host: how recently did you read that? caller: i think it has been out two months. guest: signing the bill the president said was a major mistake. it repealed the last legal bill, allowing investment banks, allowed the merging of commercial banking and investment banking, it allowed these firms to become hybrids, and who knew what they were doing. it opened up and let the floodgates open. host: don't board of directors set pay? who sits on boards of directors? how will this impact boards of directors with mr. feinberg over

saying banks who received financial rescue money? . . . he board, you have someone an executive of one company said on a board in another company with their friends. you have a bunch of executives and very wealthy people setting pay for other executives and very wealthy people. so you have this whole group. really it is not in the board's best interest to be tough on pay at most companies because, what do they gain? do they gain? so i think one thing you have heard a lot of on capitol hill is criticism of the way boards have operated, one to put more pressure on them. restoring maybe some of the shareholder rights. really eroded over the last 1520 years, giving shareholders more of a say on pay. host: this is a broad question. but can you give us an idea of what a typical board of directors is paid? guest: directors don't really --

$50,000, probably a lot for the average everyday folks. but it depends aboard, often they need. but they get expenses paid and they do receive a flat salary for doing that. host: they obviously are major shareholders? guest: sometimes. other times independent shareholders. board members do have to be independent, under sarbanes oxley, more of a push of having independent boards of directors as well. they are not always major shareholders. host: bob in pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: i wanted to make a comment to michael and get feedback relative to fannie mae and freddie mac. i have been in the mortgage industry for 20 years. and the last year, both fannie mae and freddie mac implemented a policy whereby they charge excessive fees, very large fees,

from one points all the way to three points on the long side. based directly and solely on credit scores. it has created a situation where people will really pay their bills and do the things that they are supposed to on time, will have minor difficulty in their credit -- say they missed a $35 annual premium on the credit card, the credit scored drop 100 points but just on the basis of something as small as that. fannie mae and freddie mac charged them thousands of dollars because credit scores, which they did not do only eight or nine short months ago. guest: well, the fannie and freddie situation is something -- i think it has sort of fallen by the wayside since the crisis began last september. that is one of the first tipping points we saw, is when the government had to take over fannie and freddie. for last fall. so that is one of the things i think congress is going to get back to in the next few months.

as far as the broader regulatory look is, what exactly is happening with fannie mae and freddie mac? we focus so much on the big banks. preventing major financial institutions from collapsing, that they have fell out of the public consciousness. but they are still open for business. they are still billing -- in some ways, the only mortgage game in town. so there is a major policy question of what to do with these the two major firms. host: since they are sami- government agencies, are their executives' pay being overseen? guest: yes, that is one of the things when they were taking over, the governmt replaced executives. which is interesting because we did not see that in basically any of the other institutions that received help. you have seen some of that with auto companies, but the government really just replaced --

host: enemy and freddie mac. guest: and they brought in a new management team. and they are working to stabilize those companies, but they have become an afterthought. host: what are the downside of the administration appointing someone like this to oversee pay? one of the political risk? guest: if it comes out in six months that he was supposed to be overseeing it and yet these companies are still paying excessive compensation and extensive -- extensive is and i of the beholder, but people like an aig one sees something it does not like. host: chicago, the morning on our independent line. caller: when i look at these banking stocks, it seems like anywhere from 60 percent up to 90 percent of the stock is owned by mutual funds, and yet the mutual funds never have to report back to the people in the

funds how they vote for these boards of directors. and so, is anybody looking to control that? my second question is, why can't i get my checks backed -- when i write a check i never seem to be altogether the original check back anymore? guest: on the check thing, most banks these days will have an electronic copy that you can access if you do it online banking. you can usually get an image of your check. i think they stopped in many cases -- it is a money saver just to have an electronic copy as opposed to just sending out all of these checks to all of these customers out there. so, that is one thing. as for institutional investors such as mutual funds, your mutual fund will usually -- there are ways. there are institutional shareholder websites where it

says how they vote on a lot of these proxy decisions, boards of directors. so that information is available. if you call up your mutual-fund and ask them, they are going to >> thank you for being with us this morning. >> here is a look at what is scheduled in the u.s. house this week. a plan to offer cash rebates to americans to trade in older cars for the newer, more efficient models. plus, united nations peacekeeping and a measure that increases military and non- military aid to pakistan. meanwhile, house and senate negotiators are trying to agree on a bill that allocates more than $100 billion for additional iraq and afghanistan spending this year. our live coverage will continue when the house returns at 2:00 eastern time right here on c- span. the senate will continue work on

new tobacco regulation this week, procedural vote today scheduled for 5:30 p.m.. just like the house, the senate also waits for agreement on the war spending bill. live senate coverage always on c-span2. >> there is still time to get your copy of c-span's 2009 congressional directory, with information on house and senate members from the cabinet, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors, plus district maps and how to contact committees and caucuses. it is $16.95 come online at c- span.org/products or call 1-877- on-c-span. >> not a conversation about the obama and ministration and a public release of documents, from today's "washington journal." our is steven aftergood with the project on government secrecy. we have just finished talking a

little about the cia and their preservation of the intelligence and a secret from congress. you heard some of that conversation. anything surprise you? guest: just that it is part of a larger issue. hal information disclosure is regulated for political advantage. the government decides what it wants to disclose. it is often not based on principle, but on what serves their interests. that is a problematic approach. host: i should point out that the president has asked james jones, the national security adviser, to review the recommendations on the release of classified documents. what will happen in that 90-day period? guest: the classification is not

based in law but an executive order. presidents typically issue their own version to define the classification system. president obama has said i want you to look at revising the bush administration's executive order to promote greater openness and transparency. over the next 90 days the national security council is supposed to lead a review of the classification system and consider recommendations for greater transparency. host: you have put together a recommendation that will be published in a duel review and policy -- and the yale and policy review. you write about several levels. what are those? guest: there are three former levels.

confidential, secret, and top- secret been the highest. there are also other kinds of controls on unclassified information. the pace of classifications, the rate at which new secrets are generated has steadily increased up to 23 million last year. that is mind-boggler. we're generating tremendous numbers of secrets and not all are legitimate or valid. the policy challenged is how we can reduce its secrecy down to the necessary minimum and eliminates a various secrets. -- and eliminate spurious secrets? host: it is by executive order that the president controls classification. he cannot have oversight on all

the incidents, so must fall within specific departments. who within an agency is designated to oversee that? guest: that is right. the president delegates his own classification authority to two dozen different officials, agency heads who in turn delegate that authority to other officials under their jurisdiction for a total of about 4000 individuals in the executive branch authorized to create new classified information. the system is fragmented and distributed across the government. one of my point is that any reform of government secrecy has to take place not simply at the top on the level of the executive order, but must delve

into the practice at each agency. at the agency level the classification decisions are made. it is at that level for the over-classification level -- where it will need to be corrected. host: is the cia the largest manufacturer of classified documents? guest: actually not. i believe it is the department of defense because it is larger and because it contains the majority of the u.s. large intelligence agencies. the department of defense is the single largest producer of classified information. host: we're talking about classified information and the release of it. we're also talking about the

president's proposal with james joins to review the executive order. magnolia, texas on our independent line. caller: how can the country be so free was so many spies and classified orders? let me give you a scenario. what about all the recruits from al qaeda who came over on 9/11? if you were captured or tortured tell them that we're working we'resaddam over there in iraq and he has -- tell them that we're working with saddam and that he has wmd's. maybe that is why they will not

tell us the information. host: was their release of classified -- was there an increase of classified information in the bush administration? @@ guest: in the 10 million range annually up to 20 million. now, some of that is not -- you know, the bush administration is not strictly response before it because some of it reflects the creation of new secrets in electronic form, which tend to grow more quickly than document, paper documents, that are classified secret. but what is true, though, is that secrecy increase dramatically during the bush administration, and i would add, with tremendous adverse consequences in areas of the decision to go to war, questions of warrant-less surveillance, questions of the tension, prisoner interrogations, there

were major departures in u.s. national security policy that were carried out secretly, and in my opinion, without adequate the liberation. in your paper on classified information you write about a number of congressional attempts in the past to reform the cia and the practice of how classified information is released. what has worked so far? guest: one of the frustrating things is that this is not new. people have been talking about it for 50 years. we can be certain it is not enough to complain or to criticize. we need to find new solutions and a purchase if we will have any hope of fixing the problem.

in the past several decades there have been a couple of experiments that have produced real reductions in secrecy. one is a 1995 program by the department of energy to carry out what they called a fundamental classification policy review. they did it top to bottom review of all their classification guides, the lists of things the classified at what level, and asked if it still needs to be classified. in many cases the answer was no. one of my suggestions is that other classifying agencies need to do what the department of energy did in 1995. throw out many of the obsolete practices and streamline the system. host: thus the pressure for

requests based on the freedom of information -- has that made more information available? guest: surely it has. lots of things would never be made available at no one asks for them. agencies have not had an obligation in most cases to proactively distribute information. hopefully, that is something that will change. the freedom of information act has been a vital tool. its limitation is that it is focused on individual documents or sets of documents, not on information policy system-wide. host: the next caller is from tennessee on our republican line. caller: we have recently seen an example of how releasing secrets when the president's office put out a map to our nuclear sites -- i live 20 miles

away from one in tennessee -- even showing which store -- which door to go through. we have nancy pelosi in charge and now they have reduced these documents? it is a danger to all of america and no one seems to care. when we went to war the congress was briefed on soaddam who was known to all the world to have weapons and he was firing at our plans. guest: bacall refers to a united states government declaration to the international atomic energy agency which produced a list of u.s. civilian nuclear

research activities with the brief description and a description of their location. this document was not classified. it was specifically unclassified. i read it through and i honestly did not see anything in their that was not already in the public domain. i do not believe it poses any security threat to safety of residents or the facilities. host: you write that genuine national security secrecy is diluted in an ocean of unnecessary bureaucratic secrets and the famed from time to time by abuse in the form of political secrecy. the enduring public policy problem is to disentangle the legitimate from the illegitimate. guest: that is right. you see a mix of the good, bad,

and ugly. there are things that need to be classified, clearly. the identity of confidential intelligence sources. design details of advanced military operations, sensitive diplomatic negotiations -- when they're classified they serve national interests and if exposed, then the nation's security is diminished. the problem is that the system it encompasses all whole mass of other kinds of information that has no business being classified. it deprives the public of the information oxygen it needs. host: from the pentagon papers to the current date, have they made classified information -- does it always conduct bad, you

know, bad things? if it is a secret document, then the government must be up to something? guest: in some circles that is a reaction, but not in all circles. there are 3 million americans who hold security clearances. most understand there is a proper place for secrecy. at the same time we have seen rampant abuse of this authority to gain policy advantage or to avoid controversy. it needs to be, added. host: georgia, good morning, in a panic caller -- independent caller. caller: highs and 28 years in

the military and carried a secret clearance. i want to correct you on something you said. he said that there were three classifications for security. there is a little thing in there called a need to know. if you did not need to know something even though you have a secret past, you did not have access to the material. if he does not know what he is talking about, then he should not say it. as far as classifications, if you want classified material released, just tell it to the democrats. "the new york time" will have it the next day. guest: need to know is not a classification order. there are only three of a rise

levels. however, just the fact that one holds a clearance of a certain level does not entitle a person to access all classified information at that level. the caller is correct that you also need in addition to a security clearance, and need to know that particular information before you're supposed to have access to it. host: a comment from twitter, if there's something so secret that our fate as a nation hangs in the balance, then by no means is it legitimate. would you agree or disagree with that? guest: i am not sure i understand. there are sensitive things that require protection and are protected. host: you write about a number of congressional and other moves made to change the system.

the 9/11 commission singled out secrecy as a problem. has any of that happened since that report? guest: some, yes. within the government there has been an increase in information- sharing and a lowering of internal barriers. there has also been enactment of a law to require annual publication of the intelligence budget trouble. in the 2007 and 2008 the budget total for the national intelligence program was disclosed. however, when i went to the office of the director of national intelligence and said,

it is great that you disclosed these numbers, matt please have the 2006 number -- and they said oh, no, that is classified. how could that be? how could the current information be revealed but passed information remain classified? i appeal that an appeal came back saying that it is still classified. to me that is an illustration of the kind of irrational classification prevalent. hopefully the president's reform process will help to correct that. host: a democratic caller from fort worth, texas. caller: before we invaded iraq, saddam hussein's intelligence chief habbish met with the cia

in jordan and told them there were no weapons. that saddam hussein did not want that out because of his neighbors. bush and chinese silenced of that. he was paid $5 million and currently lives in jordan. -- bush and cheney silence that. i think it is important information. senators grassley and baucus both received the most money from the health-care industry. host: would you like to reply to the first part? guest: a lot of our recent history in the previous administration up until today remains shrouded in secrecy. there is a lot of archaeological work required to document the history of the last 8-10 years

and overcome its secrecy. the president has asked jim jones to oversee the 90-day review of classification. some critics have pointed out that the heads of agencies doing the review have not asked for public input. is it necessary? guest: it is desirable. the primary customer for declassified intermission is the public. one would think that it is important to get public input on expectations and demands -- for the classified information. until there will be an informal advisory group. the board will organize some kind of session to receive public comment and suggestion in

the process. host: has technology exacerbated the problem, particularly with e-mails over the last 10 years? increase the volume of documents that are classified. guest: it has had both positive and negative effects. increased the production and distribution of classified records. the technology also ought to be able to facilitate declassification and reductions in secrecy. one of the outcomes that we would like to see from the current presidential would review process is a requirement that in the future, when agencies declassify records, that as a matter of course, they scanned the records into digital format and post them