said, what does it mean -- put that in relation to yesterday's decision. caller: listened. it is absolutely ridiculous to put regulations on free-speech. i just got the preamble of the bill writes -- bill of rights. everybody has been slamming this thing about -- there's this thing about separation of church and state. it says absolutely nothing like that. host: off of twitter -- maryland's commentary on our democrats line. caller: i would like to thank

you all for putting me on c- span. i have not middle and quite a long time. i actually support of the court saying the fcc should not be able to regulate the internet, because the fcc would be trying to limit speech, and all speech is protected, even unpopular speech. sorry, i am nervous. i have not done this in a what appeared -- in a while. your previous caller saying that we should be able to take glenn beck and rush limbaugh of the air, just because it is unpopular and you don't like them does not mean we should take their speech away. i mean, the constitution -- our free speech, first amendment, is to protect all speech, even unpopular speech. i think the fcc, with them trying to do that, they would be limiting free speech on the internet, which is a very important to be able.

in a free society, you should be but to communicate and debate one another and if you limit free-speech you will not be able to debate. host: from zero -- from "usa today." upper income people would lose tax cuts in plan. the tax policy center made calculations on how upper income taxpayers would be affected if president bush's income and capital gains tax cuts were to expire. for those making between 500,000 up to $1 million, about 1 million americans of the united states, the average tax increase would be $15,615. their tax rate would go from 25% of 27.7%.

for those making 1 million or more, 530,000, their tax increase, $130,563 and the tax rate would go from 29.6 up to 33.8%. north carolina, norm on our republican minded caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i would like to talk about the gentleman who wanted to get rid of talk radio hosts that are kind of on the right side. host: before you do that, why don't you wait in on yesterday's decision by the court on the fcc? caller: when the court makes a decision, you have to kind of live by it. i don't know -- it is just crazy the way the government has turned to the left so far. there are things going on. you talk about free speech and stuff like that -- the newspapers and cnn, when they

were down on george bush all those years, that was free speech. they could not do anything about it. we could run them out of the country, but we didn't. if you talk about anybody else using free speech, when are they going to stop you from talking, you know? it is crazy. it is crazy. thank you for listening to me. i am sorry not be able to talk about your -- host: you wanted to talk about -- sentiments in free-speech and you say you wanted to mention a previous caller and what they said about radio talk-show host. caller: you can't just take them off. anytime you want to take them off the air, turn off your radio. turn off the television, turn off the radio. that is why i quit buying newspapers because the main press is putting out lies and subterfuges' about things and look at where it has got us. got everything going the opposite way of what it should in america. well, i am not very good talking, so, thank you very much for being there and having a

place for me to vent my -- because what? wash limbaughism. host: from "the wall street journal" minutes released from a recent federal reserve meeting. and reflection of that, said fear -- raising rates too soon. naugatuck, connecticut. on our democrats line. eric, talking about yesterday's decision by the fcc and what it

means as far as regulating high- speed internet. caller: can you hear me good? host: yes, sir. caller: on a similar aspect, what the tax raises and and everything -- people have to understand, this president inherited such a great amounts of different types of things. now he has to do what he has to do to, in my opinion, to get this country back on track. it is unfortunate the american taxpayers have to pay a lot. i myself and a american taxpayer. i don't have state assistance. i work for my money. i feel good about this right now just for the simple fact that something good may come out of it.

host: "the new york times" -- massachusetts, republican line. jim garde caller: good morning, c-span.

-- jim. caller: good morning, c-span. about the president and everything so much. host: let's make comments about we were talking about first and then make your other comments. caller: the ruling on that fcc by the supreme court that it can't interfere or regulate -- into a beer with or regulate broadband internet i think is a very important one. i think it is a crucially correct one and it ties in directly to what this previous caller said. we are hearing from all different sides that the president inherited all as these debts and back to to which is left over from the george w. bush era, and quite frankly, george bush and eight years of operating a war that turned out to be highly successful despite harry reid and barack obama claiming we have already lost it while we were still fighting at -- bush only ran up $800 billion in debt in that entire time and

barack obama in one year has quadrupled that that -- debt. i don't see how people can defend it. i'm thankful we have the internet so we can talk about this openly without a stint -- spin we are getting from the mindless democrats. host: i want to let you know at 11:00 today you can see a live broadcast of the first lady michelle, as she presents a town hall forum child abuse in which will feature one of ourc ofam winners, matthew shimura from honolulu. columbia, north carolina. good morning. on the democrats' line. caller: hello? host: think i got the wrong line. go ahead, sir. caller: i just want to say that the fcc can't regulate the internet.

host: because? caller: hello? host: tell me why. caller: it is too corrupt. there is so much corruption and people are getting paid off under the table that it can never be regulated. host: we will go next to arlington, virginia, independent line. lisa, good morning. caller: i am baffled how the american public is so fun and ford. this really has nothing to do with content. it is meant to cut -- protect the consumer. what is getting ready to happen is they are going to start charging lavrov customers who don't have a lot of traffic more than they would -- will customers on the block traffic more than the inner city and fcc wants to get a handle of that and if you want to look up a science project and you want to go to -- to a certain side, it will cost $9.95. that is what net neutrality means and the fcc wants to regulate it so everybody can get

the same information at the same time. it is really shocking to me how and inform the american people are. it could tell me why you are so informed? caller: i looked it up on the internet while this was going on. it is not about regulating content. they want to make sure that everybody gets access to the same information at the same time. it is very simple. it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. it is just like utility companies want to make sure that people are charged the same rates for the same usage. it is just that simple. host: one more call, it is from james from massachusetts. caller: good morning. i think that the regulation should pertain to things like bullying, things like perjury

where we don't have the freedom of speech but we are still regulated by the laws of the land that require that we did conform that freedom to come under the law. if somebody on the internet is perjuring themselves constantly in, we should be able to take them to court for it. or bullying or anything else that we have in this country that has freedom of speech but it still has to be subject to laws of the land. host: we will leave it there. coming up in the next segment we will talk about the release of the late posture review, the president released -- release of the nuclear posture review. the president released yesterday. he will sign a treaty on it and there will be a conference on it. we will talk about nuclear weapons and its new role in the obama administration with kingston reif, executive

director for arms control and nonproliferation. we will take that discussion when we come back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the financial crisis inquiry commission this week continues its look into subprime lending. the 10-member congressional lee appointed panel hopes to publish its report on the financial crisis by the end of the year. this morning the commission hears from former federal reserve chairman alan greenspan. other witnesses include a former citigroup risk managers who are expected to testify about their warnings to company executives. live coverage is on c-span2 at 9:00 a.m. eastern. first lady michelle obama is focusing on job " of the city.

she sits down with c-span's studentcam winner from honolulu. his prize-winning documentary was on childhood obesity. other student council members around the country will join the conversation did live on c- span this morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. this week on c-span2, is special primetime presentation of book tv. tonight, the author of "the madame curie complex" about women's contributions to science. live coverage of new yorker editor discussing the life of barack obama. interview with former education secretary bill bennett, who discusses his book, "a century turns." it begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span2. >> all this month, said the winners of c-span's studentscam

video documentary competition. middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest strengths or challenge the country is facing. watch the top winning videos every morning at c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern just before "washington journal." at 8:30, meet the students that made them and for a preview of all the winners visit studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: kingston reif is deputy director of the center for arms control and nonproliferation. yesterday, the release of the posture review on nuclear weapons. how would you grade it or at least summarize what the administration did and what you think of the changes? guest: first, i think it is important to put the posture review in the context of president obama's larger vision for a reduced role of nuclear weapons in u.s. national- security policy. a year ago in propagate a speech where he pledged to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear

weapons, as well as a goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. i think that over all decision is rooted in a growing bipartisan consensus that the nuclear status quo is no longer tenable, that nuclear-weapons are now and liability. the dangers posed by a spread two additional states, as well as potential threat of nuclear terrorism, brought the world on the verge of what one might call the proliferation tipping point. so i think the president of all vision is rooted in that danger and he outlined a number of points steps in prague, while noting that a world free of nuclear weapons and not something likely to happen in his lifetime but a number of steps and that we can take on the way. one of the things he mentioned was a new arms control reduction agreement between the united states and russia. he talked about securing and safeguarding all vulnerable nuclear-weapons usable materials

within four years and he also said while the u.s. is pursuing these steps with other countries, this has to be a corporate to global effort, and the u.s. will also work to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in its own national security policy. that is where i think the nuclear posture review fits in. it specifically in prague, president obama said it would put an end to cold war thinking and reduce the role of nuclear- weapons in u.s. national security policy. does it do that? first of all, i think it is important to try to get a sense of what the president meant by cold war thinking. i think when a lot of people think about the cold war they think about the standoff between the united states and the soviet union. thousands of nuclear weapons. paradoxically, u.s. and soviet union each thinking they had to build more nuclear weapons to safeguard their national security. all of these weapons on very high alert status, that could be launched within minutes of a decision on the part of the

president to launch them. it does npr bring us back from this, per say? i think it does and some ways. i think it is important to view it more as the beginning and not the end of the journey, but the beginning of a step in the right direction toward reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons. host: secretary gates commented on the release. >> of the npr is very explicit in referring to the fundamental rule of nuclear weapons being for deterrence. i know there has been a lot of speculation outside the government and there was a lot of discussion inside the government's of how to frame that and how to describe it, whether it would be the sole purpose, whether we would forgo first use, and so on. and i think there was agreement

within the administration that we didn't think we were far enough along the road toward getting control of nuclear weapons around the world to limit ourselves so explicitly. so, i think there was general agreement that the term fundamental purpose basically made clear -- and other language makes clear -- that this is obviously a weapon of last resort. host: a lot of the papers made -- about the use of fundamental, what you think about the word choice? guest: i think the use of award fundamental is one of the ways in which this of nuclear posture review is an upgrade of previous ones. but last posture review was undertaken by the bush administration in 2002, and what that said about the role of nuclear weapons is not only are nuclear-weapons relevant to be

tearing nuclear attacks against the united states but relevant and could even perhaps be used in response to a chemical or biological attack or a response to a large-scale conventional attack. so i think i saying that the fundamental purpose of nuclear weapons, brings us back from the previous policy of calculated ambiguity. in addition to setting the fundamental purpose of nuclear- weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the u.s. and its allies, the nuclear posture review also reverses u.s. policy in stating that the united tapes will never use nuclear weapons against the state that does not have nuclear-weapons, that is in compliance with its obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. even if one of those states uses chemical or biological weapons against the united states, the u.s. will not respond with nuclear weapons. as secretaries gates also mentioned, the review states that if there was ever instance where the u.s. was considering

use of nuclear weapons, whether against a state that had nuclear weapons or against a state like iran or north korea that was not in compliance with its nonproliferation objectives, that the use of nuclear weapons would be only a very last resort. bush administration posture review did not have any language along the lines of last resort. in fact, it talked about scenarios where the united states might even use nuclear weapons preemptively against such states like iran or north korea or syria. if i had written a posture review, i would have gone a bit further. i would say sole purpose, in addition to sole purpose, it led to the united states -- that the united states in any instance would use nuclear weapons first. i do not think there is any plausible scenario where u.s. nuclear weapons would be used for anything accepted terence. i think not going all the way to a sole purpose declaration, the statement in a sense undermines the credibility of the u.s. of

the conventional deterrent and it still potentially could give states incentives to acquire nuclear weapons to, in a sense, safeguard themselves from the potential of the u.s. first strike, so i went on further. host: about 2600 estimated warheads in russia right now. about 2100 -- 2126 in the united states and falls down considerably from there. what does it mean today? guest: i think we have seen a precipitous drop at the end of the cold war, the total number of nuclear-weapons that the u.s. and russia has been added that has been a natural outgrowth of the fact that there is no longer this cold war bipolar standoff between the united states and the soviet union. at the same time, the united states and the soviet union together -- 95% of 23,000 nuclear-weapons and the planet. 95% of the 23,000 nuclear weapons on the planet.

that is far more nuclear weapons than either side would potentially need for any scenario that could threaten its security, and it only makes sense that the obama administration, in tandem with a question and hopefully in tandem with other countries throughout the world are attempting to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in the world. host: the defense minister of russia has and op-ed in "the wall street -- "the wall street journal." will that bondholders, though, once they sign? guest: alabama think the bond will hold and that thing that is one of the virtues of this agreement that the united states and russia, specifically president obama and russian president medvedev, are going to sign tomorrow, i believe, in

prague. i think one of the most important points is it will help improve the overall u.s.-russia relationship. first of all, in the nuclear realm. verification and transparency provisions that are associated with this agreement are going to bring predictability and stability to u.s.-russia relations. they are going to reduce the chances for a worst case scenario planning. they are going to reduce mutual suspicion between the two parties. and i think it will be and i stopping point for the tayside's to launch into negotiations to even deeper reductions in u.s. and russian arsenals. remember, this agreement, while critically important and in central, is a very modest first step. the united states, as i mentioned, russia today, respectively, 2100, and 2600 deploy nuclear weapons and this agreement will bring the united states and russia down to 1500. it also has a limit on the

number of launchers, which are the missiles and bombers actually used to deliver warheads to their targets. today the u.s. possesses approximately 800 such launchers and the united states -- the soviet union, russia, has 600 such launchers and a limit in the new treaty is to get down to 700. you can see russia is already below that limit and the united states won't have to undertake all that many reductions. there will be real reductions, about 100 launchers. but it is not huge, significant step. we should want to keep pressure on both the united states and russia after this agreement is signed and enters into force, to continue negotiations on even deeper reductions. >> if there is a scenario where vladimir putin is present again, will be held to what? guest: absolutely. this is a legally binding agreement that will be enforced for 10 years. we negotiated agreements with the soviet union and the height of the cold war and the soviet

union was obligated and for the most part did comply with the provisions of these agreements. so, this agreement will hold. again, both sides, if either side thinks agreement is no longer in its national security interests, all trees have such a clause to say either the u.s. and russia can pull out of the agreement. the united states did that with the anti-ballistic missile treaty under the bush administration in 2002. but again, i think this agreement is so abundantly in the national security interests of the u.s. and russia that it will be in their interest to continue to adhere to it. host: kingston reif from the center of arms control and nonproliferation. he will talk about this issue until 8:30. the numbers will be on your screen. you can tweet us an e-mail us. davenport, iowa, go ahead on our independent line. caller: i am sorry i have to

disagree. i had a much older relative who was there in 1963. there were no negotiations. he was at a base in north dakota -- he got the call to put the bombs in the air. the fifth -- base to put them in the air and the only thing that turned back, according to interview by khrushchev's sun and other people that were there, was khrushchev back down because kennedy was not going to. and that is from a man who is living today. guest: i believe the caller is referring to the cuban missile crisis which was a very dangerous period during the cold war that almost resulted in a nuclear war. i believe there were some discussions held between the united states, russia, and cuba in the early 1990's that brought some of the key players -- some of the key players in that crisis together. and secretary castro was asked

how close the world was to a nuclear war, and he put his fingers together by this and he said, this] it was a dangerous period. i think one of the reasons it was dangerous is at the time of the cuban missile crisis in 1962, there really were no agreements that limited and managed the risk posed by the u.s. and russian nuclear arsenal. i think it is a different time today, that this agreement that the u.s. and russia are going to sign tomorrow will enhance the security of both the u.s. and russia, and it will give each side the consonants and transparency necessary to continue to work -- confidence and transparency necessary to continue to work together and hopefully continue talks on reducing their respective nuclear arsenals even further. host: a twitter --

guest: president obama said in his speech this will be a very difficult journey and something that is probably not likely to happen in his lifetime. i think there are numerous obstacles to getting to a world free of nuclear weapons but it does not mean, i think, that such a world would not be desirable or that attempting to get to such a world is not feasible. i think what president obama did in prague and have done in his first year of office is outline a number of steps that will increase u.s. and global security and reduce the nuclear threat on the way to 0, so one of the first that's is this new agreement between the united states to russia. the other step is to work to safeguard and eliminate all vulnerable fissile material that forms the explosives for nuclear weapons within four years. the other step is to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to make it more difficult for countries such as iran and north korea to get away with ki