today's health care legislation. we will look at the fcc proposal for national high-speed internet access. also, we will talk about how military tribunals operate. this is "washington journal." . .

host: the effort continues by house democrats to support legislation while republicans waged a campaign against it. the chamber of commerce has ramping up the campaign spending effort, a massive $50 million campaign effort. we are also on e-mail, and you can also find us by twitter. we also have a presence on facebook. in the meantime, we will check in with them managing editor of "the hill" on the latest head

count. good morning. thanks for joining us. anything changed in the last 24 hours? guest: yes, a little movement. a freshman from arizona voted against climate change. she will be a yes. john mccain won her district by 10 points. it is a good development for democratic leadership. dennis kucinich this morning will be announcing his position at, 10:00 at and this will be a key moment. he has been very critical of the bill that will be hitting the house. several news networks have really been criticizing the bailout to the insurance industry. he has been leaned on by president obama and others in recent days. if he announces that he is a ye s, he would be the first democrat who voted no in

november that will put yes this time around. the bottom line is, democrats still have to work to do. on our website we have 37 democrats either leaning toward no, likely no, or firm no. it does not include many undecided votes. there is some doubt whether they will get the votes by this saturday. host: how significant would be if dennis kucinich called the press conference to say he is not supporting the healthcare bill? guest: could be a defining moment. dennis kucinich has but leadership on a range of issues, including on war supplemental. so, if he goes to the mic today

to say that the president did not convince them, that would be pretty telling. it would give skeptical democrats more energy to vote no. early this month, dennis kucinich to get to the white house with other democrats. obama privately made the case to him to vote yes. dennis kucinich came out of that meeting saying no. the pressure has been ramping up cents and some people think that he will change his vote. host: on your website you mention this. talk to us about what will happen if the vote would be held today? guest: democratic leaders would be in a lot of trouble. they have to convince a lot of undecided members. nancy pelosi has been very confident. they to tell members that it will pass and they should get on board.

members do not want to commit until they see reconciliation language as well as the cbo score. the othethose are key factors. nancy pelosi says they will have the votes when they put it to the floor. there has been some speculation that they will create photo on the go to the floor that they would try to lean on some members in that dramatic moment. nancy pelosi says it will not happen. they do not want to have a three-hour boat as republicans did in 2003. it was an embarrassing moment for them even though they passed it. it left it open to ethics investigation. host: any change in strategy?

guest: well, the pressure is on. senators are leaning on some house colleagues to vote yes. the amount of one-on-one meetings with the president is increasing. several were in the oval office in the last couple of days according to the ap. this is a lot of one-on-one time. they know they have to get votes quickly. even if they do not get them by saturday, congress is in the following week. the big stumbling block is the house. they want the senate to be able to move forward next week and then finished up. it they could get the house to pass the bill before the easter break, that would be a significant win.

guest: thanks so much for joining us this morning. host: let's get back to our question for you. the u.s. chamber of congress has announced a major campaign to ramp up spending. the paper writes it is modeled on part by a the 2008 juggernaut. fo

host: what is your reaction to that? our first caller is dead from houston, on the democrats' line. caller: it is not surprising. they are merely representing big business. the fact that they're spending all that money -- it is not theirs. it is the money of big business. host: let's go to paul on the republicans line in little rock, ark.. caller: good morning, libby. i am very glad and induced that the supreme court has made possible for businesses to

donate money to the campaigns. i hope the chamber spends as much money as possible and the thing to defeat this liberal obama agenda that is running our country. -- ruining our country. is a socialist and will create a huge deficit. host: are you concerned about small donors, grass-roots efforts being overshadowed by big campaigns like this? caller: no, whatever it takes. whatever it takes to take down as liberal, socialist agenda. host: jerry, columbus, ohio.

caller: over the last 75 years, the chamber of commerce, national association of manufacturers and others have done all they can do to prevent the common guy -- and i am in my eighties. i am so fed up with these guys. they do not give a hoot about the forgotten man, as fdr called the working man. they only want to hang on to with they have. it is almost criminal. they not say anything about the to dollar up to $3 trillion or in iraq, now having gone on longer than most world longeri and world war ii. there is a book and i wish to do

a program on how money we're spending on that. host: let's look back at "the washington post" article that says according to the chamber of commerce, the president and chief executive officer, it pushes the most aggressive effort in our newly hundred-year history. do you think this effort could backfire for the chamber of congrescommerce?

caller: just a short comment. when the chamber of commerce is so adamant against a specific bill that the president wants to have asked, you can rest assured it is something that would benefit the common man. thank you. host: chamber officials declined to identify which lawmakers are likely to target in november. let's go to new castle, pa., with shirley on the republican

line. caller: i'm against the nonsense of spending this kind of money. in understanding it the way that i do -- if this is what it will take to get this democratic nonsense out of washington, and the way they think, then that is what it will have to be. this health-care issue is absolutely nonsense. president obama is going one-on- one to try to get them to come his way. you will see a big change in november. the people in this country have had enough. host: arizona, steve, on the independent line. caller: when the supreme court

made the decision about corporations donating, i was against it. then i began studying. i am for it. the main thing, it will be transparent. any company that donates to anyone -- it will be right there showing how much they donated and who they donated to. the way the system has been working now there are all these backdoor deals. look at general electric and pharmaceutical companies. the have backdoor deals given to the democrats. there is no transparency. i really believe it will work out just fine after looking at it.

host: the white house emphasizes that the chamber support for the stimulus package and obama's goal of doubling u.s. exports over the next five years. dnc spokesman is more blunt, saying the group is one of the giants were keeping a close eye on heading into the midterm elections. let's go to indiana where kathleen is on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, and have beat st. patrick's day.

-- happy sympatric stay. way to go, supreme court. this is the biggest bone-headed decision. it will be even worse now knowing that big business, big money -- we're moving backwards. the common person like me and my family are going to have to be shocking even louder and even longer to be heard over a bunch of money. i do not have a pocketful of money. i only have a big mouth and i will try to use it to fight over big bucks. these lawmakers already know which side of the bread they're better down. they already him up in front of cameras over health-care legislation.

whoever votes against health care -- i think all congress member should lose their health care and have to pay out like we do. they already enjoy their insurance, but are voting against what they have. let them lose their health care and their cushy positions and let them get out into the real world and spend just like we all have to. host: this comment by twitter. let's go to the independent line in nashville. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my first exposure to the chamber of commerce where i learned

that they fought a federal judge on the west coast -- tried to overthrow him on the basis of trying to prevent dolphin-safe tuna. it was one of the first big things they pushed. the chamber basically fought tooth and nail tried to keep tuna fishermen from having to fromdolphin-safe nets. host: does that concern you? caller: yes, it is very disrespectful of the environment in the animals who share the environment with us. if they disregard that, the disregard our actual health. i agree with the collar about three callers back that they

have no problem spending money for bullets -- we need to worry about health care. thank you very much again for c- span. host: let's go to john, republican lying in georgia. caller: i am on? ok. host: what you think about the plan to spend $50 million on the campaign by the chamber of commerce? caller: if the chamber of commerce is so concerned about the small businessman and the entrepreneur, i think it would be supporting the healthcare bill. but the fact that they're not supporting the healthcare bill leads me to think that they have more interest in corporate america, large scale economics

of businesses. basically, they're not for the small-business person and entrepreneur as they advertise. host: next caller, baltimore. caller: i would like to say that the chamber of commerce, if they are for big business, and since the courts and chamber of commerce want to donate all this money, if we have to deem pass of bill, that is fine. it is a role that i can live with. -- a rule i can live with. if you want to help democrats pass the bill, white and they help? one of help them get it passed?

-- why don't they help them get it passed? host: other headlines, lawmakers pushed the rights of states. this is looking at states like south dakota where the republican governor signed a bill into law on friday declared that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid. that story about the push for states' rights. this piece from "the new york times" -- looking at the no child left behind education act. changes proposed, arne duncan

plans to go before congress today. he will talk about what he would like to see changed. there are concerns raised by union leaders. randi weingarten, head of the teachers' unions says the teachers alone cannot turn around struggling schools. i also want to take a look at this from politico looking at today's planned for secretary duncan to go before congress. the blueprint they write is not only a plan to renovate a flawed law, but to revamp education. finally, this from "usa today" looking at pain pills and how

they're being used by troops. it concerns the pentagon. the military is trying to curb the number of narcotics given to troops. drug abuse continues to soar. let's return to your calls. we're looking at campaigns heading into the 2010 elections and the chamber of commerce's plan to spend $50 million on elections. caller: i have never heard of such a thing with the chamber of commerce is jumping into public business like this. this is part of the policy of big business, where they will turn the whole country into a third world, plantation earth, where slaves come in all colors.

they did not even offer a penny to help pay off the national debt -- that is big oil. host: what would you like to see changed? caller: from every member of congress and the senate -- throw everyone out. get a new president, everything. let's begin all over. we have a total -- it is only smoke and mirrors for big business. we are all slaves out here. there is no money for anyone out here. host: let's go to a republican in mississippi. caller: hello. ok, i just want to speak about the healthcare bill, and i just got a comment. for every republican that don't

vote for the healthcare bill, i hope they get voted out of office. thank you. host: the next caller is from kentucky on the democrats' line. caller: hello, good morning. i know that's greta yesterday and you today have had a couple calls the sound like elderly republicans. you need to ask them what kind of insurance they have? most will have to save medicare. we need health care in this country. libby, i was doing far marked three years ago and lost my job. i lost my love to hand in a farm accident and was in a hospital in louisville and my bill was over $200,000. they knocked some of it down because i did not have insurance. in 59 years old and i will be paying on that for the rest of my days on earth.

there needs to be something done in this country. big money influences all of congress. the little man -- we don't have any say anymore. thank you for your show. host: judy, independent caller in ohio. caller: what ever happened to personal -- hi -- my question is what ever happened to personal responsibility? my husband and i, and i have been a stay at home mom -- we raised our jargon, send them to college, went into debt to do it. they have paid off their debt

and we have paid off our debt. i am sick of this mentality of everything has to come from the government. i want people to take care of themselves. i'm a survivor of cancer. two years ago and had major heart surgery. i'm 67 years old. we have struggled, but have made it. we're not rich by any means. host: how did you pay for it? caller: we did have insurance, and we paid for our insurance. host: was that through your work place? caller: through my husband's work. i have no complaints, none, with our insurance. we had to go on medicare when we both reached 65. it has been nothing but a nightmare. we are paying out of our

retirement for our own insurance. i don't know what ever happened to personal responsibility. host: richard, republicans line , it in indiana. we're talking about the chamber of commerce and its plan to spend $50 million on campaigns this year. caller: i am all for it. what is in there now is terrible. i live in indiana. the state has cut funds to education, highways, everything. this health-care bill will cost $2.4 billion over the next 10 years to indiana. host: how do think the chamber will influence 2010 elections? caller: they are against the healthcare bill. it will give campaign money to people who will stop it.

my daughter is a teacher. they are laying off 17 teachers at her school next year because of nominee. i call the department of education yesterdayt educationhey will be asking for money from the federal government to put more mandates on the states. the states do not have the money now. where is the money supposed to come from to pay for all of this? host: riverside, california, on the democrats' line, keith. caller: hi, first of all, the chamber has a lot of influence on the local economy as a whole. if people are not listening, businesses, and as they grow bigger, tend to look out for themselves. if people think the chamber of

commerce is looking not for them, they're totally misinformed. there was someone who called in, saying the which the chamber of commerce would get more into the political scene -- however, the common people do not have a voice. they are pretty much non- thinkers. you need to have your voice heard. as you can see in the congress what is happening now, you do not have a voice. it is just like the natives -- what the chief of once is with the people get. if big business is running everything, do you think they will give you a hand out? do you think it will put more money in your pockets? host: it sounds like you are a member of your local chamber of commerce. the see a difference between a local level and national level? caller: about 20 years ago there were doing good things for the

community and businesses. right now you cannot even get a successful business going unless you are a member of the chamber. they are getting all the government money and influence local commissions for licenses. if you're not a member, then you are pretty much on your own. host: this paper reports that republicans say the chamber will be crucial to their strategy to portray democrats as reckless and ineffective. next, walter in utah. caller: yes, the chamber as far as i can tell has never been for the people. they do good things for the community in taking care of different areas, but they still did not do anything for the people. it is mainly for the state, for the right, the political right. as far as health care, we need

to get this passed. people need the health care. if they had health care, then they could look for jobs. people are looking for jobs, and if anything happens to them they have no coverage at all. the republicans in the chamber of commerce are fighting this tooth and nail. they would just as soon send the money for military, send it overseas, rather than take care of people in this country. the state of utah, just like oklahoma, they will pass a resolution through the local congress to say well, we want to opt out of this health care. then we will have news commentators saying that the people of utah opted out. it is not the people, but it is the legislators of the stick. this is a red state, republican state with orrin hatch as our

so-called role model. they do not care about the people who actually need the help. host: here is a comment from twitter. let's go to new castle, delaware, and jim, on the republican line. caller: i think it is great the chamber is finally putting up some money to spend on the opposition to this. this will bankrupt the country. it will create the ability for the left to take over everything. this is like nazi germany. host: are you concerned about the amount of money that the chamber it is pouring into it? caller: this is a free country and people can spend money the

way they want. host: barbara, but democrats line in texas. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the chamber of commerce and the no vote on health care. specifically about medicare because i'm on a regular medicare. a lot of people who are not seniors do not recognize that we have medicare and then we have the advantage medicare. advantages not medicare. it is and unmandated, unpaid for since 1977. they pay the money to the insurance company to carry these policies. these people were probably help the and probably would only have

spent 1000 hrs per year if they had stayed in the regular medicare. -- $1,000 per year. host: let's go to another caller from texas, this time brian on the independent line. host: what do you think about the chamber of commerce plan? caller: i am 19 now and since i was 14 i have been very into politics. i'm just so tired of being run over with all of this. people said that we need government-run health care. freedom is not based on a set of anlaf endless allowances -- thoe are rations of slavery.

we as people need to recognize this. the money is there. if we can take care of people in other countries, we can take care of people here. i just do not understand it -- we have too many politicians. nothing against politicians, but we have too many. it is the separation between democrats and republicans -- we will never get anything done. host: bedford, new hampshire come collette. -- new hampshire, collette. caller: i think the money is needed from the chamber of commerce to disseminate accurate information to the public.

the democrats have been going on about this, 4000 people per week are dying because of no health insurance. i like to ask anybody how many dead bodies they have seen sitting around on the streets or anywhere else? myself, i have never seen one. i think the health insurance plan we have is working. host: i want to take a look at some other headlines in the news. this is from the world news page looking now the election in late iraq. a new set of results showing that the political bloc is retaining its narrow edge over the alliance headed by his chief rival. "the financial times" reports

that the fed signals optimism over the u.s. economy. the u.s. fed give a slightly more upbeat outlook yesterday for the country's economy. looking at "the wall street journal" -- business sours on china. let's go to michigan where mary is on our democrats line. caller: yes, my husband and i have owned small businesses. my sons also own small businesses. we belong to the chamber of commerce. the reason we belonged at the

time was so we could get into group insurance and get those group insurance rates. i would just tell people to look at to the national chamber of commerce holds hands with in developing and supporting policy for america -- the wall street financiers -- when you talk about bankruptcy -- look to wall street. those people did not look out for our common good. they looked out to line their own pockets. they took a government handout, which i support, to keep the financial system from falling apart. but they're still paying themselves big time. the look ay to new paying themselves big time unless the people begin to form an alliance. this is not about removing all elected officials from office -- this is about looking at your

own self interest, little people, like me, look to your own self interests. elect people who will stand up for you. host: did you feel like you had a voice in your local chamber of commerce? caller: absolutely not. and they did not have a voice in the national chamber which is about big corporations. so, you know, the local was just a nice social livent. i did not feel they had any voice at all. host: green bay, wisconsin, independent line. caller: hello. i just want to give you my take on this health care bill, if it passes. the government will have our information on our health, everyone's health in the nation. i do not want them poking their

nose into my private business. also, it will be mandatory to take this health thing -- and if we do have it, then the government will also be able to access our bank accounts in order to make sure that we're making the payments on it, and if we're not, they will be able to access our bank accounts to take those payments out of there. i do not need people snooping around and to my bank accounts and private information. host: we're talking about the chamber of commerce right now. how the thing to enclose the 2010 election? caller: no, i don't think they will influence it in a favorable way. we should not wait for an election. we need to get these people out

now. host: virginia? caller: good morning. i want to talk about health care. host: turn down your tv. we're i should talking about the chamber of commerce. caller: i'm not interested in spending money from this or that. the politicians make a lot of money for nothing. about health care, imagine your president -- he is right. by does he have to go through all this hassle to do something right? host: thomas, from maryland. caller: we have a cultural divide in this country.

most of your telephone calls from the south and from parts of the west are against anything that would improve the lot of the american people because they basically don't feel that we are one people. they do not feel that health care should be given to everyone because they don't have it and don't want anyone else to have it. if this were a country where everyone looked the same we would not be having this fight. but these people do not feel they are apart and that we should be one nation. we should let them go on their way if they do not want health care. they are ideologically correct than we cannot help them. host: come next, we'll talk with alex weighing about health care, a congressional quarterly writer.

>> earlier this week president obama announced his proposal to change the nclb law. duncan will testify before the house education committee at 2:30 p.m. eastern. part of the on-line coverage, ben bernanke and paul volcker talking about federal bank supervision and monetary policy. >> this week lawmakers are making the final push to get health care legislation to the president's desk. you control of the latest on the only network that covers washington gavel to gavel, c- span. take us wherever you go, online.

iphone users, get the latest with the c-span radio app. >> cq rights today that a burst of activity is likely in the next day or two. we might see floor debate by the end of the week. >> this weekend on c-span2's book tv, this author on his book concerning the civil rights generation. another offer concerning his book on capitalism. former education secretary talking about white too much testing is causing the death of the american school system.

"washington journal" continues. host: we're joined now by alex wayne from congressional quarterly. he is a staff writer who covers health care extensively. we will look at the procedure as well as the policy. thanks for being with us. guest: sure thing. host: we are at wednesday , at-- the get a sense of when the vote might come down? guest: democratic leaders have told us every day that they will have the bill and cost estimate ready any day, yet it has not yet appeared. today is the last day they can release the bill and still have a vote before the president leaves for an international trip. host: house speaker nancy pelosi

has said the bill will be posted for 72 hours before people vote. host: guestguest: that is rights now recanted on that. host: let's take a look at your piece today from the online news. last night you write that a burst of activity is likely in the next day or two as leaders released the final language of the bill, and the cost estimate. is this a hurry up and wait situation? is the action all dependent on the cbo numbers coming out? guest: hurry up and wait. many reporters are frustrated because we don't have much information on what has held up

the belbill. we have been hearing that there have been technical problems in drawing up this complex legislation. hopefully, we will see it today. host: can you back up and talk us through the process? tell us about deeming. guest: in the house there is a very important committee i don't think much of the public knows about, the rules committee, which sets all the rules for all debates on the house floor. the rules dominican put any piece of legislation into or out of order. whatever that committee says it is followed on the house floor. the committee is tightly controlled by the speaker of the house.

democrats have a huge majority on the committee. they will pass a rule for the debate on this health bill that will allow democrats to avoid voting directly on the senate bill itselft billhey call this a deeming the senate bill passed. when the house votes to adopt the rule, or to pass this second health bill, the budget reconciliation,-- either one of those votes will deem the senate bill passed, and then it will go to the president. host: house democrats are so skittish about the piece of legislation, that now the vehicle is being considered to allow them to pass it without explicitly voting for it.

why go through all of this to make it work? guest: the reasoning on the democratic side is that the public does not really care about the process, but about the substance. after a month or six months most people will have forgotten how was passed, but are concerned about what is in it and how will affect them. host: good morning, bill. caller: this may sound far- fetched, but i would like all who were listening to ask their representatives -- if they were buying a house and were going to be told that there will only be one realtor for every 17,000 people, there would pay for the house for four years before they would move in, and would have to take whatever house the government said without seen and-- would you be willing to answer that question yourself?

would you agree to those terms? that is exactly what this health bill is. host: let's go to scott on the republicans lying in texas. caller: i would like to comment on the previous couple of callers. the lady who went on about her self-interested is forgetting about her children and grandchildren and a humongous debt and socialist system she is willing to put on future generations. i believe jefferson -- i don't remember, those willing to sacrifice single liberty for general security deserves neither. as far as the forgotten man, it is the taxpayer, the people who must pay for this garbage. the forgotten man, the people are the future generation that will be enslaved with this

socialist system. it has never worked anywhere in history. why these morons believe they can change human nature and make socialism work is beyond me. host: let's go to this paper with the story with a photograph of yesterday's rally. it is the republican from south carolina addressing several hundred demonstrators. what is the mood like you hear from people? those coming to or calling washington? guest: yes, i was talking with a congressman from ohio yesterday who said his office has been flooded with calls both from the right and left. his staffers say they're having trouble discerning the mood in his district because they're getting so many calls from outside the district.

two-thirds of the calls the estimate to come from outside the district. they believe it is interest groups, political action groups urging people through e-mail or social media to call members of congress. they said they cannot get a good grasp of what their constituents want. host: independent line, mississippi. caller: i want to ask your guest, for the last eight years if you go back, the previous administration and look at this year, the several months this administration has been in office, i have never seen such a anger and hate in only one year of any previous administration. the previous administration was in, and the anger we're feeling

now -- how can you look at how miserably the previous administration failed toward the american people's economics and health care, and then you would turn around and put them back into office? we should at least give this administration at least two years. then, while the fighting against this health care? host: are you getting the sense that voters are willing to wait a couple of years to see how things come out? guest: it does not feel like it. it feels like they're is a lot of frustration. host: a look at an article here that talks about the past use of procedural tactic, one else this has been used.

nancy pelosi favors a tactic to allow the house to consider the senate version passed without actually having a vote on it. other times this as happened was back in 1989 relating to a smoking ban on domestic airline flights. the lobbying group wanted a two- year ban extended. public opinion polls showed strong opinion for no smoking on flights, period. another occasion this tactic has been used, family and medical leave in 1993. congressional members opposed it saying that it would be a burden on business. at cq, are you looking at times the mechanisms like this have been used in the past?

guest: no, we're not taking a deep look at this because it seems to us like it is not all that unusualt thathey do use this technique once in awhile to pass things that house members don't really want to be seen voting on. the best example i can think of is at-limit increases. it is interesting that the use this procedure to ban smoking on airplanes. i would not think that would have been so controversial. host: hi, bob. caller: hello, how are you? my biggest question is, on this the voting, they say there are 40 undecided. out of those 40, how many are not even going to be running

this year, are afraid it would give voted out to? i'm for the health care and ups gets through. i hope that ms. pelosi puts down her foot and gets this thing through. host: alex, the you have a sense of the members of congress up for reelection and those not? guest: gosh, i am afraid that i do not. we're talking about 50 members of the house. the ones leaving congress, bart from tennessee -- he says he will vote for it but was originally a no. one from south carolina is still a no. he was also a no last year. it is kind of a mix among departing members. one we have not yet heard from is marion from arkansas.

host: it says here that obama aides do not take no for an answer. the talk about how president obama was calling from airforce one while flying back from cleveland to reach a congressman. the president kept calling him until he got through. what sort of work is going on to get these members on to the president's side? guest: the problem is they do not have a build, cost estimates. they cannot put substance in front of members. the appeal is just look, we need you to back the president on this. that resonates with many people. these 50 members that we are tracking, many of them said it will not make a decision until they see the bill, see what a costs. host: silver spring, md.. caller: two quick points -- i

felt they should have had a bill to cover the uninsured with tax credits and deductions for a farmers, doctors, everyone in the medical field. secondly, if this bill passes i predict it will be challenged in the supreme court. could you comment on those points, please? guest: sure, i think the bill probably will face a supreme court towns. i am not a lawyer, but i think that the individual mandates that everyone purchase insurance, they could probably face a court challenge. we're hearing that republicans might challenge the process used in the house to deem the bill passed. host: how legal scholars are

looking at the constitutionality of the deem and pass tactic -- it reports that under the rule the house essentially agrees that a vote on one measure is tantamount to, or deemed as deciding on something. . .

often been employed in an earlier stage rather than for final passage of a bill. let's go to pennsylvania. independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to know what the implication sank a 47% of practitioners would be retiring or stop practicing? guest: i am not familiar with the survey, but i know one example, at my mother's primary care physician took a job at the va because she is tired of dealing with insurance companies and submitting claims and what not. i think we do face a bit of a storage -- shortage in this

country and congress will probably have to address that before this legislation takes full effect in about five years. host: looking at how democrats view the health care plan, faithful, nearly half oppose health care. democrats want action. remains a popular with the public, but core democrats, the party needs to show up and vote in november are strong backers according to a new wall street journal nbc news poll. it found opinions have solidified a run the health care legislation with 40% calling it a bad idea and 36% viewing it as a good idea when presented with the choice between those two. it is consistent with data this is a deeper part rid of the same time, democratic voters strongly favor the legislation being pushed by president obama, particularly constituencies such as blacks, latinos and self- described liberals. those groups mobilized in 2008

to help like mr. obama, but are far less enthusiastic and voting in this year's midterm elections. another piece in the wall street journal, looking at the president's base at joining the fray over a vote on the bill, talking about how liberal groups and some labor unions are coming off the sidelines and pressuring wavering democrats to get behind the president's health care legislation despite their misgivings about the package now awaiting a house vote. that includes labor unions, to some degree. alex wayne, 30 of a way of how these groups are influencing things? -- do you have a way of how these groups are imposing things? do we see any movement on the liberal side of things? guest: my guess is that dennis kucinich will show his support. but i think liberal groups are coming around on this. i saw a recent story that said

move on had taken a poll that was something like 80% thought the house should go ahead and pass the senate bill. the brokerage did not like the senate bill for a long time -- liberal groups did not like the senate bill for a long time. they felt taxes on high-cost insurance plans were too heavy. i think they have realized this is the only way to legislatively get it done. host: ohio, bob, independent line. caller: i called a couple of my congressman yesterday and told them this. i want the american people to hear it. if they want to know what the american people want, let's hold special ballot, and the americans to the polls, let's vote on it. we will see whether or not we want it. if we pass it, then congress can pass this. if not, then they will not. you will know what the american

people want. i do not know what all the fighting is about, you know? it is pretty easy. let's just a vote yes or no on it. if it passes, then you will know what we want. president host: obama plans to go on fox news tonight. the new york times writes it is a rare interview. once accused of being a political arm of the republican party. how significant is the president's visit tonight to fox? guest: he is taking every opportunity he can to get his message on health care out there, which is refreshing to many house democrats. some have been complaining the president has been awol on this issue for the last few months. it does not surprise me he would go on fox. that is for the hard-core opposition is coming from, i think. i think it serves the president to go on that channel and explain to those people what he

is trying to do. host: alexi become a republican line. caller: my biggest question or a couple of questions is first of all, the democrats of a super majority in both house and senate and yet they cannot get this piece of legislation passed with their votes. the republicans are not the one stopping it. democrats are the ones stopping the bill from passing. if this bill is such a wonderful piece of legislation, why are there so many people of their own party opposed to it and why are they happy to be a bunch of cockroaches and sneak off into the dark corners and being ashamed of whether or not a vote on this piece of legislation and pass it through tactics that when you consider the magnitude of the money being spent that they just simply have to be justified insulating our generation or future generations of debt.

we are writing checks that our bodies and no longer afford to cash. i am in the financial services industry. i understand how the bond system works with the feds and that kind of stuff. if we do not stop this insane spending and start reducing the size of this massive government, we're going to be driving off in economic cliff and the not too distant future. it will be more than anything we have ever seen. i am a peaceful, law-abiding, country living american. these politicians back in washington, d.c. are driving people like me to the brink where we are ready to boot these people out of office, make a clean sweep and start from scratch until the new people, if you do not start doing things the right way and show honesty and integrity, we're going to kick your happy butts out of office and start again if that does not work.

host: alex come a question for you. do you get a sense the concern is over the actual bill itself or is being channeled now to the procedures and the way the bill may ultimately get passed through the house? guest: i think it is an accumulation of things. since fall 2008, using congress pass really big spending bills where the money goes to the interests that are not broad support about the whole country. you start with tarp in fall 2008, giving a bunch of money to the banks. people are wondering why banks still seem not be willing to loan. then the stimulus came along in the spring 2009. another $780 billion put out there to try to help the economy, even though economists said it did have some effect, i think the average people are

wondering what happened to this money. congress has done a couple of big things in the last couple of years. they have spent a ton of money. i do not think it is unfair to say that. and now the public is faced with this huge health care measure that they do not quite understand. i think that is the fault of the democrats. they have not done a great job. some would say they have not done a great job explaining what this bill would be. host: democrat line. caller: stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. these democrats are on the republicans to shout as loud as they want and say whatever they want. they're running in the corner. these democrats voted for the

iraq war and called themselves brave enough to send our men and women into war in iraq and serve no purpose. we've lost lives. we are in debt. we lost money. we lost time. we lost occupations, everything. the first war should have been in afghanistan. everybody knows that was the real war. here is coming they spend on health care? look how big this is brit how big was the iraq bill? how big was that legislation to send our soldiers to war and die? host: what you want the democrats to do strategically? caller: i wanted to take their ties off, roll up their sleeves like president obama has been doing and vote for this health care bill. i am talking a little loud, but enough is enough.

[unintelligible] if you were to vote would to vote for them in november? -- if your representative would vote for this, would you vote for them in november? do you want to see this health care bill passed? it was 38%. the thing is, people want it passed, but they do not want to vote for a representative who passes it. the thing is, if these democrats do not pass this bill, they will lose because they showed they could not get anything done in one year. if they pass the bill, [unintelligible] host: i think your signal is fading out. we definitely got your opinion. louisiana, independent line.

caller: i was calling -- and independent supports democrats. i just do not understand why they believed in this bill they could not get it done. you should not have to fight for him votes. you should not have to go in the back room under the cover of darkness to pass this thing. i mean, i have always supported the democrats, even though i am an independent. it is just beyond me. it should not be about, can i keep my job in november if i pass it. it is not that. they do not believe in it. if they cannot, we cannot. host: let's look at the new york times. big insurance rating increase taking a sharp rise in costs. pennsylvania has nearly doubled the monthly bill.

on march 1, the cost of the plan rose to about $600 a month, up from $313 a month for the roughly 2400 state residents on the waiting list. the increase comes as congress is poised to act on health care overhaul and the obama administration has been highly critical of insurance companies for increases of 30% to 40% alongside the story, and prescription section, sharp rise in uninsured. the number of uninsured adults and children in california swelled by 20% from 2007-2009 according to report on tuesday by researchers. one-quarter of the state's population is uninsured. less than half of those with interests receive it through their employers. let's go to north carolina, republican collar. caller: i just called to make a point i have not heard made by

any one this morning about we're going to be taxed for 10 years and medicare will be cut for 10 years for six years of coverage. no one really seems to be driving that point home. they have done this to get the cbo score that they want, that makes the bill look better. this is just -- i have never seen anything like this the way they're born to have to go about trying to shove this through any way possible. the democrats have been hijacked by progressives. anyone that wants this type of bill and expects to taxpayers to pay for their abortions, which is still from what i understand, still in the land was for that to be possible. i think his name is henry waxman, bachelet told stupak they wanted to fund abortions -- actually told stupak they wanted

to fund abortions. host: alex, can you get some clarity on the time line? guest: he is right. the bill will implement reductions in medicare spending immediately almost and it will implement a lot of new tax increases almost immediately as well. most of the benefits, these new entrants exchanges and the new tax credits to help people buy insurance, the medicaid expansion, although that does not happen until 2014. he makes a fair point they are sort of from loading the bill with the revenue increases and then back loading it with benefits. it will have a cure is a fact in the next couple of years or you'll see the deficit might dip a little bit because of the initial increases in this legislation. about 2014, it will probably

start climbing again. host: hadas the house built line of the senate bill on the abortion issue? guest: i think it comes down to a personal interpretation of what to believe the legislation does. anti-abortion groups say the senate bill does not sufficiently restrict taxpayers subsidize insurance companies from covering abortion. what the bill requires is that if a woman wants coverage for abortion and she's getting a tax credit from the government to pay for her insurance, she asked to write two checks your insurance company. want a check for all of her normal medical coverage and a separate one for her abortion coverage. the insurance company has to keep the second pot of money segregated from the first pot, her fund to pay for all for normal medical expenses. tax subsidies would go to the first pot to help pay for her

medical expenses, but they could not go into this pot of money over here. anti-abortion groups say this segregation scheme is just an accounting gimmick and the money is fungible and subsidies will wind up paying for abortions. pro-choice groups say that is not correct. many abortion rights supporters say the senate bill is in fact too restrictive and ridiculous to ask women to write two checks to their insurance companies. host: there is scanned to dance between the house bill that anti-abortion advocates to mix up the ball in the senate bill allow them to underwrite abortions. she said if anything, both versions would end up restricting abortion coverage more than current law and some women whose insurance covers abortion would lose the benefit as a policies move to the new insurance exchanges. she says compare the language of

the senate and house measures and try to find suppose the differences. both would prevent insurers from being required to cover abortions and both would continue the existing prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortions and points out the catholic health association which represents catholic hospital supports the senate bill or catholic bishops are strongly opposed. alex wayne, how is this debate over the abortion issue playing out and how many people are still fighting with congressman bart stupak over really want to see his language from the house bill somehow included? guest: i ran into him yesterday for about 20 seconds and aston, congressman, do still have a dozen lawmakers on your side? and he said, yes. his opponents, democrats who support abortion rights, said his coalition is more like four or five people. it is interesting nancy pelosi has called a meeting this morning at 10:00 of all of the

democratic women in the house. sort of a conventional wisdom is the only reason she would be doing this is to talk about the abortion issue. i kind of wonder whether democrats have done some with counting and have decided they cannot pass this bill without stupak and his coalition support and so they will have to maybe do something on abortion. they cannot do it in the context of this bill, but they might be sort of pulling democratic women in the house as to whether they would be willing to do something to further restrict abortion and subsequent legislation. host: how complicated is that? this promise to make up for it in somewhat after the fact? is this something we may see playing out in a couple of areas? guest: it is really complicated. that is what is going on with his core help build. the house is quiet take up the combination of the senate bill -- the house is going to take up

the combination of the senate bill. the house is basically trust in the senate will take up this reconciliation bill and pass it and make all these various changes to the first health bill. there's no guarantee the senate will do that. the republicans and senate said it will offer tons of amendments to this piece of legislation and tried to stop it, even though typically they cannot filibuster it. democrats in the senate could give up on it. if nancy pelosi tries to do some sort of abortion legislation to satisfy bart stupak in the house, there's almost no chance it will get taken up in the senate where abortion-rights supporters have much stronger political hold. i think there is a big question about whether any of this clean- up legislation is ever going to happen. host: let's go to the democrats' line in plano, texas. caller: good morning.

first of all, i want to say -- don't cut me off. mr. wayne, you are sitting there and my wife and i are sitting there in total disagreement. i am listening to you and you sound like you're in total opposition. you already called your guest that the democrat is going to lose seats. democrats are mobilized and this effort. i manage a very large and called to practice here in dallas. every patient that we talked to is for this bill. i just want to give you some facts. i am also a member of the chamber of commerce here in dallas. i asked them for some facts yesterday on this. in 1995, 35% of all the packages republicans put forth, there

were 40-42 of these self executing rules in 1995. and 107th congress, 37% of the bills they put forth or in regard to this rule. i would be glad to chafax this o you. i would appreciate if you're going to have some on your show that is going to be in opposition, that at least put some of the opposite view on it. he just talked about bart stupak. we all know that he is going to be thrown out of office. this guy is gone to lose his seat. it is very important this bill passes. there are too many people that are sick. i see them every day in my practice. they come in with no insurance, on medicaid. we just had a woman yesterday with the primary entrance and she is taking chemotherapy

treatments and did not have a secondary insurance, so we had to cut her treatment. at the same time, she is out there trying to apply for medicaid and this woman makes $75,000 a year. host: do you think the health care bill currently up for debate would change things in your practice? guest: absolutely. it would change things dramatically. i worked at edge. -- i work at a medical center. the thing is, i myself-i make a decent salary -- i cannot afford my company's insurance. i cannot afford my insurance. my wife has to pay for a separate policy because of me, her come and the three children. physicians do not want to pay for anything. i think what you need to do is

understand the support of the democratic party voters, we are very mobilized. we are extremely mobilized. you are going to see such a commanding a vote for the democratic candidates around the country. you are underestimating the people of this country. what you're listening to are republicans who are going out there, these republicans to bust heads in washington, and constantly focusing on them like the show in the newspaper this morning with 300 republicans showing of the tea party event in washington. you are not paying attention. you need to get on the airwaves and listen to people around the country who are suffering. host: let's get a response. guest: i do not support or oppose the health bill, i just cover its. all i have said today are the

facts as i know them about the bill. anyway, i will not offend my personal position on the bill or whatever. i work for a non-partisan news co. and we do not take positions in legislation, just cover it. host: independent line, detroit, michigan. caller: i just do not understand these people in the republican party. stupak. i am a veteran. on the battlefield, we are fighting together as americans to save american lives. and when 40,000 or 50,000 americans are dying every year because of a lack of health care, i cannot figure out how the republicans are confused that they will pick up any seats

by the against the american people against health care, and on the side of the insurance companies. host: you hear from any of your readers this feeling of needing to have more unity and watching out for people who do not have insurance, even if you do have insurance? guest: that is an interesting question. our readers are most people in congress and people who live in washington, d.c., so unfortunately, i do not get a good sense from my readers of what is going on in the country. i get a sense of that from looking at polls, which are not an exact science, and from hearing from folks like it previous caller accusing me of being against the bill and a couple of callers before that who i think one was a very angry carl and cal, an angry republican and democrat. this is the dynamic that they're

facing in congress right now is to consider this legislation. there's a pontiff emotion on the right and left. they have to decide what is going to hurt us more. it would be nice if they would just decide what is good for the country, but i think everybody in the country knows that is not how congress always operates. all of these members are thinking in the back of their minds, if not the french, what happens to me in november if i vote for this piece of legislation? host: republican line, cincinnati. caller: thank you for having me on. first of all, i want to say to all of those who have called in that no one opposes health care reform. everyone agrees the system is broken, but this bill is not the bill that is going to fix it. it is done behind closed doors. it has been done of bribery. that is not the american way. that should not be the american way, ever.

we all agree health care is broken, but, for instance, my wife and i keep getting a bill for $126 that was paid two years ago. i have sent copies of my check time and again. it keeps coming back. they had admitted their mistake. they has been well over one of $26 tried to collect $126. the system is broken. this health care plan is not the one that is going to fix it. host: your response? guest: i think it is a reasonable concern because the bill has dodged the bill is very complex. i think there are democrats that would agree with me, their party has not done a terrific job of explaining what the bill would do. there are democrats in the house that our concern the cost containment measures in the bill are not sufficient, that it does not do enough to hold down the

rising cost of health care and related rising cost of insurance premiums. so it is a fair concern. there are many provisions in the bill that would be sort of experiments and cost control. a lot of folks in the democratic side, at least, think some of these various -- sort of like a thousand flowers blossoming, some of these things will turn into serious cost control measures. we will not know that until the bill is passed in these things are to develop. host: before we let you go, take us what we're going to today and the rest of the week. guest: today, there are a couple of events this morning. dennis kucinich's press conference, meeting with democratic women in the house. i hesitate to say, but we expect they probably will release the

bill and the cost estimate today. the rules committee could meet as soon as tomorrow to write a role for debate on legislation, the self exit hitting rule. then we would probably see a vote of all of this happens, on saturday. host: thank you for being with us. coming up, we will talk about the fcc's national broadband plan. >> steny hoyer declined to say democrats had enough votes to pass the health care bill, but hinted that they are ready to use a parliamentary process to get it done if needed brigid he went on to say house democratic leaders think they will have the boat when the roll is called. meanwhile, appearing on the same show, republican rep said that they do not have the votes yet.

the problem is there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding this bill. an update on the situation in the middle east, secretary of state clinton is dismissing the idea that u.s. is relations are in crisis saying the nation's have a close injectable bond. but she added the u.s. wants but israel and the palestinians to prove their commitment to peace. u.s. envoy george mitchell postponed a planned visit to israel. the new tensions and jerusalem have led to violent clashes between palestinians and israeli police. on capitol hill, dow jones report senator jim bunning who agrees senate vote on an unemployment bill earlier this month is delaying the confirmation vote for the office of u.s. trade representative because according to an aide, the u.s. tr has not done enough to defend his home state against the canadian anti-smoking law that in his words, unfairly discriminates against kentucky

ground tobacco. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> president obama announced his proposal to change the no child left behind wall. the house will hear about it today. secretary arne duncan testified before the education committee. live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern time. banking hearing federal reserve chairman ben bernanke and the chairman of the president's economic recovery advisory board talking about federal bank supervision and monetary policy online, live beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern time at c-span.org. >> lawmakers making the final push to get health legislation to the president's desk and you can follow the latest from the white house and capitol hill on the only network that covers washington gavel-to-gavel with no commercials or commentary. c-span. take us wherever you go, online.

to the latest with the radio app. >> after clearing the budget committee monday by 21-16, a burst of activity is likely in the next day or two as leaders release the final language of the bill and its cost estimate. rules committee likely as well and we may see floor debate by the end of the week. this weekend on c-span2 -- the economic crisis has left some questioning the value of of capitalism. former assistant education secretary on why two much testing is causing the death of the american school system.

find the entire weekend schedule and booktv.org. host: we're joined by a art brodsky to talk about the fcc's national broadband plan. thank you for being with us. to start off, take a look at comments made by the chairman of sec announcing the plan. >> why does america need a strategic plan for broadband? to compete globally and to great real opportunity. the rest of the world is not standing still and we are lagging in critical ways. not everyone is connected. not everyone who has access subscribes. not everyone has the digital skill they need to participate in a 20% 3 networked economy. the speech of our networks are not world class. we face real obstacles to our goals leading the world in mobile. we do not have a mobile

broadband public safety network for our first responders. the good news is that we can change course and the national broadband plan points the way. host: that's go to washington reporter first for an overview of what this all means. talk to us about the major points of this plan. >> if i can just drop a rough sketch of what the plan and tans, it's it's a pretty high goal first of all and then gives a laundry list of proposals of how to reach those goals. those goals are to bring the percentage of people who are not on line with art brodskbroadban. there are trying to connect those 5% of people in the u.s. to do not even have any way of getting broadband access. it has the goal of getting

speeds, bringing the connections to 100 million homes in 2020. those are sort of the highway goals from a bridge the digital divide, bring higher speed to the country. the more specific proposals really are very broad and far reaching and go from the cell phone and bringing airwaves from broadcaster tikrit local broadband networks. it also deals with five connections to the home and ringing high speeds. there is proposals to get people to adopt the otherwise would not and even as you do have connections because either they do not feel like the technology is relevant to them, too expensive or it is difficult for them -- they do not have the training to actually use it. those are adoption programs. there is a lot of initiatives for that. it really is very far reaching.

there is lots of specific ideas. fcc brought this big plan, 388 pages come to congress yesterday. congress will hold two hearings maskenext week. it will be a long process. there is already a lot of concerns by industry participants, companies, internet service providers, who are concerned about service -- particular proposals. some are worried about getting over their licenses in a way they feel could be fair for them, if they can get the kind of revenue share they think is fair, for example. we understand brolly that the whole idea of connecting the whole country as the rest of the world is also racing to bring broadband to their people. the u.s. has a plan and presented it to congress.

and now it is the hard work. host: you have an article, looking at the big questions that listeners and viewers may have, i would ask about one. what does the planning for me today? what does this mean for folks who are connected well or who are not? >> it depends on who you are. are you in that 35% of the u.s. who is not connected to broadband for whatever reason? or are you someone who, like me, i live in the suburbs and have great speed right now? for me, probably nothing today and maybe not for years. if you're one of those people who are either in an area we do not have access at all or you are not adopting, maybe low income, the plan provides specific ways to try to get you on line, to help you either with affordability, making it more comprehensible, more easy to

use. in the end, by 2020 -- again, this is a long-range plan. frankly, because it is so long range, there is probably going to be a fair amount of impatience about when you will see some of these things roll out and are the targets high enough in terms of speeds and prices. so for a lot of america, they will not see their monthly bill change, number one, and it will not necessarily see the speeds offered in their home at change. they may not see the number of providers that are offered to them increase or decrease, but there are all kinds of measures in the plan that are attempting to address this in the long term, to address competition, to address the value and affordability. but, really, the devil is in the details and it is one to be a long pushed. host: fcc could adopt rules.

how aware do think americans really are of what kind of speed they have and what broadband really is and if that access to it? >> it is a really interesting proposal in the plan and that it seems like sort of -- it is a plan that deals with data and i think a fair amount of people will gloss over it, but it is very important. the collection of data gives you a sense of how competitive the market is, allows the fcc to take information on the speeds people are getting compared to the advertised speeds of their isp, that they are betraying you will receive. -- are powertrain you will receive. it allows an deceitfully what the picture is. -- it allows them to see what the picture is. there is no really good data on

speed and price and those are the two main ingredients for anyone to evaluate whether internet service is a value to them. it is important for the country, the federal government to compare ourselves with other nations. host: how significant is this proposal? it's a really not taking this very far? >> i think it is a mixed bag. on the one hand, the chairman said you need a sort of a comprehensive plan, just a big litany of ideas that are together in this sort of form to pick it from where we work, which was not really knowing or having a clear plan or direction on how the u.s. should grapple with the race for broadband is tappinhappening globally.

it is a plan. that means congress and the fcc can choose to agree or reject these proposals in any form. it can be very watered down or some can be strengthened. again, i think it is going to be a lot of the success -- history will be the judge on whether politics tromps or if it is summit is -- in some of these plans are carried out. host: thank you for being with us. let's get to our guests here in the studio, art brodsky and adam thierer. looking at the fcc's chairman's comments come at where do think this takes us? guest: it takes us in a 180 degree turn from where we were the past eight years. a while ago, a former fcc chairman looked at broadband and committed to a mercedes.

not everyone can own it. this plan brings the concept of digital conclusion to say our country says no one is left behind it is a long tradition whether it is electricity or telephone service and not upgrade in broadband this is a great start to bringing us to something we should have done ages ago. host: adam thierer? guest: it is ambitious, if nothing else. perhaps a little too ambitious for my blood. the big problem is that it takes on the form of almost a national industrial policy for broadband and the internet. and how you feel about something like that i guess is how you think government can handle the task of essentially planning for high-technology markets and demand and fast-paced moving markets like the internet. i am a little skeptical. i do not mind seeing our government target certain and it needs, the small percentage of homes that have no access which

is a problem. it is a good thing to take on. but this document, hundreds and hundreds of pages of analysis and recommendations, and assembly began to wonder is this something we want as the equivalent to liking it to health care, a public option for internet? and you feel about that debate in health care may foreshadow how you feel about it in the world of broadband. host: what would you like to see? guest: there is a number of proposals that are set forth in the national broadband plan that are not so much about the question of incentivizing demand or helping fill unmet needs, but more about things like how can we regulate traditional markets? how can we reimpose rules that have already been taken off the books or struck down as unconstitutional? that kind of thing will create a lot of controversy. i would like to have seen the

fcc keep a lot of that out of the mix and focus on filling these niches. host: art brodsky, to the private industry has the power to take care of this on its own -- do you think private industry has the power to take care of this on its own? guest: that is the problem. it private industry had taken care of it on its own, we would not be talking about our ranking in the world in broadband access. there are unmet needs. that is why congress felt it necessary to put this plan in place. not just the telephone companies, but libraries and such. i think this is more of a grand strategy than it planned telling people where to build and when to build. host: we're talking about the

fcc's broadband plan. you can join the conversation. let's go to the first caller from chicago, illinois, democrat line. caller: how are you doing today? host: we're all fine. what do you think? caller: once everybody is connected, then what? all of this data will services for corporations to increase their profitability. like i tell my nephews, there's a difference between information fact and truth. again, once everybody is connected, and then what? host: art brodsky, your

response? guest: yet to understand how our economy has changed and how much everything we do goes on line. more than 80% of the fortune 500 required job applicants apply on-line. counties like jefferson county, alabama, require people to apply for jobs online. i am the chairman of the library board in recovery, maryland -- and montgomery, maryland and people come in to search for jobs, learn new things. this is where the economy is going. that is an important why everybody has basic connection. host: you mentioned you see a need for rural areas and people and more impoverished areas needing to get on line. how far you think the government should be involved and try to get the neediest americans access to broadband? guest: this has always been a fundamental problem.

i don't care if it is electricity, energy, sewage and plumbing systems. when i was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, we still had outhouses you could find on farms. that is how long it took for plumbing and sewage to reach some of these communities. i think what a lot of people -- the spread of networks is slow, especially in the country like u.s. our population density compared to other nations is very low population density. we're always in, what can we be more like south korea? it is the base of the size of my home town in illinois. everybody is tightly packed and read it will be easier to wire those communities in a country like america who has rhode island and on one hand and one in on the other, very different circumstances. host: who should be responsible? what money would go to it?

guest: we do have subsidy groups on the books. we could rededicate those funds as the fcc is proposing to target those to be answered households, especially those in rural communities. a lot will have to the bottom host: the thing that is enough, art brodsky? guest: i take his point about the population, but frankly, the percentage of people in the urban areas and rural areas is comparable to other areas around the world. would be wired up. i think it is clear with a long way to go. host: that's go to florida come independent line. caller: a couple of questions, number one, is this broadband plan looked at in the same basis sameour tv?

i pay my cable provider and a pay them almost like $60 a month for my cable television and then they have the audacity to try to charge another $45 a month for broadband when the are have a wire and my house. why do they think they deserve to become millionaires on the back of people in this process? guest: networks do not fall like manna from heaven. someone has to build them. they are expensive. rolling out fiber to the home is an enormous undertaking. billions of dollars have been spent to do so. last year, something like $60 billion and buy private broadband providers and something like $350 billion since 2003. the reality is, unless you have

some sort of investment along the lines of that with competing companies, you're not going to have true full-fledged competition. if we want to go back to a regulated monopoly era and have one single provider, and maybe that is the government, we could have a bland service for america and have highly regulated, but will we get the innovation and investment we need for the future? i don't think so. guest: you raise a good question and florida. this is where we have some differences. you do not have a choice, i would be a willing to bet. when you have one provider who can charge, you're basically stuck. one thing this plan looks at is how to bring more competition into the market? no one is looking about a single government provided service. what we're talking about the robust competition like we had 10 years ago in the isp market. one of my great props and did not bring down here is a

directory revised from 1998. thanks to the fcc, it has shrunk we basically have no choice. consumers have no choice b. >> fcc wants to encourage more people to watch internet video on their tv sets which they say will prompt them to buy and use internet access and the right come to reach this goal, the fcc people devisable bridge device or software that will easily connect tvs to both in the cable or satellite tv service and the internet by the end of 2012. if it becomes easier to watch what it is on the tv, it is for people to cut subscriptions for tv service. good or bad? guest: we get back to the concern i have about fcc. when the world are we mucking around the market that works as well as the video marketplace? my kid is watching television on anything but an actual tv anymore. watching it on video game

consoles, hand-held portable needed devices, mobile phones. fcc is preoccupied with his interest is a debate that is about 20 years ago, about what the set top boxes should look like and be regulated. that is probably a step backwards. host: art brodsky, do see this as an advantage for a step forward? guest: the problem is, it is the law approved that telecommunications act was passed in 1996 and one of the features was that the set top boxes had to be available to you the same way by any other consumer electronics. there are hundreds of cell phones, 11 set top boxes. through the years, the fcc has granted waivers, put off enforcement. this is one of the key features of the bill that was never brought to light and as sort of been ignored by the fcc and has the potential to open a consumer choice. host: richmond, kentucky, republican. caller: thank you for taking my

call. this sounds just like another government program which down the road will just add to our national debt, which is looming on the horizon like a big black cloud. host: you have broadband internet access? caller: no, i don't. host: do you miss it? caller: not at all. host: you use it at your public library or anywhere? caller: no, i do not. guest: the caller is concerned as are many people about raising what is already a bloated national debt. the reality is, this plan in some ways is a massive unfunded mandates. fcc claims the entire thing will be revenue neutral or revenue positive and bases all this on the notion that will get back a lot of spectrum for people who already have it and then be able to read auction id in the future, take the revenues from those options and everything

they already have. hundreds of recommendations. people clearly have the spectrum. to get it back will be difficult. broadcast television licensees have all lot of it and do not like the idea of an eviction notice from the fcc sent they have to get rid of it to read auction it. i think serious trouble lies ahead for the fcc as it looked to see how to find this what could become a giant pork barrel. host: do you think it could be self funded? guest: sure, take a look at what is in there. most are recommendations, not for the fcc but for other agencies of government. it will be up to congress to fund those. let's get back to what we agreed on and that is bringing service to rural areas and underserved areas. that money is already there. $15 million or $16 million goes to support telephone service that would be shifted over to

support broadband service, so that is why they say it will be revenue neutral or revenue producing, which would be nice. host: democrat line, california. caller: i live in california and we do not have cell phone or cable-tv. we do not have broadband. we've been trying desperately to get broadband. i am in a remote area of eastern california near death valley were less than 50 people, about 40 miles from town, and we a people that could work here who have homes here but have to live somewhere else because they do not have broadband. we a people that could be doing ebay businesses. we have people -- one guy has to commute. he got a job as a consultant for boeing and as to commit over tutored miles because he got a satellite but it is not satisfactory -- he has to

commute over 200 miles because he got a satellite, but it is not as activsatisfactory. they just will not give as broad and because they do not believe it is enough money in it for them. we have people who want to continue their education. one woman is 50 and she has a lot of people that are older. she has three years of college and wants to continue her education but cannot do it. we're even limited to 28.8 because of our carrier -- our phone carrier is an antique type switch and we cannot even get over 28.8, which a people know, there is night and day between getting above that because then you get into a different protocol. we cannot even get fast dial-up. host: what can he do? guest: that is a classic definition of market failure. unfortunately, at this juncture,

if your fund company does not come in and no one else comes in, yet to get creative. there are things in the plan to address that. first, fcc is talking about making role companies require them to interconnect with other networks. suppose you're near someone else. you could theoretically get a connection to another network if it is not verizon. also in the plan, give greater latitude for non-phone companies, like political jurisdictions, cities, to build their own networks and would because required to connect to the telephone company or a cable network. that is the kind of thing where the market has now taken care of the problem and need some regulatory steps to try to get service to people that otherwise would never get it. host: adam thierer, what you think the california caller should do? guest: it is a difficult situation.

anyone separated from major networks will have a difficult time in the short term. we make trade-offs when we live in rural communities. i came from a family of farmers that did not have a lot of luxuries that you find in suburban or big city areas. that is something that is really difficult, but eventually the services spread out. fcc plan could have some investment in that area. art brodsky's idea, at present but that was a good idea. we have had a lot of experiments with municipal fiber and they have failed one after the other and having the taxpayers bailout these municipal investments and high-speed networks because government is not good in gauging demand or building high-speed networks and figuring out how to pay for them. these networks are not free or cheap. somebody has to make the investment and pay the bill at the end of the day. host: our guests are art brodsky and adam thierer.

. let's go to the republican line, seattle. hosyou are on "washington journl ." caller: a basic question, we do have cable. they are terrible. the system was breaking down every two hours once a day. i have to change to dhs. my question, and a previous conversation, for work to send over the internet for the employer, shouldn't that be an option of the state to make some mandatory steps?

that would be a good thing for the employer as well if they are willing to find a really good employee to get the written down application are needy person face-to-face instead of talking over the computer. . .

guest: that's incentive for somebody else to provide an alternative, hopefully. that's what we bet on here in america. what we're doing is we're having a grand experiment with whether or not facilities-based competition in the field of broadband and internet provision can work. a lot of other countries surrendered on that and said, no, we're just going to have the state provision or have a regulated monopoly private carrier. we've taken a different course since 2003, something art and i have had serious disagreements about. but i'm willing to see how this pans out. it's going to take some failures out there. that this is something that a lot of people don't like the admit, to get people to provide alternatives. host: a democratic caller in lafayette, georgia. good morning. please turn off your tv or radio. khalid sheikh my concern is we

keep adding on and adding on. we have enough competition after this. not that i am after this. all the channels we already have. we get it to come on and then be back soon. then we get cut off on television. the same thing. we got too many disruptions as it is. and when we keep adding to that problem, it's not just only costly. particularly we have such a terrible deficit. i think we should lay it on ice for a while and see how to keep on working. because i cannot deal with that. host: ok. let's go to art brodsky. what is the danger in letting things play out and letting the private industry kind of take control for another decade and see where things go?

guest: this is where we started the discussion. and that is, if you look at our progress over the last eight years, it's been in one direction, down. and what the f.c.c. and the obama administration want to do is reverse that. this is where adam and i have some interesting disagreements about how it should take place. frankly, what's really interesting about this discussion, you look at who's the conservative and who's not. we look at the way the telecommunication laws worked for 70 years and they worked pretty well. they governed a network that was a cranky old network in the 1930's, up through the 1990's and the early 2000's where lots of advances were made. fairness and non-discrimination, and frankly, sharing of facilities. and to turn all that around and throw all that out, that seems to be the radical thing. guest: so i hear art being nostalgic, where we all had the same black row tari dial phone. because it was

non-discriminatory policies governing it, that was the good old days. no, i'm sorry. we had no competition. we didn't walk around with cell phones in our pockets and purses. we live in a better era today precisely because we got away from that regulatory mentality. i don't think we should go back to it. >> art brodsky, what did we learn from the history of telephone regulation, telecommunication? guest: what we learned is there are a couple of groups of people who can provide service. one of those are the companies with big pockets that have the ability to build their own networks, and there are basically two kinds of those, telephone companies and cable companies. but there's a whole other sector out there, lots of entrepreneurs, that if you gave them the raw materials of a network, they could do marvelous things on their own. but they can't get access to those raw materials because the f.c.c. said no, no, no, all these are just for the phone

companies and cable companies. nobody is talking about a centrally planned economy. nobody is talking about the old dial-up black phones. what we're talking about is allowing access, the potential of allowing access again, as happened b to those networks and letting other people put their electronics on, their ingenuity on and see if it develops. guest: what art is talking about, we're talking about infrastructure sharing. we're talking about the idea that we should have private carriers share their investments, their core networks, with other providers. and we went down this path in the late 1990's and the early 2000's trying to experiment with this infrastructure-sharing machine where people would ride on top of existing private networks. it did not work out so well. investment suffered, innovation suffered. essentially we were building networks on paper, not in reality. we need to move away from that idea of infrastructure sharing, which at its worst, becomes a form of infrastructure socialism where essentially everybody is sharing the means of production.

i would rather have competing providers providing us with come peting services. host: the chairman of the f.c.c. had a piece in "the washington post" over the weekend, and writes our nation is at a high-tech cross roads. either we commit to creating world leading broadband network to make sure the next way of innovation and business growth occur here or we watch inventions and jobs migrate to those parts of the world with better, faster, and cheaper communications and infrastructure. let's go to our next cammer. jackie on the independent line. caller: good morning, spann spann. y'all do a great job. i agree with the call from california. that's the price you pay for living in paradise. my internet connection is analog dial-up. i would love to be able to get rid of my land line. the carrier stops five miles to eight miles down the road and won't come out any further. so my question to you guys, are

we paying a fee for people to get cell phones. i think y'all mentioned about the fee for, you know, the fee to get broadband out here. y'all have no idea what it's like. the postal service fixing to go under. you'll start doing all your transaction by the internet. it's ridiculous to have to wait this many years to get broadband. i'd rather be private, but somebody make them come out here. i'm a customer. the more people you put on, it's more volume of customers and you get your money. thank you guys. thanks a bunch for what y'all do. guest: this is the kind of caller we should be foe kissed on the broadbrand plan. finding the community where there is not access and finding a way to incentivizing it. we do have some existing pools of funds that are basically paid for through line items on your phone bills or other types of fees that are part what what we call the universal service fund

or other cost funds that basically subsidize these homes. when we move those over to provision broadband, those will help a little bit. another idea i floated that still hasn't caught on is the idea of voucherizing this. what we're talking about here is essentially an entitlement. if we're going to have an entitlement for broadband, why not put the money in the hands of the consumer themselves, let them shop around for competing services and only make that voucher redeemable in some sort of high speed broad band service. hopefully that shopping without $1 will encentivize. guest: it's hard to have a voucher with competing services if you don't have any services at all. this gets back to the fundamentals of the country. there was no emphasis from the government. there was no emphasis on the policy about extending service to everyone. and that's what this country is about. it's about universal service.

that philosophy goes back 100 years. there would be parts of this country that wouldn't be wired for electricity unless it was a national priority. this plan says, look, this is a national priority to get this woman served, get that fellow served. let's get her done. host: anthony, republicans line in massachusetts. good morning. caller: gofrpbing. how are you all doing? host: good. go ahead. caller: i was going to ask about the competition with the seemingly limitless to compete with the private companies to compete with them and how that would be somehow fair. but after hearing the conversation, i really have to ask, where in the constitution is this legal? where does the federal government have the power to oversee our internet regulation? as far as i can tell, this is a state issue. if it's a governmental issue at all, it's a state issue. we would like to have everyone covered as a smoke and mirrors

tactic, because internet is available from satellite providers who do not require broadband access. host: let's get a response from art brodsky. guest: if you want to go back to regulating interstate commerce, that's what you're doing. what we're talking about is having the government deal with the access to the internet, not all the web servers. internet access is regulated through interstate commerce clause. that's solid, there's no question about that. guest: i'm sympathetic to what the caller's concern is. where do the powers come from in our constitution for the federal communications commission to do what they do? but from the 1930's on, the new deal era, there were changes done to the structure of our constitution which authorized regulatory agencies to not only come into existence but also

start to regulate not just on the economic front, but also on the speech and content side. so for better for worse, the question is, what are the limits we're going to impose on the authority of the f.c.c. to reach deeply into the internet company and regulate content or conduits? host: looking at a piece in "the new york times" detailing some more information about the plan, that it also proposes to allot more wireless from mobile devices, redirect some subsidies to broad back access, and create a digital literacy core to train new users. let's go to venice, florida. john on our democrats line. john, welcome. caller: yes. hello, c-span. i thought i would call you this morning. i have a unique service. i'm handicapped and i use the touch tone phone to get on to the internet.

no screen, no keyboard. i'm talking over the phone right now. and i am a political junkie, democrat. and i use a number of the venice area democratic club and i communicate online and it cost me $13 per month. i am listening to you on directv. and i have the tv off and i only audioly listen to you through the elaborate system in speakers that i have now.

my name is john west. i live in venice. and nobody had the word venice, so i took the word venice. host: let me get a response. guest: sounds like what john has access to is pretty exciting. it was not available 10 years ago. we shouldn't take it lightly how far we've come in this country in a very short period of time. one thing i like is the way it kicks off by saying 25 years ago we didn't have this thing called the internet or broadband. this is an ini thing, 25 years ago this week is the anniversary of the first dot-com address that was awarded on the internet. we have to think about the fact that in our lifetimes, we have come a long, long way. and, yes, we need to get more access to broadband to more folks out there, especially in rural and impoverished communeties, but the reality is

let's not lose sight of the fact of how far we've come. host: art brodsky? guest: yes, we've come a long way, but the point is how do we improve on that? that's what the fk did. saying, look, we have come so far. we'll go further. host: does john's story about the ability to speak on the phone and the internet excite you? guest: yes. there are a lot of things you can do now. you can make phone calls using skype or other services and we think that's fabulous. a lot of that is because of people who don't own the networks but are smart enough to figure out ways to use the networks to get new services out. host: coming off of that for one moment, adam, do you see a component of the s.e.c. report saying we need more literacy in order to be able to use these tools being important? guest: i don't have a problem with that. the call for more literacy, that's the low hang fruit here. i think obviously the idea of

getting more information out to the public so that they understand broadband, broadband choices. i don't have a big problem with that. i spent a lot of time writing about online child safety issues. there are a lot of concerns that parents have about what their children might find online. digital literacy can go a long way toward addressing those concerns. i don't have a problem with that. host: let's go to john, independent line in junction city, kansas. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: you bet. go right ahead. caller: all this internet stuff, i think it's about the dollar. and they can see a lot of money exchanged through the internet. and i don't know what the deal is. it seems like they're reaching

for more money, which they can't control. host: either of you gentlemen have a response to ha? guest: a lot of stuff in a capitalist economy is about the dollar. the reality is people are out to make money when they build networks and products and goods and services, regardless of the internet. so the reality is we have to get used to the fact that somebody has shareholders, employees, have to pay these people or provide returns. i don't think there's anything wrong with having a private marketplace and high-technology. guest: that's true. one of the great myths and canards of the debates we have here is that once upon a time, the former chairman of what is now at&t said that he didn't want anybody using his networks for free. nobody uses for networks for free. everybody pays something. that's just the way the system works. host: arlington, virginia. scott on our republicans line. caller: i'm a systems analyst

contractor for a federal agency here in d.c. i see firsthand the incompetence of the government from my perspective and from a lot of my contract co-workers. i guess that brings up a broader point. we're talking about regulation, legislation. basically government involvement in just about anything. if you look at the root cause, peel back the layers of any issue or problem discussed today, from health care to cable access, peel back those layers and you will find government legislation and regulation to the core, every single time. host: art brodsky? guest: but you also find government legislation and regulation at the heart of things that help people, too. that's a debate much broader than we have time or scope for here. but the caller raises valid points. nobody's perfect. the government screws up. if you watch the whole toyota thing, you see companies screw up. we have a number of great attributes as people, but we

have not yet achieved perfection. guest: i'm sympathetic to the caller on this, because i do see a lot of government failure. but you think about the way governmented have must haved up the world of communication and broad band through the years. there's been regulations at the state level that have governed franchises that you have to have before you provide service. it has greatly targeted investment and new forms of competition. i'd like to see that change with a light touch approach to high-technology on the internet. host: let's go to florida. irene, democratic caller. good morning, irene. caller: thank you for taking my call. you're a very well-versed person. i appreciate you. my question is this. i would have loved to talk about my past enterprise. but right now i'd like a question answered, like how much is too much? i too came from a party co-op,

multi-person line back in the country in the hills of ohio. and my question is now, here i am, fast forward. and i have the basic cable system coming in, which i pay into a corporation. and then in order to receive internet, i have to pay comcast over an extra $100 a month. i'm paying $50 some for basic cable and in order for me to get the higher, i pay the extra money the them. so what is the answer here? how much is too much? how many layers do i need? guest: that's a question that each consumer will have to answer for themselves. but extra services will cost extra money. if you're subscribing to more than basic cable, or you're getting enhanced extended

services, you're going to pay a little bit more. if you want hbo or super fast broadband. i mean, in my community i'm lucky to have fiber service that can offer up to 50 megabits per second. that's blazing fast for most folks. i don't get that because it's extremely expensive compared to the 20 that i get, which is still pretty fast, but i pay a lot more than other people. there is no free lunch. at some point we have to pay the bills for what we are asking for. we can say, ok, the government should regulate the price and everybody should get it for $5 a month. well, again, no free lunch. that cost is passed along to the taxpayer or somebody else is picking it up through an indirect fee or something else, and it will eventually land in the pockets and be paid by consumers. host: do you feel at this point that broadband access is a right of every american? guest: i think we have to be careful when we use the language of rights. it's important. we can all agree on that. we want to do more than

incentivize. when we talk about rights, though, we are saying that the government has a requirement provided to each and every american, and that changes the tone and the nature of every debate when you cast it in terms of absolute rights. so i think we need to be careful about that because it will end up being a massive unfunded government entitlement program and end up breaking us like a lot of the others did. host: art brodsky? guest: these political discussions with political philosophy so early in the morning. former journalist like me is just as sea here with. this we're not talk about any of that stuff. we're talking about how our society views the people who need help. and as we said this morning, whether it's health care, social security, and medicare. whether it's electricity through r.e.a., our society has the philosophy of trying to help people make them a full part of the community. now, you can call that an inalienable right, a governmental policy, whatever you want. but that's what we bleevepl i

think the caller raises a real good example of something that coughs up in this debate. i'd be willing to debate there isn't a whole lot of competition where that caller is from. a lot of times you hear, gee, 90-some people have access to broadband but only one choice. part of what we can probably agree on is let's get some competition in there. let's see who provides it. let's see how we can bring prices down, bring feature features up, help everybody. host: art brodsky, thank you for being with us. and adam thierer, thank you as well. coming up, we'll talk about civilian trials versus military tribunals with jeff goldblum from "the wall street journal." first, a news update. -- with jess bravin from "the wall street journal." >> the largest drop in seven

months. stock futures holding on to modest gains following the release of the report. economic issues will be one of the topics discussed today when president obama and ireland's prime minister meet at the white house. the irish leader comes to washington after implementing budget cuts to address his country's debt. after their talks, the two leaders will attend house speaker nancy pelosi's friends of ireland luncheon at the capital on this st. patrick's day. a pakistani court is charging five americans with plans terror attacks in pakistan. a defense lawyer says the men, all muslims from the washington, d.c. area, were also charged with plans to wage war against countries that are in alliance with pakistan. their lawyer says they were hoding to afghanistan and had no plans to stage attacks inside pakistan. if convicted of all charges, the men could face life in prison. meanwhile, fighting continues in the region. two officials say that suspected

u.s. drones fired missiles at vehicles and hit a militant hide-out in a tribal region of american pakistan today, killing at least nine insurgents. we'll be hearing from general mcchrystal on the issue at 10:30 eastern here live on c-span radio. on the domestic front, u.s. companies that hire unemployed workers get a temporary payroll tax holiday under a bill head for likely senate passage today. a positive vote will send the legislation to the white house for the president's signature. the u.s. senate begins work on the measure at the bottom of the hour. live coverage on c-span 2. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. host: jess bravin from "the wall street journal," thank you so much for coming in. we're here to talk with you today about military tribunals and how they diver from civilian trials. talk to us about where weir at in this discussion right now. guest: well, last year the congress reauthorized the military commissions anth, added a few more procedureal rights.

there are several detainees that have been awaiting charge at guantanamo bay before military commission. but most is focused on five co-defendants who are accused of conspiring and orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. and the obama administration has vacillated between having a military commission trial for them or assigning them to trial in federal district court. initially in new york. and now uncertain where that trial would be, if it does take place in federal district court. host: the attorney general eric holder testified before congress yesterday. what did we learn from him? guest: we did not learn that much. we learned a decision about the venue for the 9/11 trial is weeks away, rather than months. of course, months are made up of weeks, so it's hard to know exactly what that means. he defended the administration's preference to have the choice of using either military

commissions or federal district court, which is the same options that the bush administration had previously. he didn't really elimination much that we didn't already know. this was an appropriations committee hearing rather than a policy hearing. i'd say that the attorney general didn't back away from his own preference, being a former civilian prosecutor himself. but he didn't insist that these particular defendants would go to one place or another. host: you reported this week that the obama administration may be leaning towards a military tribunal, but that reversing court from a civilian trial would bring its own complications. last month, defense department lawyers concluded that he can't plead guilty to capital crimes in a military tribunal. that means the government might have to conduct a full trial and

prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. how significant is that? >> well, i've attended in the court proceedings at guantanamo bay before the military commissions there, including the one where they attempted to plead guilty before the military judge. but military commissions are a -- they're a novel enterprise and the united states does not have much experience with them. and many of their procedures are from the uniformed code of military justice. one of the procedures in that code, which is intended to promote the discipline and good order of american military forces, is that in a capital charge, a death sentence cannot be imposed unless the defendant has been found gment guilty and death sentence imposed by unanimous verdict. that is, i'm told, part of the paternalistic aspect of ucmj, because it involves a hierarchy

with soldiers charged and generals often wanting punishment. that's perhaps to protect them from any sort of pressure from the command structure. that may be important when you're dealing with persons not part of the military. however, that is the way the law is currently written. so the government has to follow the law. and the military justice specialist, the department of defense concluded that that is what is required. what the obama administration tried to do when this went up to the defense secretary's office, secretary gates' office, was find some sort of work-around, some kind of procedural way, where maybe if the defendant really want to plead guilty and the judge really wants to take that plea, they can find some abbreviated procedure that is short of a full trial, but more than just the normal hearing where a defendant pleads guilty. whether that is legally sufficient is unknown because this is a new system and it is not given the kind of deference that the federal courts or courts martial are by the review

in federal courts. host: how significant is that in terms of what a verdict may be? and when the obama administration considers what the outcome of this will be. guest: well, there is a sort of abstract nature to this. for people familiar with the allegations, the ultimate result of guilty regarding whichever form he is tried in does not seem much in doubt, you know, for people in the criminal justice system, probably the overwhelming number of defendants in the american criminal justice system are convicted on evidence much less clear than already exists against ca lead shake muhammud. whether he is put before a jury of 12 new yorkers or a six navy captains, given what i have seen of him in court, just the open

source evidence that was collected before he was even captured, it seems extremely unlikely that sms someone is going to be found not guilty by a jury or military panel. so it's really not a question of whether he's convicted. the questions really are two areas. they meanly deal not with his conduct, but with the conduct of the united states. a federal district judge does not answer to the administration and therefore may be more inclined to hear what defense lawyers argue when it comes to his alleged mistreatment by the united states. if the government is found to have been engaged in misconduct, that might affect -- that might atect the sentencing. so the government wants a death

sentence. if the government were to find the conduct so egregious, it might punish. but it's quite speculative. i think as a realistic prospect, whether he is tried in federal court, the question for him is life in prison or death sentence. >> on the same day i announced the decision to try khalid sheikh mohammed in an article three court in new york, i made the decision that a man would be tried in a military commission. he is one of the people responsible for the bombing of the u.s.s. cole. a military target was involved. the casualties are brave say lors, military -- sail -- sailors, military men. there are rules of evidence that exist in military commissions

that are more favorable towards the acceptance of hearsay evidence. on a case bicase determination, you have to make decisions as to where the case can be best tried. it doesn't mean that you're being unfair, i think, to the defendant. you're simply looking at the forum that really best suits the particular facts of each case. military commissions certainly play a role. host: let's go to a caller, jeff, on the independent line in dallas, texas. caller: thank you for taking my call. let me try to pull a couple points together,, so if you could give me a second on that. i want to make the connection between politicians and military people. and us dropping the atomic bombs on japan, because in the civilian vs. military court

situation here. i know the two will always go together, politics and the military. but when you let political minds make military decisions, you get this kind of trouble. for instance, i think after world war ii, after we did drop the bomb, i think the abhorrence of it was so strong and maybe to deter other countries from doing it, we took that stand, because no one wants to brag about having dropped an atomic bomb, etch though i believe it was necessary. i think the political minds took over from the military. i think that's why america hasn't really won a war flat out or even declared wars out flat out since that time. host: let's get a response from jess bravin. guest: well, after world war ii, the japanese high command was put on trial. the international military tribunal at tokyo. and that was a trial by the allied powers.

but there were many, many more military commissions held throughout the far east. u.s. army commissions held in occupied japan and u.s. navy commissions held in guam. those trials were kind of interesting by the way that they established the standards of prisoner treatment that the united states expected when enemy forces held american prisoners. i did a piece a couple years ago that looked at the records of those trial. it was interesting to see what the u.s. considered to be war crimes at that time. for instance, not registering prisoners with the international red cross or making prisoners perform exercises on a sunday, failing to post camp rules. things like that were treated as war crimes by the united states when they were done in connection with americans held captive by our enemies. so it is an interesting point to look at. so there is some history from the far east war that is worth looking at in terms of military justice. i'm not sure the decision regarding atomic weapons is quite on point, however. host: is there a separation

right now between military decision and political decisions when it comes to this trial? so much of what we're hearing is political aspect of where it should happen. guest: that is something a lot of people in the legal community find a bit troubling. yes, there is a certain level -- a juncture betweenly or justice decisions. but when there's an appearance that the government is shopping around for which forum based on political concerns from members of congress, where they think they're most likely to get a conviction, where they'll have the best advantage in conducting the trial, to a certain extent, that's the legitimate part of the gamesmanship in litigation. when it becomes political decisions about prosecution choice, some judges will raise eyebrows. host: let's go to susan, republicans line in riverside, california. caller: first of all, nobody talks about the motivation.

you have to start from that. representativepress.org talks about the motivation behind 9/11. we were attacked for our support for israel, and assault and battery -- and osama bin laden said it, khalid sheikh mohammed said it and others have said it. not only support for israel, but what the money is going to. cluster bombs and the whole bit. for settlements. that yahoo! is going against the law by doing that. he's extending more by saying that. aerial sharone said something interesting, he said that they own america. guest: khalid sheikh mohammed and some of his co-defendants have made similar sorts of claims. they want to change the subject to what they think are america's provocations that led them or

they believe forced them to commit acts of terror and mass murder in the united states and against americans. this is a typical thing that political or religious fanatics do in trials like this. they try to change the subject to what the government or authorities did that provoked them to take some kind of extreme action. but when it comes down to law, motive doesn't matter. the fact that someone may be -- you know, feel aggrieved politically is not at all a justification for committing a crime. and i don't think that you're going to find a lot of interest among any -- from the most stern to the greatest bleeding heart judge in the american judiciary, civilian or military, will care about the political complaints that defendants who committed terror acts have as a justification for murder. host: attorney general holder talked about osama bin laden

today. "usa today" reports that he told congress that bin laden will never face trial in the united states because he will not be captured alive. homeder compared bin laden to mass murderer charles manson and predicted events will ensure we will be reading the miranda rights to the corpse of bin laden, not to the al qaeda leader as a captive. guest: the charles manson part, which is charles manson was arrested in california in 1969 and tried for a series of mass murderers. he was a serial killer and a mass murderer, most famously sharon tate and her friends' murders in los angeles in 1969. but when he was tried, he was able to invoke the constitutional procedures and he was convicted. there is a similarity that charles manson is also a fanatic so. he, perhaps like some of these defendants, and we've seen some behavior like this in the

preliminary hearings at guantanamo bay, he was less interested in evading punishment than to make statements. he also tried to change the subject about what was going on in the country and why the children in the country -- i mean, he was trying to not get into, oh, you got the wrong guy. i was never there. it was not that kind of defense. it was the same kind of fanatic defense, like you guys are the real criminals, sort of thing. so that type of fanatical show trial effort that he and his co-defendants puft on didn't really -- put on didn't really stand in the way of him being convicted and essentially sentenced to death. he wasn't excuted for other reasons. so i think holder was trying to say charles manson, when people talk about the u.s. constitution protecting americans and how aliens don't deserve those protections, well, charles manson, not the most sympathetic of americans was convicted under those rules and and still has a

very unpleasant existence in prison. so i think that was his point. don't think that we're coddling people. the constitution protects americans who happen to be murderers as well as others. i think that was his point. in terms of whether bin laden would be captured or not, that was an interesting statement, not so much for its legal views, but it seemed to reflect perhaps a policy choice that the administration has made that they will not take him prisoner, that they will execute him or shoot on site. he seemed to be suggesting that he thinks bin laden would prefer to commit suicide than be captured alive. and i don't know. maybe that's true. sometimes people who try to commit suicide are taken alive anyway. i was a little puzzled by the de10tive way he said that, unless it reflectings --

reflects a decision that just the way a predator strikes or assassinate enemy commanders, unless they've made a decision they won't take him alive, which raises some interesting legal questions as well, because under the laws of wark an enemy who surrenders or is captured alive, you're not permitted to execute him on the field. host: let's go to rob, democrats line in augusta, georgia. caller: hello. there are lots of different charges against these guys. why not try them in both military and civilian court where the charges apply in each? our legal system has gained quite a bit. why not use the system to our advantage? guest: well, one, it may not be necessary. in other words, if someone is convicted and, let's say, given an extraordinarily harsh sentence, it is sort of a -- it

may be considered a waste of resources to try them again to get to the same result, unless there is some wholly separate sort of crimes that have not been addressed by the first trial. although you could probably define the allegations against k.s.m. and the co-defendants under military law, some of them, or under civilian law, pretty much all the allegations, they all come from the same complex activities. it's not like he was orchestrating terrorist attacks on the one hand, and also running, you know, a numbers game on the side or something. it's not like there's some separate civilian -- some separate set of charges like he was -- had some real estate scam in florida in addition to organizing terror attacks. so i think that if someone were acquitted in one court, sometimes the government can find legal reasons why he's not

subject to double jeopardy, meaning try twice for the same thing. an example might be the police officers in the rodney king beating in los angeles. they were acquitted in state court on those charges and then tried again under federal parallel charges. host: let's go to frank, independent line in largo, florida. caller: good morning to you both. host: good morning. go right ahead. caller: follow my line of reasoning here. this will be brief. section two of the patriot act states that the president can claim any misdemeanor anywhere in the world an act of terrorism and hold said person indefinitely. i believe it was the department of justice a few weeks ago claimed that if an american abroad is believed to be committing or involved in acts of terrorism, they can be killed without a trial. now, combine that with the recently unclassified documents from the department of homeland security, the assessment of ring wing extremism and the lexicon

and it seems that patriot groups , anybody with a dissenting political opinion is being demonized by not only the federal government, but also in the media, and it seems like we're being set up to be put in military tribunals if we don't claim to be part of an extremist group or a terrorist group of some type. and i would like your guest's opinion on that. guest: well, under the military commissions act, only people who are not citizens of the united states are eligible for trial before a military commission. so flat out that can't happen the way the law is written right now. but it does raise another question, which is is there any reason the law distinguishes american citizens from foreign citizens. that actually is a potential legal flaw in the law itself, because courts often take -- reviewing courts take a skeptical eye for

classifications that seem to favor one group over others for reasons unrelated to the purpose of the tribunal, which is to find out who's guilt while following fair procedures. so one of the challenges that the defense lawyers have raised through the military commissions act is that it violates the concept of equal protection and due process by giving non-u.s. citizens a lower standard of justice than those of americans who are charged with identical defenses would that would face. host: let's go to charlotte, north carolina. republicans line, david. hi, david. caller: hi. my issue is not whether these guys are going to get convicted. i believe they will no matter what you put them in, either military or civilian. the problem that i have with putting them in a civilian trial is the rules of evidence. the rules of discovery. facing your accuser.

that a judge can kick out. like i said, i don't believe that will happen. but there are some judges out there that would look at some of the ways that evidence was gathered, the way conceptions were gotten. i don't consider waterboarding torture, but there are a lot of people that do. and how that could be manipulated in a civilian trial and, like i said, maybe not get them off. it could get kicked out -- if you kick out enough evidence in a trial, people go free. host: let's get a response. guest: that is a good point. the question of a potential government misconduct clouding a verdict has hung over this case from the beginning. and one of the factors that affects pretty much all the cases of guantanamo detainees is that the majority of evidence is statements taken from coercive

circumstances from other detainees. some lawyers contend indefinite imperezment is in itself a coercive circumstance. in the case of khalid sheikh mohammed and the 9/11 co-defendants, it's true that federal courts, partly because they are independent, don't follow the military chain of command and may be more familiar with a broader range of due process precedence in military courts. however, for this very reason, the justice department team that has been putting together its case has done everything it can to avoid relying on statements and evidence taken from the c.i.a. incorrespondent ration period for khalid sheikh mohammed and the co-defendants. the hundreds of f.b.i. and justice department lawyers who have been working on that case have tried to build a case that does not use that evidence at all. it takes it off the table for

the very reason the caller raises. but they don't want to defend the united states government. they want to prosecute the defendants. military prosecutors and the case that they have built have tended to rely more on statements obtained while in military or government custody, partly because they have, they hope, a broader leeway in introducing evidence. also, they may be less familiar in the justice department with prosecuting cases like this since the justice department has done a number of similar cases. host: jess bravin, thank you so much for being with us. guest: sure. host: let's take a moment now and talk with peter kiley, c-span's vice president. you're here to announce the video library. tell us about it? >> thanks, lib bism it's an exciting and historic call day in c-span's history. i'll take you back just for a second with how this is going to

be developing. the cable industry created c-span as a public service back in 1979. in 1986, they launched c-span 2 for the united states senate. shortly after that in december of 1987, c-span began a facility in a partnership with purdue university. about a decade later, we took total control of a facility that began to archive and record every single minute of c-span programming. the house and senate proceedings, the hearings, the speeches, everything you've come to know from c-span. over that time, it's developed into quite a large archive. we initially sold videotapes and then d.v.d.'s. as the internet grew and expanded, we began streaming a lot of that video. there's a team out in indiana led by dr. robert browning and 10 archivist who over the last few months have been digitizing these archives.

content starting from the early days in 1987. today we're announce hag the entire archive is available for streaming. it's fully searchable. it's a resource for a lot of people to use in a lot of different ways. we look forward to inviting our audience to browse through the arkifes, take advantage of the library and use it in a myriad of ways that they'll find it available. host: the you walk us through it? guest: sure. there's a couple ways to get to it. the easiest way is to go to cspan.org, and in the right-hand corner, you'll find a link. click on that link, go to the video library. you'll see that you can easily find lots of information. there's ways of going into the library and looking at what's been most viewed. you can see recent programs. you can see programs that people have been sharing.

when you look at these things, you'll see that it's a simple icon that you can click on to go to the video. to learn more about it in the top right-hand corner of that page, you'll see there's a blog with lots of postings on how to use the library. we think one of the easiest ways for people to do it is to do personal searches. there's been 115,000 different people that have appeared on c-span during that time. to find one of those people, you simply can go to the video library and type in their name. clearly, presidents, members of congress, everyone's in there. one search that we've done is if you want to search for supreme court justices, all the confirmation hearings since 1987 are in there. say you're interested in the chief justice. you can type in john roberts and click there. up comes the biopage for that person.

each of the 115 people have a biopage like that. you'll see chief justice roberts comes up and you'll go to his history. you can go to that and he made a speech this week, or last week at the university of alabama that made some news where he talked about the state of the union. you can go to that clip, click on it, and do what's called a text search. so maybe you're not interested in watching the entire speech from the chief justice, but you do want to see what he said about president obama and attending the state of the union speeches. you can search in the transcript and type in "union," and up will come in the transcript where that specific quote is in the speech. you can then clip that. you're seeing on the screen how you can find that exact quote, move the little -- slide those little bars across and clip the exact frame of reference that you want. what we think is really powerful and a lot of fun with this is you can take that clip and share

it in multiple ways. you can imbed that clip in your blog. you can share it via e-mail. you can see where you can share it to facebook, you can tweet that clip out. it's a great opportunity for fans of public affairs programming to come in, find what they think is valuable and relevant, important for them, something that helps drive home a point that they're advocating for, pull that clip and share it with their audience. host: who is it geared towards? guest: a lot of people. certainly educators, historians, people very involved in public affairs. certainly students with use the video library. we're finding that -- we got some blogs yesterday from jazz aficionados, who wrote in a blog the last thing they expected to find on c-span was a lot of good information about jazz. but they found in the library clips of people talking about --

members of congress talking about their favorite jazz. or talking about jazz at the national press club and how people need to learn more about jazz. certainly people following the issues of the day with use it. for instance, health care has been such a big issue this year. we have followed the health care process, so if you want to get the most up to indict stuff, you can find the mark-up proceeding from this week. if there are 880 hours of content related to health care debate and discussion since obama became president in january of 2009 in the library. so you want to see this week's mark-up, you want to see president obama when he addresses the joint session of congress. those things are all easily searchable on there. so a tremendous resource for people following the issue of the day. host: how about historical perspective? guest: health care is a very

good example to find that. many people are referring back to the 1990's when the clintons pursued health care, and we've got a fun clip, i think, from 1993 and that discussion. >> the government-run health care system. i do share his intention to make the debate and the legislative process as exciting as possible. >> i'm sure you will, mr. harvey. >> we'll do the best we can. >> you and dr. kavorkian. [laughter] host: peter kiley, tonight's c-span will be coughing the tv radio correspondent dinner. are light-hearted moments captured in the video library too? guest: we think they are. one of the times where there are a lot of light-hearted moments are in the big social dinners in

washington that we cover. the white house correspondent, where big-name comedians oftentimes come in and give speeches. the political actors in this town make speeches that are oftentimes funny. we have one clip from that that we'll share with you. >> ♪ tell me what is your name >> m.c. rove >> he's rapping and chilling and showing his job he will do it without fail get out his gun because he's shooting quail this man will never stop look at him jumpling up and down ready to hop it's tell me you never saw this man move doing the dance the the karl rove dance ♪ guest: there's a special section within the video library for tracking members of congress. you go to the video library and up on the top bar you'll find a

button that says congress. you can track your member or every member of congress. when you see that on there, you'll find that it lists the people who have spoken the most on the floor of the house and senate or you can separate it by the least of the house and senate. you can watch for individual members of congress. you'll find not only their biopage, but a tremendous record taken from the congressional record of congress. the congressional record itself can be changed slightly, updated as it gets updated. this record that you can find on c-span is the exact proceeding of what happened on this house or senate floor. host: how is this funded and what's the cost, and why do this? guest: the important thing for the viewer and the user of the c-span video library is it's completely free to them. the cable industry made the commitment back in the late 1970's to have a public service channel. it grew to three channels.

now it's developing with the growth of broadband and video online. the cable industry agreed with us that it's a resource that should be made available. it's important for democracy. and we've heard from the industry great pride in allowing us and encouraging us, in fact, to make this kind of content available to as wide an audience as we can to make it as searchable and user friendly as we can, to make an important contribution to the democratic process. host: if you were reading the newspaper this morning, you may have seen this ad in a variety of papers. tell us about the ad and the blog features of the website. guest: unusual for c-span, we took out ads in several major newspapers today, full-page ads announcing the launch of the video library. within it you'll see dozens of pictures of people who have appeared on the network over the years that the library has been archiving content. if you'll go to