town for the election season. the big thing, the big unknown is when the appropriations bills are going to move through. right now they're kind of at a stand still, waiting for d.o.d. to submit their war funding for 2015 and they say they don't want to move until they get the war funding request. of course that depends on us reaching an agreement in afghanistan for how many troops are going to stay in afghanistan. we can't have that agreement until they finish their election process and they've got a new president. so, a lot of this is in limbo right now. host: todd harrison is with the center of strategic of budge tear. up next on a busy travel weekend for many americans, we'll be

talking about u.s. infrastructure and ongoing efforts to amend state constitutions to guarantee the right to hunt and fish. we'll be right back. oir you >> the only thing we can rely onto make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing is for them to get a bad story. first of all, that's a lot of victims. >> yes. >> that to me would be a depressing conclusion. so we've got to figure out some way to up the ante that is short of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages.

>> i would almost say less the dollar amount, more focus on the department of ed, to do the work. so again, i think it's the changes i've seen institutions start to make are when they're immediately under investigation, so no fine yet, so we don't know if the fine is $35,000 or upwards of a million. so i would almost rather see kind of that investment in a bigger -- >> but in all fairness the fines will be paying for this. i mean we have an issue with budget in our government. where does that money come from? we can't endlessly hand it out. from constitutions that have done wrong, they can fund their own enforcement. i think every survivor would back that up. >> senator claire mccaskle and the first of several discussions on combating rape and sexual assault on college campuses.

>> to actually go out and figure it out and hand it up and say it's 50%, 30%, 20%, i think we're spending a lot of money and my staff time can be better spent trying to find the problems, identify the problems and help correct them. >> have the american people got their money's worth? >> their full money's worth? o, definitely not.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we're joined by a reporter with transport topics. as we begin this discussion on infrastructure spending yesterday marked one year since the bridge collapse on the bus ii-5 bridge in washington.

how has that collapsed focused attention on the need for bridge investments over the past year? >> yeah, exactly. that bridge collapse may 23, 013. it breached the national conversation because it started the dialogue among infrastructure advocates about the need to finance and replace old bridges. this is a bridge that was built in 1955, and is heavily used by trucks to transport freight from vancouver to seattle. so the economic impact of not having access to this bridge for several weeks caused businesses o lose commerce and patrons. and the shipments of goods and services were diverted for a stretch of time that some businesses had a hard time recovering a year later.

and the conversation around the country you had many infrastructure advocates, like building america's future one sounding the ly alarm that the country, especially members of congress, have to address problem with aging bridges. host: give us a sense of the scope of the problem. here's from the american society of civil engineer, their 23 report card on american infrastructure, noting that over 200 million trips are taken deficient bridges. the average bridge is 42 years old and include a map with the yellow on that map noting the more deficient bridges in the

united states. what's your sense of the scope of the problem here? guest: again, infrastructure advocates will tell you it's an emergency, a severe problem, that these bridges, they're not necessarily unsafe, but they're aging, and with every year they become more expensive to repair and to maintain. there is not enough money to go around the department of transportation, secretary is calling the situation dire. for the need to bring more money to the state from the federal coifers to help state officials repair and sometimes replace these bridges. and state officials, department of state secretaries are sounding the alarm. you have the governors of new hampshire, rhode island. you know, really calling on the federal government for help.

the government of vermont sent a letter to call on members of congress, actually speaker boehner and majority leader reid n the senate to pass legislation help, that would provide more funding for the states. to fix our bridges. host: we're talking to eugene mo laro of transport. we're talking bridges, highways investments in this segment of "washington journal" today. if you have a question or comment.

want to point out one other chart from the american society of civil engineers, their list of functionally obsolete bridges in the united states. in 2012, they listed nearly 67,000 structurely deficient bridges. and nearly 85,000 functional obsolete. what's the difference? >> structurely means that a bridge has shown, inspectors have found a series of problems -- it em, and it cub could be problems with the actual infrastructure, it's not meeting the codes that the standards at the state level at the federal level. and to be deemed structurally deficient, the recommendation is that they should be rehabilitated or replaced. doesn't necessarily mean they're unsafe to drive on, but they

need to be repaired. d functionally obsolete, that's when, again, not an unsafe design, but they're an outdated model, an older bridge. bridges built during the eisenhower era. so, they don't meet current standards. they no longer make bridges that way. host: a few comments from iewers on twitter. we can show our viewers some video of that as we talk about what they were looking for right there. guest: he was there shortly after the administration unveiled their proposal for transportation legislation which the secretary sent to capitol

ill. a bridge that is now being replaced is underway to draw attention and to raise awareness about these older structures. i believe it was built more than 0 years ago. and the skyway connecting the area north of the airport into hudson county leading into the holland tunnel, that's a bridge that for many years, state officials in new jersey were sounding the alarm that the bridge needed to be rehabilitated. finally after years of preparation, they have closed the northbound, the manhattan

bound lanes to fix and update that part of the bridge. host: if you have questions or comments, our phone lines are open, and we'll start with katherine calling in for ohio on our line for democrats. katherine, good morning. you're on with eugene molaro. caller: good morning, i'm a c-span watcher, watch every day since i retired. my question is, the president was at the 75 bridge that goes from covington, kentucky, to cincinnati, ohio. the bridge has been deficient for years. but the problem is, in the states primary kentucky, because kentucky will not let go of any money to fix the bridge. they'll wait until the bridge falls, and then everybody will tell everybody how sorry they are that the bridge has fallen. we need to do something about the state governments, because

state people, and i know this will probably be unpopular, but it's because there's a biracial man in the white house. they will not do anything. it doesn't matter if we the people need it, and we do. they're going to always say no because they're afraid that they'll be tea partied when the next election comes up. host: eugene, can you talk a little bit about the balance between state and federal funding for some of these projects? guest: yeah, because the state officials have said that they haven't seen a lot of action from the federal level, big government, many of them, have been very aggressive passing legislation, raising their local gas taxes, to drum up money to pay for infrastructure projects. so, we've seen states like nearby maryland and virginia

pass laws that would charge vehicles for traveling, you know, charge fees to raise more money for infrastructure, and we just recently saw new hampshire, the new hampshire legislator vote to raise the gas tax. and when you read their statements and you talk to these officials, what they tell you is they're doing this because washington is not providing enough money for them to address those structurely deficient problem the several engineers have pointed out. host: waiting on our line for republicans, jeff good morning. caller: how you doing? i got to tell you, the first caller, real he we're going to racism again? come on, we got to get away from that! but first of all, listen, i wouldn't give them a penny. the american people should not

give congress a penny, or the states, until they can tell us what they've done with all the toll money, the gas tax, and the stimulus, and then break it down, state by state, and tell us what you need, one last time, and then not get a penny more. until somebody goes through that state and make sure they've calculated it right, get it done for the -- get it done once and for all! host: jeff, can i ask you who do you think would be the right person to make sure this audit, the infrastructure spending is done right. who would you trust to do that? caller: well, i would trust a bipartisan commission. listen, regardless of what everybody says, it's not all bad people out there. the first caller, right off the back goes to racism. that's all crap!

host: eugene, on the subject of transparency in infrastructure spending, is there anybody calling for sort of an audit like jeff was talking about? guest: yes, the senate bill, the senators -- a senate committee just passed a transportation bill. that bill calls for $265 billion between fiscal 2015-2020. he provision in that bill is a proposal, it literally says to make the usage and the logistics of the highway trust fund, the federal account used by the federal government to provide id to the states, to be more transparent. a chairwoman from that committee, barbara boxer, has said there has to be a more transparent approach and needs to be more transparency for how

the money is allocated from the federal level into the state. but at the same time, a real reason why there's money lacking for this is because the federal highway transportation fund relies on a national gas tax, no that money -- the tax is nger -- it's no longer accruing enough revenue to fund the trust fund because cars have become more fuel efficient over the years, and driving habits, among thedowner generations have changed. people are no longer driving everywhere. they're relying on transit, so they're not contributing to the -- they're not paying a lot in gas taxes. host: on twitter, monty asks what is the condition of our infrastructure when compared to other industrial nations. this is a question that

congressman, a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee was asked when he appeared on this program on thursday earlier this week. here's a bit of what he had to say, then we'll come back and see if you agree with him. >> we're pathetic. you know, i was once given a speech, i referred to the u.s. as third world in terms of our infrastructure. we get like a d. we used to be a plus. we used to lead the world, post world war ii. one of my colleagues said that was really insulting. i said come on, we've got 140,000 bridges that need repairs replaced. yeah, i know, i said it was insulting to third world countries because they are investing a larger percentage of their gross domestic product in infrastructure than we are. and it's true. granted, their economies are much smaller -- come on, really, we are like at the bottom of the list. our infrastructure, overall is rated now number 26th in the

world, that puts us competing with albania and places like that. in terms of%, gross domestic product, we're down. it is pathetic. host: eugene, would you agree with that assessment from the congressman? guest: those are very strong words, but along those lines, the former secretary of transportation says that america is "one big pothole." and the american society of civil engineers, which we're citing, in the last report card for the overall state of infrastructure, gave the country a grade of d plus, and i believe , i'm pretty certain, obama mentioned the bridge, and i think the ranking is by this group that we're 19th when it comes to infrastructure spending. so, you have countries such as china, and china's a country that a lot of lawmakers point out when they're talking about

infrastructure, that china is really aggressive in investing in their infrastructure, building new bridges and upgrading their roads. and that's something that, you know, not only is congressman pointing that out, but i know nnl, one congressman has brought that up. and the ranking member on the transportation committee in the house, he actually had introduced a legislation that would address the lack of funding for the nation's bridges. that legislation has not -- has not been brought up, at the committee level and lacks a republican majority sponsor. host: on twitter -- there's a lot more trucks on the road, inevitable, what with all the imports, another good reason to tax them. we would love to hear from truckers in this segment of the "washington journal," got a special line open if you're interested in calling and

talking about some of these infrastructure issues. we'll hear from bill on our line for independents from michigan. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, bill. caller: yeah. i was just going to say, you know, i live in southeast are probably roads worst in the nation. you have no how many times i've had to buy rims, tires, over the years. i hear this year after year. hey set up the orange cones on i-96, i-75, and say they're going to fix the roads up. the cones stay there all week then on sunday morning they go in there and act like they're doing some thing, paying them double time, triple time and they're not being paid straight time to do the money during the week. so that money is being diverted.

see, the money is out there. it's just not getting to where the people need it, ok? that's the problem. the problem isn't the taxes, the problem is the management and the money, the problem is the corruption. host: eugene? guest: that's a concern you do ear from some watchdog groups. reasons why a project may take a long time. sometimes it's in the review, an environmental review, an environmental assessment of that project, that region that was being called for to be upgraded, i know that even when you go to the local city level, i remember what i was talking to back in washington state, i was there immediately after the collapse of the bridge on i-5, and i was talking to local merchants and i went to restaurants and they did

tell me that what they thought part of the problem was that, at the state level, and at the federal level, that they thought that lawmaker either lacked an understanding of the urgency to upgrade these infrastructure projects, or that they were too caught up debating amongst themselves and not necessarily acting on legislation. so i know there is frustration at the business community, and among people who use the roads every day. and i know instances of political corruption, you know, is something i know people think about. host: you bring up politics, in the past year we've heard a lot about the politics of bridge gate. don't want you to focus on the politics, but has that situation done anything to focus attention on bottlenecks at bridges or needs?ructure investment

guest: yeah, actually, the whole bridgegate scandal in new jersey, really started, restarted the conversation that the collapse of the i-5 bridge, you know, started. so, immediately after bridgegate, people were not also necessarily focusing on what was happening at the governor's mansion, they were also talking about the vulnerability of our traffic system. that if you just take, if you cut a main artery in one of the country's busiest intersections, and traffic regions, and you just cut it out to one lane, what's the impact of that? well, you're going to have bumper to bumper traffic for hours, and you know there will be a slow down on the economy because you have trucker and you have delivery guys not being able to proceed about their business and people are going to

show up late to work. everybody in the infrastructure advocacy group were pointing to that scandal, for again, reminding everybody there is need to build and invest in new infrastructure, saying that if it was perhaps another corridor, another way for cars to travel from northern new jersey into that upper manhattan, you know, it's not just the george washington bridge, that we wouldn't have seen such a traffic impact. that resulted from bridgegate. host: go to nelson waiting in tennessee on our line for democrats. nelson, good morning. caller: well, good morning. -- estion is, what is the will congress fund the infrastructure?

host: in terms of transportation bills that are working their way through congress? guest: i'm talking to many people on the hill, people who work on capitol hill and industry groups and what they're telling me is that even though the house spending committee just passed a bill that would fund $52 billion for transportation programs in fiscal 2015, i know that bill will reach the house floor later this summer, i believe next month. the general thinking is that because the highway trust fund is projected to run out of money in august, by law it cannot go bankrupt, they have to have some money there. but nevertheless, less money it has, the less the federal government can give to states for these projects and maintenance projects, that what i'm hearing, and a lot of people are telling me is is that they

expect lawmaker, this summer before their august break, to pass legislation that will provide a, provide a short-term funding fortress rotation programs and keep the highway trust fund through the end of the midterm, maybe into early next year, and at that -- theawmakers transportation leaders from the house and senate will come together and present a long-term packets that will keep the transportation systems funded for five years, maybe 60 years. so right now, there is not a lot of legislation that is moving forward to address the funding problems. host: we have got a special line for truckers on this segment of the "washington journal." it is (202) 585-3883. inve is on that line calling

from pryor, oklahoma. steve, good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with some of the callers, that bridge over there to cincinnati is kind of scary and narrow in some spaces. is a great bridge, i can see for 50 years. on it.safer there are some other bridges, that one over east brooklyn, i think, it has been a long time, like the late 1990's or early you could not hardly do 25 miles an hour on that, it was so rough. it would just jar your brains loose. as oklahoma, a lot of bridges they are trying to catch up on. they have done a lot of work. there is a problem with the tax. i am not sure what the exact percentage, whether it is 25% or 50% of the fuel tax goes to

schools. we need more money. when they get the road tax, they could be going to fix the bridges. i always try to get the information, but it is real hard to find out. it is like oh, no, the schools do not want to lose that funding, even though they already a county, state, federal for the schools, too, so they need to figure something out on that. host: before we let you go, what do you haul, steve? caller: i'm currently on disability. arkansas. for jb in your previous statements on the at least a i hauled two or three times a year to camel inasis, for camelt kentucky. they did is to audit the military on that. host: thank you for calling your experience on the road.

steve brings up the fuel tax and where the money raised from that is going. guest: all right. some transportation groups would like to see all the money that comes from the fuel tax to go back into transportation, and that has been a concern that not all of the money always goes directly to address the maintenance of the roads and bridges, and then even some of the money goes to other modes of transportation such as transit and trains, so you have lawmakers who are pushing for forthe money to be provided fixing the roads in helping to maintain roadways and bridges and tunnels. host: what percentage of the money that is raised, the fuel tax or for the trust fund, actually goes to bridges and roadways and tunnels? is more thank it

half goes to addressing the roadways. the rest is a complex formula that the d.o.t. has just to to point to where the money is going to be provided. it differs for every state, so certain state might get x amount for these projects and these to help for intermodal connectivity, while other states may get more money for their roadways exclusively, but the d.o.t. -- the federal government just has a very complex system that just shows where the money goes to, so at times like the caller said, it is hard to figure out the exact percentage

of what states are getting. host: interesting hearing from truckers about their insurance on the road. with a special line. brian is on that line from pittsburg, kansas. brian is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span, thank you for taking my call. i trucked for 30 years and thought a great deal of the interstate built. of course we are not putting enough money back into infrastructure, but there are some other solutions out there that they are talking about. one i think is unconstitutional, taking a road built by federal funds, which come from all of us, and turning it into a toll road. there are a lot of things about that that people do not figure, and i guarantee you if you live along the road that suddenly turns into a toll road, your local economy is going to go

right in the toilet, and a perfect example of that is travel long towns parallel to the toll roads in oklahoma, especially between joplin, missouri, tulsa, and oklahoma city. those towns just died. highway,le get on a that is basically a toll road, they will not pay to get off and get back on. they just keep going. course iser aspect of four years, truckers and the railroads had kind of a war, but it should not be a war. canive you an example, jb hunt can ship a container, put it on a train, and take it to los angeles for about $.18 a mile.

that is their cost. and you put a driver on that and ship it across the country, it is going to be about $1.40 to $1.50. drivers are not going to lose their jobs from this. what the outcome would be is you would probably be unioned, which is a better job, and you would be hauling from that railroad terminal to the same customers, and the big difference is you would be paid more, and you will go home at night. and you won't be on the road for three or four weeks at a time. host: before eugene mulero jumps in, what did you haul for four years. caller: hauling mail for mail contractors to the east coast. dean meatr the jimmy company in iowa until he moved to tennessee. i have hauled edible oil, but

primarily in the food industry, but i pulled doubles and freight of attackers, -- doubliees in freight, in tankers. host: thank you. guest: the caller brought up tolling. is a verywith tolling controversial one. he of the trucking associations very opposed to putting new tolls, more tolls on the roads, and actually the heads and the chairman of the american trepidation association call it of double taxation. what the trucking groups are proposing is raising the gas tax . you have the tax on diesel, which is 24.4 cents, and then we did not see a toll proposal come out of the senate. the senate bill that they

trepidation committee sent to callenate floor does not for increasing tolling, however the obama administration in their transportation proposal, provision thatpos would give the states the flexibility to consider tolling roads. the other concern with tolling is that when you have roads itt you are now tolling, slows down the flow of traffic. so let's say for you and i when we are driving, if we have easy paths, maybe we go on a fast lane, we may not see that or a spear and that slowdown. however, when you are a fedex guy, a guy with ups or any trucking company, you are driving, you know, and even if you have easy paths, you have to and that brings up

another one, which is the efficiency and the cost of doing business, and you have the ceo of ups and ups leaders telling lawmakers that if they have a slowdown, if they experience a slowdown of five minutes, and the entire company, that slowdown would amount to a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. so that if the economic impact, and that is the concern that many businesses, especially in the transportation community have. they don't want to see tolls because they believe that is going to create that slowdown. host: we are talking with eugene mulero, the congressional reporter with "transport topics," the magazine for the presentation industry. he also was a congressional reporter with roll call and a reporter fellow at the "huffington post." on twitter -- in

i would agree that the infrastructure is pretty bad right after a hard winter in the north. can you talk about the recent weather impacts on infrastructure? guest: oh, yeah. in vermont, vermont actually i believe -- the vermont transportation department just released some new data that showed that they have had the record number of potholes, and they attribute that to the severe winter they just experienced. those potholes -- the number me on how much they will have to spend to fix that, but it is in the millions of dollars. that is what you have the governor of vermont clamoring for federal assistance. in new hampshire, where they just raised to the gas tax, same thing. it was a very tough winter, the roads got a big pounding, and they need to be repaved.

the salt has been a problem with the tappan zee bridge, you had the salt trucks over the years for decades and just dumping salt residue into the roadway, and that has a damaging effect on the structure of that bridge, and that is something that present obama has pointed out, and i believe -- i think last month he was at a white house press conference and he was calling for the need for congress to pass a transportation legislation, and he said something to the effect "we have potholes the size of canyons." so that if the president saying that what people in the northeast are experiencing when they drive, major roadways are in poor condition. tot: let's head out west

utah. sandy is waiting on our line for independents. good morning. caller: the way to extradite these repairs is to do a one-time tax on the hedge fund managers who have not paid that forever, to do a one-time tax on theceo and cfo's and managers of the 20 largest banks who got us into some of the problem, and to do a one-time transactions so people can see if it will do work on speed transactions. and these are people who are doing well the past five years. also, and do a tax on the fortune 500. host: how confident are you that a one-time tax on the financial or banking industry is going to pass in congress to fund these infrastructure needs? is why i mentioned quite a few others, the hedge fund managers, the ceo's, the

fortune 500, the speed transactions, and anyone else had that has done well the past five years. host: eugene mulero, are any of those types of taxes in the mix right now in terms of transportation funding? guest: that is the whole issue of pay your fair share, and that is something you see, especially some democratic lawmakers bring up when they talk about how much people are paying back to the federal coffers or the infrastructure projects. right now, we have not seen be tax writings committees in the senate and the house take up legislation that would address the transportation programs. the transportation committee chairwoman barbara boxer has she has annexed a patient and her colleague in the senate who does the tax writing however, on this,

that very same line, they are getting some sort of a the berkshire hathaway ceo, warren buffett, who has for several years said that he does not pay enough taxes, and part of it is that he says, and he has written about this in the "journal," that himself and people in his income bracket pay a little more taxes, then that money could be diverted back to fund transportation systems. to answer your question, we have not seen these proposals get some serious attention right now. host: not a lot of time left, but let's try to get in parker on illinois on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. you have had some great callers today. the last lady who was talking about maybe a surtax or are --ng on people who

market and stock ceo's, that was great, that was a good idea. host: we are running out of time here. do you have a question for eugene mulero? caller: yes. why is that we have states that -- like alabama, louisiana, mississippi, who don't pay the taxes in, but get the benefits of the funds that we need to fix the bridges? host: eugene mulero in the last minute that we have. guest: that is actually a macro question that goes to the set up of the country. it is a union, and the federal government is responsible for 50 states, so you have stays that do generate a lot of money, and

that goes into washington, and washington then sends the money to states like alabama, but i think state officials in alabama will say well, they do theribute in their way to federal government in tourism ervices, sond ts that is why some states are taking it upon themselves to fix the transportation system, and they are calling on the federal government. state officials call for this need for a quality so all the states benefit from washington. host: eugene mulero is a congressional reporter with "transport topics." you can also follow the money twitter @transporttopics. appreciate you joining us this morning. up next, bill horn will join us about ongoing efforts to amend

state constitutions to guarantee the right to hunt and fish. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span's new book "sundays at eight" includes writer christopher hitchens talking about his lifestyle. >> i was new, and i knew there was a risk, and whether it is illusion or not, i do not think it is, it held my concentration. it stopped me being bored, stopped other people being boring to some extent. it would keep you awake, it would make it easier to go on longer, to put a longer conversation, to enhance the mind. if i was asked what i do it again, the answer is probably yes. i would quit earlier, possibly, hoping to get away with the whole thing. nice for my be

children to hear, it is not responsible. but the truth is, it would be hypocritical for me to say no, i would never touch the stuff if i had known, because i didn't know. everyone knew. and i decided all of life as a waiter. i'm going to wager on this bit. anyi can't make it come out other way. >> read the interview with christopher hitchens and other featured conversations from our "q&a"otes and program in "sundays at eight," now available at your favorite bookseller. >> i focus on trying to stop waste and try to catch people who did it, but to actually go and say iture it out is 50%, 30%, 20%, i think we are spending a lot of money, and my staff and i can be better spent trying to find the problems, identify the problems, and help correct them. >> so i ask you -- have the

american people gotten their money's worth? >> at their full money's worth? no. definitely not. there have been some good things done. a lot of good things done, and we have a lot of hard-working at the state and dod, department of agriculture, the part of the interior. a lot of people have gone over. people from the department of commerce. a lot of people have devoted their lives and energies over there, but have we gotten the biggest bang for the buck? no. and that is what we finally time. poor planning, poor execution. >> john sopko as his role as inspector general and how american taxpayer dollars are spent on reconstruction in afghanistan sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now from miami,

florida is the federal affairs of sportsmen alliance bill horn, discussing to amend state a position to guarantee the right to hunt and fish. bill horn, why is a push in recent years on this, our hunting rights under threat in states? guest: absolutely. you have got the development of a very significant eyes of this movement, anti-hunting, animal rights have begun to systematically attack our traditions of hunting and fishing, and one of the techniques or tools that we are pushing on in the legal and public policy arena is to blunt those attacks by having, put in the state constitutions the concept that hunting and fishing are important to traditions, need to be maintained any to be protected, and obviously inserting those in states constitutions is probably the best way to protect these activities. host: how would it be different

in the state constitution versus other states where hunting is still allowed? the fundamental difference would be if someone were to come along and essentially say look, we want to ban or severely restrict hunting and fishing activities in a state that happens to one of these constitutional amendments, you have an extra legal carrier blocking the activists from putting those restrictions and closures in place and conversely you would also have this affirmation in the law that these are good activities, that these are activities that the states want to continue to support and wants to back largely become the -- largely because the finding of the rise, and it would again help build the extra barrier against the attack for me and seeing hunting, animal-rights activists. historyou talk what the that began back in the 18th century in vermont but then it picked up at the end of the 1990's, correct?

guest: it picked up an almost direct relation in the an activism.-visio for years, when people were drafting constitutions, most of which were put together 100 years to 200 years ago, the concept that you would have to enshrine hunting and fishing in your constitution was alien. the idea that there would be an animal-rights or anti-hunting movement was just absolutely beyond the pale of stuff i'd not think teddy roosevelt and his era ever contemplated the idea that he would have to fight somebody like the people for the ethical treatment of animals as activism grew and frankly as our demographics change and we became more urban and more detached from hunting and fishing on the land. the hunting community -- and since we are under threat, we

need to protect ourselves illegally better. and the community has done what americans have done since our founding. when you have got a problem, you try to enshrine protections of your rights and interests in law and in constitutions, and we did it with the bill of rights and the u.s. constitution in 1789, so this idea of using the constitutions of the protective device is nothing new in american politics. host: a statement from one of the groups you were talking about, i want to get your response, nicole paquette of the human society, vice president of wildlife protection, asserted that "no one is trying to eliminate hunting and fishing," rather, her group is focused on "trying to end some of the most egregious hunting practices." using packs of dogs to hunt, sometimes fitted with radio pursue bears,

cougars, or other wildlife, and captive hunts that confine the hunted animals to enclosed areas. speakingus is with a forked tongue. we have never seen them support any forms of hunting. their leadership have been clear over the years they are a full-fledged anti-hunting organization masking behind the notion that they are taking care of puppies and cats as a humane effort. she may say that they are just be against these "egregious" things, but we are protecting ourselves. host: where does the sportsmen's alliances draw the line when it comes to these egregious practices? guest: we have always supported the notions of fair chase, and absolutely that is what hunting is basically all about. host: explain that term for those who may not know. guest: in other words, you are

going under the ground, the animal is not confined, the animal has an opportunity to get away. you are using some sort of sporting methodology. you're restricting the number of shots that you can put in a gun, you are restricting the type of shells or bullets that one can use in firearms. you are even restricting in some cases the types of bows and arrows that you can use, all designed to make sure that you were engaged in a fair chase. that is after all what this is all about. host: people for the ethical treatment of animals earlier this month, oh this is the human society of the united states, has been pushing this month, calling on the 50 state wildlife agencies to adopt rules to prohibit drone assisted hunting. drone hunting they note in their release would allow hunters to use remote-controlled camera equipped aircraft to locate wildlife in order to shoot and kill them for sport. your thoughts on drone assisted hunting. guest: many states authority ban

those types of activities. this issue has cropped up very recently in alaska before the alaska board of game. alaska for years and had what is called the same-day airborne prohibition. you cannot fly an airplane from a company to spot a moose or a nearby and then land into the animal on that same day. that is considered to be unethical and not constitute fair chase, and now with the emerging drone technology, i know that the alaska board of game is taking steps to ban the use of drones basically as an outgrowth of the same-day airborne rule. to the degree that this technology is going to become available to ordinary citizens, i think that those types of research and fall clearly within the fair chase gambit. host: we're talking with bill one of the sportsmen's alliances , he is the federal affairs director there. we're talking about efforts to enshrine the right to hunt in

state constitutions, ended the segment of the "washington journal," we have a special line italy for hunters if you want to call in at (202) 585-3882. otherwise, democrats can call in at (202) 585-3880, republicans (202) 585-3881, an independents (202) 585-3882. we will start with five this morning calling in from new jersey on our line for democrats. good morning, you're on with no horn of the sportsmen's alliance. caller: good morning. i'm all for hunting for food and stuff like that to put fort on the table. that is all i have to say. host: all right, we go into jeff on the thrust line we have for hunters, calling in from hawaii this morning on our line for hunters, and jeff is also an independent. caller: it is beautiful out here. how was it out there? host: it is pretty nice, but i

am assuming it is better in hawaii. go-ahead. caller: i have been hunting since i was a teenager. then out the herd. basically, i got over the killing thing. to me it is horrible. when i go out hunting, i look for the animals that are sick, wounded. i carry a gun because i feel more comfortable with it. it is a safety tool. if we want to hunt, we can go for turkey, pigs, pheasants. i don't go out there with any malicious intent. hunting forg out the rehabilitation. i am there as one with the animals. that is it. i support hunting, i support firearms.

i would just like to see the image that we are not wild killers. host: bill horn, your thoughts on jeff's philosophy. who goes to hunt and fish goes with her own personal philosophy and personal attitude about what they want to hunt, how they are going to conduct themselves in the field, and they make a choice to -- and if jeff makes a choice to limit his hunting in this fashion, that is all well and good. what we want to make sure that jeff, myself, and others have the ability to make these choices because if the humane geteties and the peta's their way, we will have no choice. it will be taking away this longtime heritage of ours and our opportunity to go out whether it is to hunt pheasants deer, goducks or hunt to alaska and hunts moose, we want to make sure that those choices remain available. i should add that i think people need to understand that there is more than just personal choice involved here. the hunting and fishing community basically provides almost 100% of the wildlife

conservation funding at the state level through licenses and stamps and at the federal level through special excise taxes that the federal government levies on ammunition, guns, and fishing tackle. those money is approximate about $4 billion a year that sustain our wildlife management program within the united states. we terminate hunting and fishing through the failure to protect it from these activists, we terminate that funding stream for wildlife conservation, and both hunting and on hunting public will suffer. host: jim's question on twitter who says the largest issue is how to states justify requiring a license to hunt or fish? guest: that is exactly right. the conclusion was made well over 100 years ago that as we had a growing population and more people, you are dealing with a finite resource. it was a finite resource, which

had to be regulated, so we put seasons and we book bag limits and we put means and methodology limits in place starting back in the road developed era. those restrictions have proven a sword and merrily successful. we have more white tailed deer in the united states than we did 70, 80 years ago. have improved our wild turkey, and some states the animal but come back. ducks were in terrible condition in the early 1930's during the dust bowl drought years. they have been brought in record numbers alter this type of concerted professional management that is paid for by hunting licenses, fishing licenses, and excise taxes. if we terminate hunting and fishing, who is going to pick up that slack can pay for that important wildlife and fishing management? host: we're talking with bill

born, rector of the sportsmen's alliances. he served as the secretary for fish, wildlife, and part during the reagan demonstration, also served as chairman of the national wildlife refuge commission. we talk about this issue of enshrining the right to hunt in state constitutions, an issue that is on the ballot in several states around the country this year. considering amendments to the state constitution this year for the rights to hunt and fish. missouri,ichigan, mississippi, new jersey, new york, pennsylvania, and west virginia, states that the right to hunt is already guaranteed in state constitutions include alabama, arkansas, georgia, idaho, kentucky, louisiana, minnesota, montana, nebraska, north dakota, oklahoma, south carolina, tennessee, virginia, washington, and wyoming. states where the right to fish is guaranteed in state -- california and

rhode island. we have a line in this segment opened for hunters, we want to hear your thoughts and comments. clarence is on the line calling in from kentucky. clarence, good morning. caller: hello? host: hi, clarence, you are on "washington journal." caller: i've tried to get on for a long time. first time through. hunting is a great sport. adults good thing for and young kids alike to do. it is better than doing drugs and stuff, teach them to do other things. kentucky is a good state to hunt in. a guy commented earlier, years ago, there was not that much turkey and deer here. the conservation is people brought them in. that is a good thing. there are plenty of deer and turkey in here now. , ifuld also like to comment there is any senators or i thinkmen listening,

it is a good idea to have a day or a week here to start where you can go camping, fishing, hunting, all at the same time. i think it would be a good idea. squirrels,t i rats, maybe a deer, a couple of turkeys, people who would otherwise not hunt, but make it a family thing and do. that is all. host: bill horn, you are the federal affairs director of the sportsmen's alliances. do you want to talk with the outrage you do on some of these issues, some of those members of congress that clarence is talking about? guest: i should add that on a parallel track to this effort with the saved as major bipartisan legislation that we hope to get through congress this year, which would further secure the ability to hunt and fish on our major

public land systems, 500 plus million acres managed by the bureau of land management. host: this is the sportsmen's bill? guest: yes, the sportsmen package. we have a circumstance much like with our constitution, many of the laws that govern administration of these public land systems were written as far back as the cleveland administration, and again no one saw a need to put in any protections for hunting and fishing because there was no anti-hunting movement, no animal rights movement in that era. was passed by a bipartisan vote that would secure hunting and fishing on these public land systems, and a counterpart bill is pending in 33e senate, 2363 with cosponsors, 16 democrats and 17 republicans led by lisa michalski from alaska and kay hagan from north carolina, and we are hoping be senate will follow suit and an act that

bill, and then we can hammer out some of the differences between the house and senate versions and get this very important federal protection for hunting and fishing a public land passed at the federal level as well. host: any concern that that bill might be bogged down in election year politics or that the conservation aspects of it might be lost in the fight over gun rights? have been trying very hard to keep the gun issue separate from this, which is why i think it has worked very well in the house. we have this really good strong bipartisan support in the senate . i can say i am shocked that there is politics going on in washington in an even-numbered election year, but we all know better. none the less, we have been trying very hard to keep this effort bipartisan, noted with the 60 democratic sponsors and 17 republican sponsors on this pending senate bill, and we hope that that is going to be sufficient to partisanship to se bills from the

normal election year bickering that breaks out. host: what are the concerns that environmental groups have with this legislation, the provision that would ban the epa or keep the epa from regulating right ammunition or lead fishing tackle? why would you want to keep the epa from regulating those issues? that is already existing law, the toxic substances act was passed in the 1970's. it does not provide epa the authority to regulate the lead content in ammunition and/or fishing tackle. those contents are handled by u.s. fish and wildlife services, migratory boardsirds. the courts have upheld that, but some of the activists continued to run off the court, potentially trying to get an activist judge somewhere to say hey, epa has got this regulatory authority. one of the provisions in this package would simply confirm the existing law as rolled on by a that epa lackss

the support he now and in the future. host: let's go to the line for hunters, gary calling in glen oaks, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. mr. warner, this is the first i have heard of this issue, and i thank c-span for bringing it up because i really thought it was just, like, second nature, the fact that we had the ability to .unt and fish whatever the laws in your state were. you got a hunting season, you pay your hunting license, then you go and hunt by the legal manner as prescribed. somehow i don't think you have gotten across to the public, at least you have not gotten across to me, but your ordination is rationalsonable, organization, but going off in the deep end does look, i

believe in the ethical and fair treatment of animals. personally, i would not go out and snare trap, but there are laws and regulation in hunting for legal means of hunting, procuring animals. i like to fish. i use barbless hooks. that is more challenging than a barbed hook. anyway, that is what i have to say. can you talk about reasonable regulation? i do think we should try to reduce the amount of lead in the environment, so if there are other ways to use other materials in the ammunition and stuff to help keep it out of the apartment, i am in favor of that. host: bill horn, we will let you comment. and maybe you can tell us a little bit about the sportsmen's alliances as you do that. guest: the sportsmen's alliances is an organization headquartered in columbus, ohio. it has been in place in the 1970's.

it was founded to fight a valid issue in ohio years ago. there was an attempt to essentially ban all forms of trapping any state in the conclusion was there needed to be an organization essentially dedicated to fight the anti- hunting movement. most of your wildlife groups are conservation groups, ducks unlimited or the oak foundation or the national wild turkey federation or they had a focus on conserving and restoring the particular species. the conclusion was while those groups were doing is great conservation deep, somebody needed to be fighting this growing animal-rights radical movement, and that is essentially the job that the sportsmen alliance has undertaken for the last 30 years own early 30 years. and we work cooperatively with a large bread any of these organizations like the turkey federation, for example, to combat the anti-hunting movement so that the other groups can focus on their conservation

missions. to the other, to that jerry made , yes i said at the outset we are committed to ethical practices. we are also committed to sound, scientific professional management of our wildlife so as decisions get made as opposed to just sheer emotion, again, which is where we see a lot of the both on informed, ill-informed, and the radical people coming from, with no real understanding what is happening out in the wild and sometimes we have a need to control the deer population, for example, some places you need to control for populations because of adverse conditions. we want science to be brought to bear. those of the principles we try to bring to our discussions about the federal level with congress, u.s. fish and wildlife service, and at the state level with the legislatures as well as the state fish and wildlife service in the. host: that issue you just brought up, a twitter question -- would you say states with

anti-hunting laws have higher rates of wildlife disease and unhealthy populations? isst: what we have found that where situations existed where hunting was not allowed to be used as a tool, problems cropped up. i can remember for many years there were portions of central new jersey dentist had exploding deer populations. some of the localities fought tooth and nail to prevent various hunting programs. the deer got out of control, the auto accident rate went off the charts. do these came in with the text. the dears -- lyme disease came in with the ticks. deer were starving to death because the number was too high. people step in and begin hunting control programs and that occurred in fairfax, virginia, and princeton, new jersey, up into massachusetts, and i think that has demonstrated over the

last 20 years that good, sound management is the way to handle some of these issues as opposed to just sort of using the bambi syndrome which is -- aren't they cute? is gee, it is so cute it starting to that because we will not control them. host: we're talking with bill horn, the federal affairs director of the sportsmen's alliances. you can check out their website and follow them on twitter @uss portsmen. zach is waiting in falls church, virginia. caller: thank you for c-span and the wife for your guess. i support hunting, and i support the heritage affidavit, but how heritageeritage, some is unethical, and my point is not going for hunting for food, were you going-you actually consume the animal, but you go and hunt and you are improving

on your shooting technique, and there are animals all over the place. agree. where i do not with regard to the fair chase, i like the fair chase with regard to if you are out there with a arrow, but bow and where does fair chase become unfair when you have got and okwered ammunition you draw the line on the drums, but what about -- the animal can run fast, but the technology is kind of unfair between the man and the animal. host: bill horn. guest: two things. many states have want and waste laws is a if you take an animal, you are obligated to get the animal out of the woods, make a really genuine concerted effort to recover the meat. you cannot just cut the cords

off and leave the rest of the body there. cases, in virginia, for example, i think the seasons now have gotten so liberal you can take somewhere between nine and 10 deer a year because they have got to cut the deer herd down. many hunters cannot essentially store and eat that many dear personally in the course of a year, so you have very active programs called hunters for the hungry in which various organizations will help pay for the butchering and processing of takes thatomeone they cannot personally use, and then that extra deer meat is handed out to homeless shelters and other food banks to help people out who have no access to the game, so i think hunting community is very tuned into you do not want to waste the game, it is a very precious resource, and you want to make sure that the game gets used where people do not have direct

access. you can get to them through these hunters for the hungry program. again, with fair chase, i would think anybody who is actually hunted in the field understands that wild animals are wild. the woods are thick. the terrain can be difficult. just because you have a gun in your hand does not mean it is easy by many cases. i would suspect that probably the average deer hunter takes to the field every year and does not take a deer despite the record numbers of animals that we have got rolling, particularly in the eastern united states. hunting it's very difficult. the animals are pretty smart. when you go out and he wasn't and try to take on your traditional human role as a predator. you will understand it is a lot more difficult than it looks like sitting in your armchair at home. host: marianne in troy, michigan on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you four season. i would like to make two points. one is that the speaker has been

allowed to call groups of radical and other names just because they advocate for animals. athink there should be balancing voice here because c-span is dedicated to that policy. thatecond, i believe civilized societies can find humane ways of funding conservation without slaughtering the innocent animals who are living on the tods that he claims to want conserve. that is their home. but he is saying that he needs to kill them, torture them. that right on one thing in people do not know a lot about hunting. they do not know the gruesome, bloodletting, the death throws. if they follow these hunters into the wild and saw how these animals died, they would have a very different view of hunting. thank you. we will take the

suggestion, and bill horn, let you respond to her comments. guest: suffice to say that animal rights is a radical glossy in and of itself. , sort ofeds of years the judeo-christian western ethics has not invested animals with rights on par with human beings. we have obligations to treat animals humanely and not engage in malicious conduct. animal welfare statutes that reflect those concepts, but the idea that animals are withetely on par legally human beings is a radical notion. the woman who was one of the uses a a of peta rat is a pig is a boy is a dog, isaning there i equivalence between a lab rat and a human. we call that a radical notion. an animal rights activist may

not like that term, but i think it is an accurate one. i think the idea that there is somehow gratuitous violence going on in the woods in terms of hunting is simply wrong. people who have engaged in this over the years understands again these notions of ethical fair chase pursuit. most of us have this connection to the wild animals, that is why we are out there hunting. of course one of the great privileges is to be able to do it, to bring home a wild duck and serve yourself a wonderful wild duck dinner puts you more in connection with our roots in our history, and we think that is something to be cherished and protected. host: let's go to john on our line for hunters in thomasville, north carolina, republican. john, good morning. caller: good morning. just real quick here, doesn't our constitution or the bill of rights cover the natural order of life? and isn't hunting be natural order of life? host: explain john a little bit

more. caller: it is pure and simple, a primitive thing, we are born to hunt, to provide food for our family. one goes out here and actually kills for sport. if we kill for sport, we provide to food and families in need. people are hungry out here, so why not use the skill that i have in order to provide a person that may or may not be able to feed their family? basic rights, you know, we are talking about the basic necessities in life. you should be able to provide for your family. host: bill horn. attorney, i can tell you that is not enshrined a lease in the united states constitution, but one of the reasons that we have been pursuing the state constitutional rights to hunt and fish are to write that into the law. manyroblem that we have is of these laws and constitutions were put together 100, 2 hundred

years ago. he notion that you would have to protect these types of traditional activities has been going on by human beings for hundreds of years, was just an alien concept. most of our statutes are silent on these issues, and we want to write some protections in because various organizations legal silente theater and constitutions or various laws and argue that because of that legal silent there are no rights to hunt and fish on various public land systems, and that is what we are trying to correct. host: i want to ask you about the numbers of hunters out there, some stats from the u.s. fish and wildlife service on hunting license holders in the united states showing that in lowest pointis in recent decades. back in 1970 3, 15 .5 paid hunting license in the u.s., up to 16.4 million in the early 1980's, and then down in the early 2000's to 14.7 million,

and 14.6 million last year. is the popularity of hunting on the decline? look at the more updated numbers, there was a drop about 10 years ago. there has been a resurgence in the last few years, and we attribute that to the sporting community has taken on a concerted effort to reach out to an increasing or urban by placing him at two women, to minorities who uttered it certainly -- who traditionally have not made up the ranks of hunters and anglers, and to let them know that is a wonderful heritage, a wonderful pastime, something you ought to try. as people have been recruited into the ranks, they are discovering what most of us know, so we have seen this up to it. we have also been very energetic. the sportsmen's alliances has worked closely with other organizations and state agencies

on a program called families of feel. tohave proposed barriers participation, particularly for children, that require today and three-day safety courses, that getting kids these days to sit still for two or three hours let alone a couple of days to take a course on hunter safety was a problem, so we said look, let's set up systems where an older brother, an older father, brother, ago, friend can take a child, a young boy or girl come out into the woods with them, and they can engage in a hunting activity sort of under the existingeship of an licensed hunter as a precursor to see if they like it, and in before they can get their own independent license, they've got to go through their hunter education program. that, bythat by doing making it a family mission and illuminating some of these barriers, has allowed us to childrennd bring more

back into the ranks, if you will, and we think that will be an increase in the number of licensed hunters and anglers. waiting ine has been homestead, pennsylvania on our line for democrats. elaine, good morning. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i do not think civilized nations should permit animals to be hunted down and killed unless humanose a danger to health. how would the gentleman like to be hunted down and killed? host: mr. horn, a question directed at you. guest: well, i think this goes back to some of the fundamental philosophy that we through evolution and other factors find ourselves at the top of the food chain, and human beings have been hunting and fishing for sustenance and other purposes, cultural purposes or thousands of years, i'm iensense we became we becamei mean since

bipeds and climbed out of the trees. those of us who want to pursue this traditional activity, we want to confine it so it is done on a scientific basis, not killing too many animals or taking too many fish. we want it done consistent with ethical principles of fair chase, but i for one personally want to be able to continue to engage in this activity. i like to bring wild game home to my little table -- my dinner table, and i think it is a choice i ought to be able to have as long as it is done responsibly, scientifically, and ethically. ont: danny is in jamestown our line for hunters. we have about a minute left here. caller: yes, sir, to your last caller that just called him, me by the national forest in south carolina, and we kill five or six deer a year and consume all of that.

i do next deer season, we are basically out of deer meat. and i would like to ask the guest -- if the government controls us to where we cannot eat deer meat, which is natural meet that has not been tampered with by man, we will be forced to eat genetically modified meet that is controlled and regulated by the government. host: bill horn, is that a concern? guest: i think it is a personal choice. there are a lot of people who -- obviously organic foods have been growing in popularity, and taking a wild game for your own table is probably one of the finest ways to get ge genuinely organic products on your table. i know i prefer to eat a wild mallard that i shot as

opposed to the farm raised long island duckling that i buy in the freezer compartment at the supermarket. i think there are people who want to make that choice, and we should perpetuate the ability to make that choice. host: bill horn is the federal affairs director with the sportsmen's alliances alliance, that is u.s.sportsment.org. bill horn, thank you so much for getting up with us on a saturday morning. guest: john, thank you. host: that is our show for this may 24. will givememorial day you live coverage of president obama and his memorial day activities, the annual replaying at the tomb of the unknown soldier. that of course takes place at arlington national cemetery coming up on monday, starting at 11 :00 a.m. eastern. also on memorial day, c-span's coverage of commitment addresses continues with supreme court , virginiatonin scalia governor terry mcauliffe at virginia tech, and wisconsin

governor scott walker at concordia university in wisconsin starting monday at 230 eastern,.m. -- 2:30 11: 30 a.m. pacific. we will see back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ >> coming up next on c-span, a discussion about fighting sexual assault on college campuses. after that, some of this years commencement addresses from universities around the country. later, former treasury secretary timothy gardner on his new -- timothy geithner about the 2008

financial crisis. withu can now take c-span you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all free c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime , and there is a schedule of each of our network so you can tune in when you want. play podcasts of recent shows take it with you wherever you go. download your free at online and iphone and blackberry. week claire mccaskill held the first of several roundtable discussions focused on finding rape and sexual salt on college campuses. on collegessault campuses. this is two hours.