calls are next on "washington journal." live at 11:00 a.m. eastern, first lady michelle obama is focusing on childhood obesity. she sits down with the c-span's studentscam winter, whose prize- winning documentary was on childhood obesity. and we will look at the administration's plans for nuclear weapons with kingston reif with the center for arms control and nonproliferation. 8:30 eastern, a discussion of this year's elections. and we will talk about efforts in the hispanic community to increase the census participation with arturo vargas from national association of latino elected and appointed officials. "washington journal" is out.

host: the government accountability office says gm and chrysler must pay $72 billion in pension funds to reach the minimum levels. the report saying it either of the company's plans terminated, the u.s. is held liable. if current tax cuts for high- income earners are allowed to expire, about 1 million americans making about a half million dollars to a million dollars would see tax increase to -- up to $15,000. firstly michelle obama host a town hall on childhood obesity live at 11:00 a.m. today. you can see it live on c-span, as it features eight c-span studentscam winner from honolulu. yesterday a three-judge panel ruled the federal communications commission did not have the power to regulate high-speed internet. some say it may be problematic in efforts to improve broadband access and the united states. here are the numbers --

the story we are about to get into for the first 45 minutes in all the papers this morning, including this right up in "the wall street journal" in the marketplace session. the headlines read -- the author joins us on the phone right now. if you could kind of give us a little back story on this decision. for those who may not be following on a day-to-day basis. guest: sure, basically a couple of years ago comcast was accused of preventing some of its subscribers from downloading large and video files on these file sharing services.

essentially comcast not tell people they were doing this, were not telling subscribers -- all of a sudden they could just not download the files. they complained. the fcc started investigating in 2008 and concluded that, yes, in fact, comcast was blocking this and it was a violation of these four net micheletti principles that they had come up with a few years ago, jeanette neutrality principles. things like, you should be allowed to look at and the web site, be allowed to connect any device to the internet that is not going to affect the internet or not going to affect other people using it. essentially, the fcc said, you just can't do this and the sanctions comcast and said you violated the principle. comcast then changed its practices so that they stop blocking traffic that way and they started using different ways of managing their networks. but a challenge to the fcc decision, saying the fcc does not have the authority to just

and force principles. if you want to do enforcement, you have to go through things like rulemaking, and a lot of legal hoops. yesterday the court basically said, yes, comcast was right, the fcc -- and the court went further and said the fcc just doesn't even have the authority to do this, full stop, because congress never intended for the fcc to regulate internet lines and if they had been would have put something in the 1996 telecom act. >> if the fcc can regulate things like television and radio and things like that, why doesn't have authority over the internet? guest: it comes back to congress. congress never passed a law saying the fcc has authority to do -- to do this. if congress came back and said, you know, we really think net neutrality is a problem and fcc should be -- there should not be a problem. the problem is congress does a

lot of other things and these things are pretty complicated, so they just have not passed any laws like that. the last three telecom lolls we had word 1996. they really have not changed since then. so the agency has been using is really old law to apply it and it has not been going very well. host: some of the stories this morning talk about efforts to the fcc is going on something called the national broadband plan. some saying there are problems with this decision yesterday and the fcc efforts going forward. can you explain that? guest: basically the fcc -- in the national broadband plan basically say, well, since we are the policeman for the internet and we think everybody should have internet, we will change some of the things we do to ensure universal broadband. the problem is, the legal authority they were putting some of that stuff on just sort of collapsed yesterday under the d.c. circuit decision. so it is sort of not clear they can go forward with some of

these things. one of them is to ensure that consumers have a better sense of what kind of speed of broadband are going to get. well, it is not really clear they can force companies to do that right now. or it is not really clear that you could change the federal subsidies funds to spend money on broadband lines instead of phone lines. the way it is set up right now, and religious goes to the phone. it is not real clear now that they can change that. host: what options are left for the fcc now in light of the decision? guest: they could go three routes. they can try to say, well, we will keep the one forward and say we have the authority and we think we have the authority and the court is full of it. that is probably kind of unlikely. they could also ask congress for a new law. they should say, congress, you need to give us authority over net neutrality or give us more -- or they can just try to change the way been regulating internet

lines, because this all came about because they decided to deregulate back in 2002 -- you know, the fcc, could say we made a mistake, we changed our minds, and if they do that that might give them more authority. host: which is the most viable? guest: probably the third. congress is only going to base in so much longer before they go back campaigning. it is unlikely the fcc will say well we will go with the dicey authority we got. it seems like the most obvious choice is to go say, oops, we made a mistake, let's go back and reregulate. the problem is phone and cable companies are really against this proposal. there will be a huge fight over that because they don't want this sort of regulation coming down the road. host: amy -- who writes for open "the wall street journal" and covers the fcc, she has a story in today's marketplace section. as always, thanks for your time.

for the next 45 minutes, it in light of what amy told us and perhaps what you read about this, we want to hear your thoughts as well. you can do this via the phone lines on the screen -- if you use twitter and you want to communicate with us that we, our address is at twitter.com/c- spanwj and you can give us an e- mail at journal@c-span.org. "the hill" looks at the congressional angle from members of congress is that they who were involved in that issue of what they had to say about it. they write --

again, this is the topic we will take a look at in the next 45 minutes. we will look at other stories as well. hollywood, florida. richard, how are you?

caller: good morning, pedro. this administration i feel it is definitely a threat against free-speech. you can tell this by people, the advisers of president obama. one of them being mark lloyd, who made the comment that he admires hugo chavez for shutting down a lot of the media and free-speech in his country. host: did you see yesterday's decisions about free speech, at least part of it? caller: control of the internet? definitely. they would love to. the first amendment which gives us the right -- they were talking about political speech. this administration would love to control all speech, no doubt about it.

host: have you been following this issue closely at all? caller: not closely, but somewhat. however, i think they will even go further and try to shut down as much free-speech as possible. sollolinksky, part of this plan, rules for radicals, and karl marx, you have to control the speech if you want to control the people and that think that is what this administration is all about, controlling the people. host: here is more from the story and the marketplace section. it's as big internet providers say ordinary web users have no reason to fear restrictions on legal content.

of of twitter -- and next call on this is a bellevue, florida, on our democrats line. samuel. caller: pedro, the complexities, the dynamics of all of this internet, which is admittedly a huge, complex industry,, but if

they are going to have problems with china in their censoring of google's access, one thing or another -- are you able to hear me? i have a lot of static. host: you are fine, go ahead. caller: well, i m computer cold, as my late father would have said. i am totally ignorant about them. i really have no interest in them. but i think they are just a threat to the democratic process. host: new jersey on our democrats line. maria. caller: yes, hello. i think your first caller is a little bit confused. the fcc is trying to keep it neutral -- not free to all, but

so people can communicate ideas and basically free to see what they say. i think your first caller is a little bit confused about the issue. host: ok. caller: that's it. host: allen cap -- allentown, pennsylvania, also on our democrats live. kathleen, the wellhead. kathleen, go ahead. i may have punched the wrong line. kathleen, are you there? punched the wrong line again. let us go to phil on andrews, texas, on the independent line. caller: i think the decision supporting comcast will turn our internet into the same wasteland corporate television

has turned into. you are going to get pablum. you are not going to get the information that americans need to get to be informed voters -- the line host: can i ask you what leads you to believe that? caller: see, you are challenging me. host: just asking a question. caller: really, that is a good question. that is a very good question. and you are not going to get to the good answers to the zero important questions on the corporate media. that is an excellent question. that would take hours to really answer that question comcast -- corporate ties and the public's

access to the internet is very dangerous, very dangerous and all we are going to get is pablum. host: can i ask you a question? caller: ok. host: how much information do you get from the internet as opposed to what you call corporate media? caller: meaningful information that i receive, it comes from the internet or things like free speech television, non-corporate television, link television, noncorporate television. pbs is not free open access television, it is also controlled by comcast.

host: bill from interest, texas. we will leave it there. tony is up next. it's a cut, new york. hello. how were you? caller: not too bad, how about yourself? host: can't complain. caller: the first caller, i have to say, yes, like the other caller said, seemed to be confused but i don't know what it has to do with this administration versus the last one. if anything the last one was more inclined to try to get people to shut up. my personal feelings about the fcc, i don't know what their real function is except to charge extra fees and things for your telephone bill. at this point i don't have a land line because about 40% of my phone bill was state and federal and fcc line charge fees. the fcc can close its doors as far as i'm concerned because i

don't know what real function they serve except to say there has to be 22 minutes of programming for ever half an hour on tv. what else does the fcc do particularly except saying you can't save the s word on tv. host: what about yesterday's decision? do you have thoughts of not? caller: i heard comcast is sort of a crummy company. it i heard about other internet companies charging more for better service and giving basic service as very limited. it is sort of crummy but not nearly as crummy as what the banks have been going or how insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies or any number of other industries that should be regulated at a lot more tightly than they have

midden. -- have been. as far as communication is concerned, i am not sure, to regulation it needs? it is supposed to be a country of free speech. and we should be able to -- and listen, being dependent on tv -- i've got to say, hey, cnn is great -- or c-span, i'm sorry. you are both great. there is a lot of crap the news outlets out there. host: we have to move one other calls and topics but we will leave it there. you may have been following internationally the relationship between the united states and afghanistan, specifically between its leaders -- united states president barack obama and afghanistan's president hosni karzai. terse words between both coming in the last few days. here to help us make sense of what is going on and what it could mean it is stephen from

the associated press. there are stories in today's paper, including what you have written recently, about an upcoming meeting between the president and karzai and possibly being cancelled. guest: good to be with you. the white house spokesman said yesterday in his briefing, when he was asked about the meeting coming up in may, whether it would go forward given what karzai has been saying. the spokesman robert gibbs says the white house was continuing to watch what karzai would say in the future before it made a final decision on that meeting, although he said of the meeting was still going forward. i think that is a natural reaction from what sounds like very outlandish comments coming from karzai, including one that has been denied by his spokesman just today, but he was reported by three sources in the meeting

in kabul who said the pressure was not -- from the west, he might consider joining the taliban. host: this also came in part with the president's recent visit there. guest: it all got its start when the president obama the week ago sunday flew unannounced to cobble -- -- kabul. we don't know what they talked about but the security adviser james jones said of the airplane that it was time karzai was "seized" to eradicate corruption and the government. that has been a message they obama administration has been less gently sending to karzai since he left office. but must have set him off and some fashion. perhaps he felt he lost face and

needed to regain his standing with his own people. host: stay on the line for a second. here is robert gibbs yesterday in response to questions about the relationship between the united states and afghanistan, and specifically president karzai. >> it is karzai our allies? >> he is the democratic elected leader of afghanistan. >> is he an ally of the united states? >> there are times in which the actions that he takes are constructive to governments. i would say the remarks made -- i can't imagine anybody in this country found them anything other than troubling. so, our position on this, jake, is that when the afghan leaders take steps to improve government and root out corruption, then the president will say kind words. when leaders need to hear stern

language from this administration about the consequences of not acting, we will do that as well. host: this comes as the united states leads an effort in afghanistan with military and otherwise. what does it do for the overall mission to have this spat going on? guest: i think the mission is not necessarily immediately effective. but what this could do, or perhaps has done, is called into question the whole idea of the united states being in afghanistan, where billions of dollars are being spent, u.s. soldiers losing their lives were being injured and maimed. as this bores down into the consciousness in the united states, the public will be saying, wait a minute, why are we try to protect the government of hong karzai when he is saying things like fraud in the election last summer was the

fault of the west or for that if he kept getting pressure from the west, the united states, to eradicate corruption that he might turn the taliban. gen might have a bad effect on public opinion and i think you saw from the words of robert gibbs that the white house is quite angry. host: has president karzai made any defense of him trying to fight corruption within his own government? guest: he has not really joined in that issue. what he has said is that the corruption, which is allegedly fomented and his government, is really the fault of the west. and that he just might walk away from his association with the united states, joined a taliban if pressure continues. so, and he has not addressed the

issue head on but he has said he needs to have the respect of his own people, and this kind of talk from the united states is not helpful. host: mr. hurst, thanks for your time. back to our question about a decision by a three-panel judge in d.c., federal judge panel of fcc's ability to regulate high- speed internet. and what it means for the fcc's feature in regulating other efforts such as this effort to bring broadband into the rural parts of the united states. it can't is on our republican line. john, go ahead. callerare you there? we will give you one more time. let's move on to harrisburg, pennsylvania, mathieu on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i don't think the internet should be regulated, but i do believe something needs to be

done about rush limbaugh and glenn beck. i would donate to a national fund to get them off the airways. host: why is that? caller: i don't feel they have the right to spew hatred that they do and draw a huge paychecks for it. i think it is an american. host: is it not a free-speech issue then? caller: that is the problem. it is a free-speech issue, but when they spew facts that are not true, people believe it because they say it over and over again. it is a complicated issue. i just don't think they have the right to tear down the country the way they do. host: arkansas on our independent line. there, go ahead. caller: good morning, sir.

myself, i have been a network engineer for about five years when i was in the marine corps. if i did not have the open content, i would not have access to the internet -- information i needed. then a time, may have been correct internet access help to me say a lot of marines lives, and information like that. if you start restricting it, how can i get access to stuff i need to know? i don't and thus allow the one to put restrictions may be faced back -- myspace, start taxing, if the fcc wants to tax corporations for people to use web sites like that that bogs down the network and if you want to restrict that, i could understand. but people are going to find a way. hackers can piggyback on satellites. they will find a way to get around the restrictions the matter where you want to play it. host: how long have you been following this issue? caller: i have been following it

for a few days now. host: you mentioned facebook and the other sites. for those who may not know, talk about their influence and all of this. how much traffic because over the internet and what does it do for other people try to get on the internet to get information? caller: i know it has a lot of traffic and a lot of stuff you put on the sites, really as a false influence on people. i think the reason my they want to put a -- it is de-socializing the country. people are living their lives vicariously through the internet. they don't go out and socialize. prominent facebook friends. would go out and meet that same person at the time they don't know who they are talking to. host: davenport, iowa. joe on the independent line. caller: good morning.

i'm an ex-journalist. i was diagnosed with ms. they found out they were wrong recently -- which took me right out from doing what i would like to do. look what the newspapers have gone? when you don't read and you just put things out there like on facebook and twitter, you really don't have the time, your brain does and not, to think about what you heard -- when my looking for? you know, to actually process it and figure out what it means, not just to you, but your nation. there is a lot of garbage out there. people are not talking. we are social animals. we need to get out there and talk to one another face to face.