problem, and it probably goes back to george washington, where interests in front of the legislature or not well understood and they would lobby hard for it. in my own experience, with fannie mae and freddie mac, for the most part, you cannot get it through to the great american public, and certainly the mainstream media at that point did not want to touch freddie and fannie. everybody seems to know now who freddie if any are -- freddie and fannie are. it is very hard to bring an issue before the american public. congress only seems to act during a crisis. host: silver spring, maryland, democrats' line. caller: i am a realtor. we probably need to pay attention -- some of these title companies who came in at the banks and insisted everybody use them -- everything folded into

each other. i would propose putting the short sale foreclosures to one side and a lengthy regular housing market to go forward. i think it will retain its pricing -- regain its pricing and give time to point out the foreclosure side of the problem. of the last guest, he was so dismissive of the declaration of independence, but the judicial states you are talking about, the agreements were that bankruptcy is, people coming from england and taking property -- that could be folded into the reality of work these -- hwer these -- where these laws come from. guest: i think it is from the expense of most of the land in this country being on by europeans -- the experience of most of the land in this country being owned by europeans. host: how do you see this

progressing? guest: i see it progressing slowly. the problems that have arisen in the mortgage market will to live this by another it six, eight, nine months -- will delay this by another six, eight, nine months. it will be a long time. we are a year away from, in my opinion, really starting to see strength in hiring of construction workers and real- estate industries. host: thank you for being here. guest: my pleasure. host: we are out of time for those of you who saw the bob woodward said earlier, one of the essential character is as national security adviser james jones, and the ap is running an alert that he is resigning from that position. also, over the weekend, we will show you much more on politics

as we get closer to the election. every night we have debates on, and i cannot find my information quickly enough to get to you, but each night from now until election day -- the wisconsin senate debate at 9:00, and it 10:00, the north dakota at- large house. we will take you live to the national press club. i want to say thanks to all of you for being with us on the 30th anniversary of the c-span call-in program. that conversation about who watches continues on our facebook page 3 this is a group called common sense media, and it is at the national press club in washington. it is a discussion on that national online privacy for parents and kids, focusing on the job that search engines do to protect privacy and other search engines should be able to share kids' physical location

with marketers and other issues. you have a great weekend. thanks for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .

>> thank you very much for coming today. it is a great honor to be here where with chairman jon leibowitz, and chairman julius genachowski if to talk about the initiatives we all feel is one of the most important issues facing kids and families in the united states -- how to protect their privacy in this incredibly rapidly-evolving and changing digital media landscape that we are living in today. privacy is a cornerstone right in our society. it is something that all of us who have grown up, gone to school, and have gone to -- at become parents, we know it is important to our kids. with the evolution over the past

10, or 15 years, at issue is about privacy have come to the fore in ways that have not been true before. we want to address those of today, and talk about what this means for parents, kids, the industry, and schools across the country. at the end of the day, at common sense media, we have one very fundamental responsibility which is to speak out in an independent, non-partisan way on behalf of the best interest of kids around this country. all you will hear will be through that lens. we hear type -- we feel privacy is no important issue in their lives, and in all of our lives across the country. common sense media commissioned a poll, we believe the first of its kind, to try to gauge the feelings of both parents and

teenagers about privacy in this rapidly changing digital media landscape. we wanted to give voice to their thoughts and concerns. i want to give you a brief summary. first of all -- seven or eight major findings -- the first one that we saw was that there was a disconnect between the way the technology industry in -- view privacy, and how parents and kids and you privacy. parents, in general, do not trust that the technology industry will protect their kids' privacy. there were about 2100 adults polled by zogby international a little more than a month ago. parents, by 3-to-one say they would rate the job but social networks are doing as negative,

and 68% said they are not at all confident in search engines keeping private information safe and secure. this is a very fundamental thing that we at common sense media sea. it is not a surprise to us. it underscores the concerns that parents have. the second thing that parents said is that 88 percent of them would support a law that would require on-line search engines and social networking services to get user permission before they use personal and permission to market products. currently, the state of the market is opt-out, and it is called opt-in, and 88% say they would support opt-in. 85% of teenagers that were polled by zogby international

during the survey said that online search engines and social networking services should be required to get their permission before using information to market products to them. the third point we saw was that both parents and teenagers feel their information is not secure and private. two-thirds of parents felt that way, and the majority of teenagers felt that way. that is a great concern to kids, teachers, and parents all across the country, and i hope we address that today. the fourth point we saw in the poll was that people, and parents in particular want clear, simple, terms and conditions regarding privacy. nearly all of the parents polled -- 91%, said they would take more time to read terms and

conditions if there were -- if they were shorter and written in more clear language. for all of those who have gone through the complex privacy policies have been sent to us, and often change, the simplicity and clarity message comes across loud and clear in this poll. the fifth point that we saw, that we think is important is that parents and teenagers are concerned about geo-location services -- places that can track your behavior, we found that 91% of parents found that search engines and online social networking sites should not be able to share their physical location with other companies before they have been given the specific authorization to do so. a strong majority of teenagers, 81%, said the same thing. geode-location services have popped up -- geo-location

services have popped up recently, and on the radar as a serious concern. the sixth point is that approximately 70% of parents think schools need to educate kids about privacy -- it needs to be part of the basic curriculum in school as social media and digital media, more broadly, have revolutionized the lives of students across the country. the seven. we found is that parents want updated privacy laws. we will speak to that with sharon genachowski, jon leibowitz, and deputy secretary miller. the majority of parents think that congress should update laws relating to security.

i will read a statement from congressman ed markey who was the original author of the top, though, which was offered -- coppa bill, which was authored in 1998. the last point we found about pole was simple. concern is growing dramatically. 85% are more concerned now than five years ago. it comes as no surprise to us, or everyone in the room, probably, but it is a fundamental change. let's talk about what this means to common sense media. we look at it in several ways. we look through the lens of parents and kids. that is our primary audience. we also look through the lens of schools and teachers, and how they feel about it. we also feel, since we are here, in washington, d.c., there

needs to be a new policy framework that addresses some of these issues. we have laid out today -- on the board over here, and also the chant -- the centerpiece of how we view the policy, we have six basic things we feel strongly about in terms of protecting our kids privacy. we believe there should be new laws and regulations that say do not track kids. by that we mean no behavioral marketing, no transfer of information to third parties and advertisers. the second policy plank that we believe should be adopted in the coming months is that the industry standard for all kids privacy should be out be -- out- in, not opt-out, so, for example, no geo-location services without formal permission.

the third basic policy framework that we would like to enunciate today is that privacy statements should be clear and simple, and easy to be understood for someone like me, as well as my much more technologically- sophisticated children to understand. clear and simple privacy statements should be the role. the company should be required to develop easy to understand policies, and a third party should form a rating so an average citizen cannot look at the privacy requirements for an independent rating. the fourth part of our framework is that we think parents, teachers, and kids need to be educated on an ongoing basis about protecting privacy. we believe there should be a massive public education efforts

funded by the industry, because it is the industry whose growth and technological advancement has brought on so many of these issues, and second, that schools should teach privacy as a part of digital literacy education. we believe there should be a digital literacy curriculum in every school in the united states with privacy as a major component. we believe that the industry needs to innovate to protect kids and families. my office is in san francisco. we spend a lot of time in silicon valley. some of my students at stanford have become major leaders in the tech industry. they have done some major changes over the past decade or two because of their extraordinary innovation. that ought to be turned to helping to protect kids today. for example, we believe that the industry should develop an

eraser button, so that when a 15-year-old does a dumb thing on their facebook page, they do not have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. we know adults make dumb mistakes on their web sites and other pages as well, but we think the industry should develop an eraser button. we cannot tell you how to do that, but we know the ingenuity exists to develop these solutions. we think the onus is on the industry to develop that. finally, we believe that government needs to update its policy on privacy for the 21st century. you'll hear from three of the most important government officials in this country to have an ability to do that, but i just want to mention that congressman ed markey, who was the house author of the original coppa act made a

statement that said he remains intensely interested in making sure kids rights are protected, and new technologies have emerged, making a legislative update necessary. hi, ed markey, look for to introducing such legislation to bring coppa into the new century. we need to see education, outreach, and to bring everyone along. our framework, before i turn it over to chairman leibowitz and chairman genachowski is that there are four parts that have a huge part to play in our society with these privacy issues. first is the industry. a significant honest is on the attack and -- a significant onus

is on the attack and media industry to change practices to develop new, innovative technologies, that allow parents to protect privacy in a recent white. you may have seen their recent study that highlighted how cookies were being attached to kids websites. there is an onus on industry to play a big role. i am sure the chairman will address that. from a parent and kids standpoint, we expect and call on the industry to do their part, and to quite frankly change their practices in many cases where they did not promote the best interest of kids. the second is parents and kids. we have handed out today, and will be distributing privacy tips for parents and kids. simple stuff, that everyone needs to know. we will spend a lot time and money doing a broad, out reach

-- a brought out reach campaign. we also expect to work closely with industry, and folks in the federal government to educate the broader public. the third element will be schools, as i mentioned earlier. we believe they need to integrate privacy as a part of a broader digital literacy curriculum. finally, the government is to play a leadership role. that means the federal trade commission, the federal communications commission, the department of education, and the very top levels of government from the white house on down. if i will turn it over to the three distinguished from the leaders we have with us. i will first introduced jon leibowitz, who will then introduce julius genachowski, who will then introduce tony miller, the deputy secretary of the department of education.

the three major agencies that have the ability to help us protect the privacy of kids and families. i would like to remind you that the best thing about all of these gentlemen is that they are parents, too. chairman leibovitz. >> thank you, jim. let me start by thanking you have an common sense media for inviting me ftc to be part of these events, and also for your thoughtful remarks and you're pulling results. last december, chairman genachowski and i unveiled a new guide for chatting with kids about being on line. it is now a multimedia toolkit, including new printed material, the video for kids, slides and

discussion guides, and a video for parents. it is absolutely terrific. let me give you a preview. this video is called share with care. it is directed at kids. can we cue that up? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ >> being on line is a great way to share information. before you post anything of mine, ask yourself a few questions -- how would you feel if your parents, teachers, coaches, or neighbors found it? even if you turn on privacy settings, it is impossible to completely control everything you post or when. do you want a message or fall you posted it to show up years from now? once you post the information online, you cannot take it back.

even if you did leave it, it is still somewhere else. why a video or picture might be funny to you, it might be embarrassing or hurtful to someone else. being on line is a part of your life, so stop and think before you click. >> i thought that was pretty darn good. there are plenty of materials like that. some are longer, some are shorter, and they are both for adults, parents, and kids. now, the original was based on a very simple premise -- adults help kids navigate cyberspace safely and responsibly, not by being more tech-savvy, because i don't think we ever will be, but by passing an hour values on to them. those values are the tether that anchors kids as they explore

these dangerous corners of the net. provide -- protect your -- be mindful that your videos have consequences. under the golden rule of mine, as well as off. recently, we have seen the tragedy that can result when that tether is cut, as a kid approaches the net as a value- free zone. and 18-year-old college freshman killed himself after his roommate strain and video -- streamed video of him online. add to that the countless stories of the jobs lost, but it -- reputation's ruined, and teenagers tears caused by pose -- posts that never disappear. the common sense pole puts numbers behind these fears.

now, the ftc is very concerned about these issues. we brought well over 100 cases involving privacy, spam and spy-where cases, and violations of the childrens' on-line privacy protection act. we are currently reviewing that role, which requires parental consent before intermission can be collected from children under 13. we accelerated this role by five years. we felt it was so important and we felt that technology was changing so fast, that we needed to assess the situation sooner. we will be publishing of report, probably in november, said that examines privacy broadly, including issues about how difficult it is to read -- read and understand privacy notices of that we retain the say

online. as a commission, we dedicate a lot of resources and a lot fought tooth internet education initiatives -- and a lot of thought to internet education initiatives. tellingly, the common sense poll found that three-quarters of teenagers found that adults were better source of information for advice about staying safe online. children are looking to their parents for guidance. parents are eager to talk to their kids about these issues. netsetter has helped, and we are pleased because of the plain-language invites it contains. we distributed more than 5 million guides, and we are responding to orders of about 150,000 more each and every

week. across the country, they are receiving the guide from their school system, including large districts like prince george's county, maryland. we are making available the community outreach toolkit, which has resources to extend that conversation that netsetter has started. the kits offers both a background information and presentation aids. anyone who wants to talk to kids about online safety can use it. parents, school administrators, teachers, law enforcement, and any adult. all materials are in english and in spanish, and there are c d and dvd.

you can order a free copy or find it on mine. we understand that the values are personal, and washington can not provide his kids with the moral grounding they need to travel in cyberspace responsibly. parents can. scout leaders, church leaders, and coaches can, and when they do, the toolkit is them what they need to start talking to kids about taking their values with them when they go online. thank you so much, and let me turn it over to my friend and colleague, mr. genachowski. >> chairman leibowitz, thank you, for your leadership. i'm glad we are joined by deputy education secretary tony miller,

and thank you jim steyer, for organizing this event, commissioning the pole, and for all the work you do on behalf of our children. privacy is a basic value. protecting privacy as always been a central, and it will continue to be essential in the digital age. understanding the challenges leads one to also appreciate the possibilities of the digital age. broadband internet can bring away of an unprecedented opportunity for our children. it has the potential to improve every aspect of our kids' lives -- how they connect with friends and families, including in all emergencies, how they receive care when they're sick, and how they learn. it is mandatory in the digital age that we work for universal access in digital literacy for all of our kids -- that all of

the kids have the tools to be full presence in the digital economy and 21st century democracy. seizing the opportunities require that we confront the issues of privacy. this past march, the sec released the country's first national broadband plan, which focuses on seizing the opportunities and tackling the challenges of broadband for our country. all work identified the importance of data -- our work identified the importance of data to a healthy broadband eco system, and also identified privacy concerns, including a as a barrier to broadband adoption. when people fear that new technology puts their privacy at risk, they are less likely to use those new technologies. to fulfill the promise of broadband for our work children, parents need to feel confident that their children are safe

online, and that their personal information is protected, and children, in fact need to be safe online. theon-sense's poll revealed we have a lot of work to do. this distress has serious consequences. serious consequences for our children, small businesses, and our economy, which needs a vibrant and trustworthy online marketplace. at the fcc, our over-arching goals when it comes to privacy are to ensure that consumers of broadband, cable, and mobile communications are empowered to control their information, that providers are transparent and clear about their practices, and that personal data is handled in a way that protect consumers, including from malicious third parties. if we have -- enforced rules that apply to communication providers, and we will continue

to do so. the fcc national broadband planned understands the importance of data. we enhance privacy through education, tolls to empower consumers, updating policy, and inter-agency of child of mine safety work. interagency coordination is important for so many reasons. it would not be the right thing to do for each of our agencies to develop their own education plans for parents and kids, and small businesses, etc. then, distribute similar information. it makes much more sense to have real coordination, to leverage

the assets the government does have to provide excellent privacy-related education, and then use our joint resources to get it out. i am pleased that the fcc and the ftc have joined together. i am pleased, the we have been able to work with the department of education on this, too. this is how government should work when it comes to these issues. ultimately, this is what will work most effectively for consumers, parents, and kids. as chairman leibowitz mentioned, we have been working closely uard onlinec and ongar will continue to do that. we are launching a campaign. today, we released a new web page dedicated to online

privacy and security. you can find it at fcc.gov \consumer. there are many different kinds of privacy and security risks that consumers face. drop the month, we will be releasing digital guides on -- throughout the month, we will be releasing digital guides on a range of topics including how to browse the internet safely. these are just some of the resources we are making available. last month, we launched a new parent place. it is intermission and parental controls for media, a minor child safety, and child obesity. technology can and must be part of the solution to the challenges technology creates. this is a key area for

innovation, and there is much that private companies, our best and the bidders can, and must do. we're at the computer museum in san francisco, and we saw a tremendous set of examples of innovators that were developing tools to help parents help their kids navigate the internet to select and find content that is educational and entertaining. there is the beginning of tremendous innovation in this area, and we are all working together on ways to spur that kind of technology and innovation. the education of our kids, in and out of school, must be a part of the solution. we will hear more about that in a minute. fundamentally, we need solutions to the real and growing needs around digital challenges -- solutions that protect children, and our parents, and honor the

first amendment. today's information, today's poll is a spur to action. i was inspired to work together to seize the opportunities, and tackle the challenges of the digital world. with that, let me invite tony miller, our deputy education secretary, to the podium. >> thank you. first of all, thank you to jim and the common sense media, for the work that you are doing in this area, for shining a light and promoting education and understanding on this critically important issue. i am pleased to be here on behalf of secretary duncan to join chairman genachowski and chairman of leibowitz to bring focus on this important issue in this digital age. the president and secretary has

said repeatedly that education is the civil rights issue of our time, and that improving education in america is clearly an economic imperative. the president has set a high goals that by the year 2020, the united states will have the highest per-capita graduation rates in the world. meeting this goal will mean getting many more of our students to be much better prepared for colleges and careers. to accomplish this, we will need an all-hands-on-deck approach -- parents, students, with the support of community-based organizations, will have to rise to the challenge. we know to be successful we must leverage the best of modern technology. we have talked about what is going on with broadband and the abolition of web technology. we need to create more engaging, and inspiring personalize learning environments. these learning environments will

not only be in the classroom, but extend to the community as we think about after-school and extended-day programs, and into the home. weekend news these to accelerate learning, and -- we can use this new technology to accelerate learning, and a mixture teacher's pet access to the data that can make them more effective. we have to be equally committed to promoting, understanding, and protecting privacy and safety of our students did the commitment includes investing -- students. the commitment includes investing at the government level. let me give you a sense of what we are doing at the department of education. we are investing in a new position of chief privacy officer to serve as senior adviser to the secretary on all policy and programs related to privacy, confidentiality, and data security.

the officer will provide guidance to the field, helping to provide solutions for sharing information is protected. in addition, we have launched the privacy technical assistance center. it will serve as a one-stop- shop, four states, districts, and schools, and help them understand data security issues and practices. they provide resources such as privacy tool kits, and technical briefs to enable access to the best affirmation and practices in these areas across the field. archie's privacy officer will serve on the -- our chief privacy officer will serve on the advisory board. in addition to the work we are doing in the department, we are actively engaged with our sister agencies across the department. we are promoting cyber security

through the national initiative for cyber security education, in partnership with the department of commerce and other u.s. agencies. we are also agents -- at the on the interagency subcommittee on privacy. these are some of the efforts we are taking at the department. in this digital age, a thriving, dynamic education system requires a focus on technology, and equally strong protection for some information and privacy. to advance this important work, we are pleased to be able to continue to distribute then netsetter guide. as a parent of a college student, i can tell you firsthand the need for us to

understand and engage our students about these lasting technologies is in critically important. we are committed to this work, and look forward to working with our counterparts. thank you. [applause] >>, we will open it up to questions from the floor. we have chairman genachowski, chairman leibowitz, and deputy secretary miller. i believe there are capable of answering questions. why don't we start with you. >> [unintelligible] what about privacy [unintelligible] >> i would just tell you that we look at everything to the lens

of kids. we frame did in two contexts. first of all, how kids can do really dumb things, if you well, put stuff up there that they should not come up or might other people's privacy. that is one element of -- or by other people's privacy. that is one critical area. the other is for marketers are taking information and selling with or without their knowledge. we did not call on that specific issue, but i believe chairman genachowski or chairman leibowitz could probably speak to that one. >> to have a successful, a vibrant, broadband at the system as it is important everyone trusts what is in the cloud. they need to be confident that they are protected against

people who deliberately try to steal identities, violate privacy, and they need to know there will not be accidental ones, either. his one of the reasons why we are launching an education -- it is one of the reasons we are launching an education program to help consumers who use wifi networks that they should encrypt. there are other examples that stops -- of steps that consumers and small businesses can take to increase the protection they have. we want to make sure we have a trusting environment where consumers only controlled their data because the -- controlled their data because that will be a key ingredient to a vibrant, successful broadband echoes as compared >> at the ftc, we do a lot of law enforcement. we have brought 29 at data security bases in the last seven

years. i agree with chairman genachowski. obviously, the internet gives us these wonderful gifts, but it also raises concerns on the other hand. we have to be on top of that, both with education, and with law-enforcement. >> we are likely to have a blair, who directed our national broadband plan, and make sure that in looking at the epic is around broadband -- the enormous economic opportunities around broadband, that they also looked at challenges like security, and make sure that the coordinated efforts going forward takes that seriously. it is a fundamental issue of values, and also, we need to tackle it to harness and sees the economic benefit. i am glad that she is here. >> i would like to make one

point and pick up on something chair -- chairman genachowski said. we are calling for serious policy change. i know the industry might complain and say this is expensive. we believe very strongly what chairman genachowski said -- in the long run, it is really good for economic growth. unless there is trust in privacy, unless we invest and put the right policy in place, people will not years the broadband environment as much as they should. it will curb economic growth. you do not have privacy laws, just like in the 1900's, where you head meat-packing -- had meat-packing standards. he made clear regulations to protect kids and teenagers.

if you did that, the economic vibrancy that we all recognize will be at the centerpiece of the economic and educational engines of the future, that will happen. the industry might say that as a burden, but we would strongly disagree. we think it is in all of our best interest. next question. >> first of all, how will it is a kid? 17 and under? is it 17 and under? >> for common sense media, it is under the age of 18. >> do you agree. >> different policies with a different kids. >> i agree, but for our purposes it is 12 and under.

>> the department of education thinks about privacy, safety and a private security across all the information. >> how does all company now when a person goes on line at -- let's say they are looking at a tapeworm on wikipedia. how does it now it is a giggling 13-year-old against a 35-year old person with the medical condition. -- medical condition? >> do you want to take a shot? >> sure. companies cannot always tell, of course, but certainly, they developed profiles of the internet addresses. they do behavioral marketing. if you go online, you will see that advertisements generally

sent to you are sort of a relevant to your universe of interests. i think, in lots of instances, those profiles are developed often using third party cookies, which are somewhat controversial. at some level, you cannot distinguish between kids and adults. -- you can. >> how many believe the regulation so far has been relevant -- adequate? >> we did not believe that industry self regulation is adequate. >> to the rest of you feel that it has fallen short? >> there are clearly issues that need to be addressed, and that can be addressed in a number of different locations. there is no question that industry is looking more carefully at their privacy policy because it is a broad consumer issue, and we are also

looking at the best way to foster a growing and trust and broadband system. -- trusted broadband system. >> if some companies have done a very good job on privacy protection, but overall industry needs to step up the plate and self-regulation. there will be a very big debate in the next congress, and if they do not improve collectively their efforts at self- regulation, i think congress will be very interested in writing more prescriptive rules. >> my last question is, if these companies get very tough on privacy they could lose a lot of revenue. they depend on advertising. what is in it for them to act on what would seem to be against their short-term self interest? >> i will take that from a common-sense standpoint. at common sense, we do not believe the only value that matters is shareholder value or

short-term profit. we believe the interests of kids and families are paramount. the idea that certain privacy policies may limit corporate profits from companies that are making enormous profits, by the way, and having enormous public offerings, and enriching their employees, founders, and shareholders greatly, is simply not a huge concern for us. we believe they have a responsibility to the public, specifically to kids and families. if there are short-term investments they need to make, or certain restrictions on profits that come from a do not track law that did not allow them to share third party information with marketers and advertisers, that as a bargain that as well made. he has to balance the best interest of kids against short term profits. we believe the interest of kids and families is paramount. >> i would add that i think we

are on the cost of dramatic growth in the application of new technologies in education, not just in the classroom, but beyond. i think many in the industry see that potential and are poised to deliver against that. i think it is in our economic best interest to ensure that students are protected, that teachers and parents feel like these are safe tools to protect privacy, and that will accelerate the deployment of these tools. to not do so, is not in their economic interest because it will slow their use. >> a lot of companies and executives do actually care about privacy. with respect to something like do not track, i think is most consumers -- it is not clear that the technology is there, but it seems close -- if there was a do not track mechanism, a

lot of consumers what ought not to be is it not to use it. they prefer more relevant adds. i am not sure the rate would be terribly high. time may tell. >> very quickly -- i think there is a growing awareness in companies that operate in the the space that if the internet is not a trusted place, it will not have the growth characteristics that are needed for the greater success of those companies. if small businesses do not trust the internet, and did not taking advantage of opportunities in the cloud to expand to new markets, and lower their cost, said it will hurt the business that is try to sell to those small businesses. we of all participated in discussions where the industry

is taking this issue more and more seriously. it really is broadway required -- broadly required for both protecting basic privacy values, and also ensuring the success of the internet to have it be trusted and secure. >> we will take one more question, and that will be it. >> i was wondering if you could collaborate on the current state of privacy law -- elaborate on the current state of privacy law with regard to protecting kids, and what potential improvements would be needed. do you feel like current law is adequate? common sense is calling for no behavioral marketing to kids. how should the law treats behavioral marketing to kids? >> well, i would sit privacy laws in america are a quilted

patchwork. sometimes they do -- they work well, but often they were developed in isolation. that is why you see some members of congress that are far more comprehensive privacy legislation. we are doing an accelerated review of the childrens' on- line protection act. my recommendation -- my sense is that we're want to have some policy recommendations out of that, and maybe some minor changes to regulations themselves. we have not decided that yet. again, when you are an agency, and you do rulemaking, they are cabin begin by the parameters of the extension of the law. >> i agree with jon.

privacy laws and protections up here in many places. they are a patchwork, and they do not fully anticipate the challenges we are now facing. that is why this is getting a serious look in congress, and why each of our agencies are looking at it, and also one of the reasons why we set our joint task force. we want to be able to deliver to the public a coherent, sensible rules of the road that accomplish the goals we have been talking about. >> i think that congressman markey's statement today is quite important, since he has been of one of the leading figures in the past 15 or 20 years, looking at the whole issue of media and technology, and was the primary office -- , author of the act that the chairman have referred to.

for him to say he would like to see an update on the law, we see that as good news. there will be legions of lobbyists who are trying to protect their own self-interest. we hope very strongly that the best interest of kids and families will be part of that, and we can come up with a true set of common sense privacy rules for the 21st century. as parents, we all know we need this. i agree we very much with what chairman genachowski said -- in the long run, and even in the short-run, said it will benefit our economy. i am optimistic, and we have common sense would like to see that a bidding of the laws in a comprehensive, common sense way. all of us will benefit if that happens. >> part -- privacy is one of the least partisan issues in washington. chairman genachowski and i

testified before the committee in the beginning of august. privacy issues, particularly do not track, really resonated with members on both sides of the aisle. on the house energy and commerce committee, you have ed markey, who has been a leader on privacy, and so has joe barton. this is an issue that has been looked at, and it will be looked at and a bipartisan way. >> if we lose the room, we really should go. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> thank you, guys.

>> in a moment, we will go live to the pentagon for a briefing with defense secretary robert gates, and north korea's defense minister. secretary gates might respond to a question about a story in the ap reporting that the national security adviser james jones is retiring. sources are saying tom donilon

will be his replacement. if this comes as no surprise to the white house, as general jones had planned a tenure of only about two years. president obama is expected to announce the change this afternoon in the rose garden. we plan to have that ceremony here on c-span beginning at about 1:00 p.m. eastern. bank of america president and ceo brian moynihan will be at the national press club today. live coverage of that starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern. our campaign coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight with a second debate between connecticut's u.s. senate candidates, followed by a debate in a wisconsin between russ feingold ron johnson. at 10:00 p.m., a debate in north dakota, and then president obama at an illinois fund-raiser. tomorrow night, the 31st annual

news and documentary emmy awards -- we will have live coverage. presenters include diane sawyer and dan rather. live coverage will begin at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> these are the politicians that nearly bankrupted our country, left a legacy of debt, are still in the nile about the disaster they>> british prime md conservative party leader david cameron from the annual party conference, sunday night on c- span. >> despite the uprising and state crackdown following iranian elections last year, -- this weekend on "after words," the author of "the ayatollahs 'democracy."

a live picture from the pentagon this morning, where we are standing by for a defense department briefing with defense secretary robert gates. he will be joined by north korea's defense minister. this is live coverage on c-span.

again, standing by live for a pentagon briefing with defense secretary gates and the south korean defense minister. on the campaign trail for massachusetts governor, a story from "the boston globe," says that tim cahill is file -- has filed a political explosive lawsuit.

he says aides planned the desertion of his running mate and give information to his republican rival, charles baker. >> this is the pentagon briefing room. testing one, too, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. all right. if you plug in, you get it in korean. if you plug into english, you get it in english. >> c-span's local content the goals are traveling the country as we look at the most contested house races leading up to the midterm elections. >> are you doing? >> good to see you. how are you?

>> i want to tell you the spirit we have to stop president obama's agenda. whatever he comes out with, they to polizzi and her people will represent it. she may vote against one or two items, but in the end, those so- called blue dog democrats are delivering each and every vote that she needs to pass the buck obama/pelosi agenda. >> i do not think there are lucid about -- they are lucid about -- our goal in this generation is not to pass a crushing debt to the next generation. i think the physical stimulus was appropriate. i did not agree with some of what was in it, but you hardly ever did exactly what you want in washington. >> the race between incumbent democrat, jim marshall, and the

conservative democrat, the challenger in this race, austin scott, a state representative from georgia. from rural areas, the south of land suburbs, and the metropolitan areas, the southern district. the district is a republican- leaning district. john mccain picked up 57% of the vote in the district here in 2008, so this is a district and john mccain won, that is represented by a democrat. about one in four mccain voters voted for marshall in that race. he tends to run to the right of most democrats. while he is a reliable democrat in the caucus votes, but he is not terribly reliable when it comes to health insurance. he is not terribly popular with liberals, but he has maintained a very strong connection to

people in the middle. perhaps his best asset, his two really good assets -- one is that he has taught himself to the robins air force base future to keep the base open. there are a lot of folks at the base who see jim marshall as working very hard on their behalf. secondly, he has done a lot of good work in bringing things home. a lot of work in bringing things back to the district, particularly in the rural communities. if you talk to the county commissioners and even some republicans, they will say i do not necessarily like the fact that he is a democrat, but he has worked hard for the district. boston's scott is 20 years younger than jim marshall. -- austin scott is 20 years older than jim marshall. he has been with the general

assembly for three terms now. he really has a lot of confidence and youth. he started the election cycle running for governor. when it looks like jim marshall might be somewhat believable, he switched to the congressional race and is doing quite well. he is making a lot of connections. he has a lot of enthusiasm and projects a youthful side. both of them are committed to reducing the federal deficit. jim marshall is the chair of the house caucus for a balanced budget amendment. boston -- austin scott talks about balancing the budget on his website. they talk about service and doing a good job of it. the major issue will be that jim

marshall as a democrat, and it may be a winning race for boston's scott -- for ostend -- for austin scott. i think this race is becoming more and more favorable from the republican perspective, particularly because there is a base for republicans. what the republican task is to do is convince republicans, not democrats, that they want to vote for the republican candidate and not for marshall. i have several republican friends who tell me they do not vote for democrats ever, except for jim marshall. contentn's local vehicles are traveling the country. for more information on the local content vehicles and what they're up to this election season, isn't our website, c- span.org -- visit our website,

c-span.org/lcv. we are standing by for a briefing with defense secretary robert gates and the clarification, helping meeting with the south korean defense minister, the focus is on how to respond to north korean threats and the transfer of wartime operation controls on the korean peninsula. we expect this briefing to start in just a moment. also, we expect secretary gates to respond to questions about president obama's national security adviser, james jones, stepping down. that is expected to become official in two weeks. officials are saying deputy national security advisor tom donilon will step in to be his replacement. general jones planned to only serve in that position for about two years. president obama is expected to

announce the change this afternoon in the white house rose garden. we will be standing by to bring that live to you on c-span at 1:00 p.m. eastern -- at 1:00 p.m. eastern.

again, standing by live at the pentagon, waiting for the pentagon briefing with defense secretary robert gates and the south korean defense minister. we expect president obama this afternoon to talk about the replacement of his national security adviser, james jones, who will be stepping down in two weeks. the president will make that announcement this afternoon at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will have it live for you on c-span. before that, the president will be talking about the latest unemployment numbers. that what happened in a half an hour at 11:40. this morning it was reported at 9.6%. the president making that announcement this morning at 11:40 eastern. we will have it for you here on

c-span. a look at the ohio governor's race. >> last night we covered on c- span the debate for the ohio governor's c. the incumbent in that sea, democrat ted strickland, is running against john take. the editor in chief of the hotline, reid wilson, what about of last night's date? >> it is another clash of the titans. >> we will leave this and go back live to the pentagon for defense secretary robert gates. >> we had a productive discussion on a wide range of issues important to the continued transformation of our alliance as we move to 2015. the newly established date for the transition of operational control on the peninsula. mr. kim -- mr. kim -- as we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the start of the korean war,

we are reminded of the close bond between our two countries, our two militaries. first forged in blood and shared sacrifices 60 decade -- six decades ago. our commitment to south korea's security is steadfast, and our military alliance has never been stronger. north korea's nuclear and conventional weapons threat continues to be the focal point andur alliance's deterrent posture. we will use the full range of the american military might from our nuclear umbrella to conventional strike and ballistic missile defense. in the wake of the incident, the close cooperation of our two governments set the close message to north korea that its publication and aggression will not be tolerated. the republic in korea has

repeatedly deployed and fought alongside the u.s. military for 50 years, from vietnam to afghanistan today. our two countries are also cooperating on a range of regional and global security issues, from disaster relief in haiti to counter piracy in the gulf. further demonstrating that the united states and the republic of korea are bound by the same mutual interest of peace and stability around the world and the shared values and common aspirations of our peoples. we look forward to building on the legacy of the last 60 years to strengthen and deepen our partnerships in the future. mr. kim? >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. it is a very meaningful year in our alliance. as you well know, it marks the anniversary of the start of the korean war, and the close

collaboration of the u.s.-korean alliance in the wake of the incident. as well as the first-ever iraq- u.s. ministers' meeting. , secretaryy's scn gates and i had the opportunity to deeply discuss the korean peninsula's secured a an alliance. through the scn, we once again recall -- which was again called for north korea to take responsible actions. we also read-confirm -- we also reconfirmed the -- in addition, we came to agreement on strategic alliance with an implementation plan that allows us to substantially move forward.

we have achieved significant accomplishments, such as the development of corp. guidelines for the future of the alliance -- of cooperation guidelines it for the future of the alliance. secretary gates and i share a common understanding of the values of the past 60 years. we will continue to establish a stronger alliance to work effectively deal with the security challenges of the future. thank you. today thatuncement general jones will be replaced by the deputy national security adviser -- i would like both of you to comment on news today son kim jong il's youngest

is is dedicated successor. do you believe that there is any change in north korea's behavior? are they at this point ramping up nuclear program again? >> i will say this. i have thoroughly enjoyed working with general jones, and i have and have had a very productive and very good working relationship with tom donilon, contrary to what you may have read. and i look forward to continuing to work with him. on the second issue, i think we have been seeing signs for quite a long time that the succession

was moving in this direction in north korea. i do not know -- there clearly were some steps taken at the party meeting in terms of new appointments for him, for the potential successor. i'm not aware that there has been any further formal indication that he will be the successor, but frankly, that is the assumption that we are all working on, that he will in fact at some point take on that leadership role. >> will be any change in north korea's behavior? >> i think that remains to be seen. there is a lot of speculation about the circumstances that lay behind the sinking of the chenu n the weather and other publications may follow. i think our meeting today should

reinforce what we said, that the publications will not be tolerated. i t thingnk it is a good thingan at this point of transition in north korea that our alliance is in fact, as both the minister and i have agreed, the strongest it has ever been. [speaking korean] >> we will be very deliberate in

watching against north korea. >> recently north korea, the generation succession, i believe there were results the secretary and yourself, how successful do you believe the situation will be, and the instability with the situation in north korea -- i believe that there were agreements on defense cooperation guidelines. regarding a more detailed vision.

>> first, north korea has moved forward -- kim jong il's health deterioration does not eliminate the situation in north korea. it is a significant issue that affects both countries. i believe it is a responsibility to prepare. to prepare for all possible contingencies in north korea. and, as you mentioned, korea and

the united states, and regarding the future direction of the alliance -- the future duration of the alliance. as you mentioned, it would go beyond its current form to develop further regional and global dimensions. while on the korean peninsula, we will continue to prevent and deter the north korean threat when it comes to more regional issues. we will go about broadening our boundaries in the future. >> there have been signs recently of increase in to --

increased its engagement in the south and the north. are you concerned that any issue or will lead to -- will lead to direct talks? are there any initial talks between the two governments? >> i think that the minister is probably in a better position to answer that question than i am? >> let me reply. recently north korea moved more towards the appeasement and there have been some changes in north korea's attempts at dialogue. we need a recognition of north korea's role in the china -- in the cheonan incident.

north korea needs to take clearer meshes-clearer measures. these measures are taken, the dialogue will be more substantial and we can move forward in that direction. regarding the issue of -- if north korea becomes a more responsible member of the international community and takes more responsible actions, we will go about meeting further in a more substantial manner and helping north korea overcome its economic troubles. also, during, unique, there has

been an increase in intelligence and the surveillance assets. have there been any significant movements of north korea prior to the g20 summit? but in order to facilitate a successful g20 summit, -- but not in order to facilitate a successful g20 summit, -- regarding the matter of surveillance, the situation ongoing between korea and the u.s., a more detailed collaboration is still needed. we will go about watching against the north korean threats and any possible north korean provocation. we will also make sure that --

we are currently in the middle of courting details to the response of biological, chemical weapons being built in north korea. in preparation, we have combined assets to watch against north korea in prior, and we will continue to do so. >> thank you very much. >> president obama is up live

next, talking about the latest unemployment numbers at 11:40 this morning. he will be at a small business in bladensburg, maryland. this is where the president will be standing. he will talk about the unemployment rate which is holding steady at 9.6%. we will have that live for you here on c-span. once again, standing live a standing by live for the president. the unemployment numbers are holding steady at 9.6%. subdues from the political races. the ohio governor's race. a new poll that was released yesterday of ohio voters shows

that john case it is ahead of the incumbent, governor ted strickland, 42% -- 46% to 42%. another 17% are planning on voting before election day. your phone calls from this morning's "washington journal." u. and we have lots of news and political discussion later on in the program. we hope you will not mind listening for the first part of a program about those corian are a regular audience. would like to -- those in the regular audience. we're going to go back to the archive ensure you what the very first call looks like 30 years ago here in washington d.c. following a speech at the national press club. >> what's the name?

>> we have south dakota. >> this is bob jabr frattini sinton, south dakota. -- bob joffra in yankton, s.d.. it corrects bought from yankton, s.d. it went into -- host: bob up from yankton, s.d. went into the archives as our very first caller. let's begin with our very first caller of the morning from richmond, va., anthony on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning out there. how are you? host: very well. does a bit about yourself and how long you have been watching. caller: i am 51 years old and have been watching since you

started. i am one of those junkies that has been reading about events from the world and domestic events since i was about 18 years old. five of the -- i went to school in d.c. and i have a master's in gw. and with regard to why i watch c-span, i think you guys have quite a bit of good information that would inform significantly about topics that we cannot get from mainstream. but most importantly, i watch c- span to get a gauge of how strong of a command to the -- does the american public have of a subject that is when i get fearful and it is not meeting even if this -- it is not me being elitist, but that many

people calling in do not have a command of the topic, whether it is on both sides or partisan or whatever it is. then you do find many people who call in and have quite a good command, whether they be republican, democratic, independent. host: before you go, what are your favorite issues? what most attracts you? caller: one thing that attracts me is international affairs and also, domestic ones as well. i think, just got everything. i am extremely interested in just about everything. anything that can inform us from a neutral perspective, a non biased perspective. i think, if it is going to inform us on a topic it does not matter what it is as long as it

is not propagandized and it allows you to make a decision on your own without being persuaded court to try to politicize an event. host: anthony, thank you so much. 51 years old and been listening for a long time. this is tim calling from michigan. caller: listen, are you guys ever eligible for emmys? host: theoretically, but not practically. caller: well, because about -- i have got to tell you and i'm not trying to kiss up. host: i appreciate it, but i'm not looking for compliments as much as i am learning about you. caller: basically, i'm a white collar according to joe.

i'm a democratic socialist. host: how old are you? caller: 49. host: how long have you been watching? caller: i have been watching every day since october 5, 2018, because that is when i got what -- laid off. host: and what do you do? caller: i am a machinist. host: what issues do you tend to watch most carefully on the wash -- on the "washington journal"? caller: politics. host: how would you vote in elections this year? caller: the last three times i voted for nadir. at this election, and voting straight democrat. if i may, i told you what i make an hour, but i was looking at numbers kent kurmanbek, his salary, i have heard, at -- , his salary, i have

heard is at $32 million per year. i guess he feels he does not need to pay taxes. this year, i've heard they are spending $53 billion on the campaign across the country. they cannot extend unemployment, but they spend $53 billion, which based on a population of $310 million would average out to $170,000 per man, woman, and child in this country. you talk about clause 4 -- class warfare, good lord, and entitlements. host: and going to talk -- to cut you off right there because there are lots of other mornings to talk about these things. let's talk about the nobel peace prize going to a chinese dissident.

we are talking to you this morning and our goal is to hear about who is watching each morning. our next call is at walls from montana. republican line. tell us about yourself. caller: i'm just waiting for the weather to come in. host: how long have you been watching, how old are you, what are your politics? caller: i have been watching since about 1987, or 88. host: a long time.

caller: i am retired, 62 years old. i worked for the federal and retired at 55. host: where are you doing now? caller: i'm busy with the grandkids. host: what do you tend to watch or react to on the "washington journal"? caller: i watch the issues on social security and possibly predetermining the way they do the numbers for social security and politics in general. and my health care plan, of course. host: ok, issues that most directly affect you and your state in life right now. we welcome the twitter followers to tell us a bit about yourself

this morning. tell us about who you are and why you watch. also, those who send their comments in by e-mail, tell us a little bit about you this morning. as i mentioned, the washington -- the "washington journal" has been around since 1985. we average 60 calls per program and that means we take 23,000 phone calls per year. the next call is at the south, democrats line -- the next call is seth, democrats line. ♪ i have been watching since i was -- caller: i have been watching since i was too young to be watching, since the eighth

grade. i have gone to college and law school. but the information i watched as a child was impressive. we grew up in new york city pork, in the projects, single mother. and -- in the new york city fo poor, in the project, single mother. especially i watched the senators. i remember robert byrd, his language was impressive to me. and i did not know what they did or how they got there because it was not what i experienced every day, but it really inspired me to say, hey, who that guy is pretty impressive.

-- of that guy is pretty impressive. even though people get down on him now. but it was a world that i was not exposed to. down in newo his cool york city. i was lucky enough to go to a school in nyc, and then law school and i became an attorney. it has changed my life. i watch because of brain limbs follow-up questions. i watch because of the way the interviews open up questions and allow them to flow. and now, i have children and they hate me and c-span because it is on so much. but i >> we are going to leave this washington journal said right now is president obama is

speaking on unemployment numbers at a small business in suburban maryland. this is live on c-span. >> good morning, everybody. it is good to be here, and i just had a chance to take a look around with brendan quinn, the ceo, and it is a remarkable story. brendan came here initially to help a family business, turn it around, but it was experiencing losses. he ended up purchasing the company and now has grown it enormously. he has terrific employees here. he provides full health insurance to them. they are supporting their families, and even during this

difficult downturn, he has not had to lay anybody off and is still confident about his growth. we are very proud of him and what his company has accomplished. these are the guys who are serious about concrete blocks, bricks, four walls that are thick, difficult to move, and can stop anything in their path. sort of the way i feel about congress sometimes. this is a family business that has been here over 80 years. they believe that investing in their workers -- they care about the environment, so they used cooking oil from local restaurants to power some of their equipment. their community cares about them, so this is growing. he has hired folks this year, and with the smart investments he has made, he hopes to continue that growth. small businesses like this one are the bricks and blocks of our entire economy.

over the past two years, my administration has been doing everything we can to help encourage more success stories like this. because it is small businesses that will power our growth and put our people back to work. this morning, we learned that in the month of september, our economy gained 64,000 jobs in the private sector. july and august, private-sector jobs numbers were revised upwards. so we have seen nine straight months of proper -- private- sector job growth. in all, more than 850,000 private-sector jobs gained this year, which is in sharp contrast to the almost 800,000 jobs we were losing. when i first took office. but that news is tempered by a net job loss in september, which was fueled in large measure by the end of census jobs and layoffs in state and local governments. i should point out that these

continuing layoffs by state and local governments -- teachers, police officers, firefighters, and the like -- would have been even worse without the federal help that we provided the states over the last 20 months. help that the republicans in congress have consistently opposed. i think the republican vision does not make much sense, especially since the week this in public sector employment is a drag on the private sector as well. so we need to continue to explore ways that we can help states and local governments to provide vital services. at the same time, we have to do everything we can to accelerate this recovery. yes, the trend in private-sector job growth is moving in the right direction. but i'm not interested in trends and figures as much as i'm interested in the people behind them, the billions of hard- working, honest americans.

the only piece of economic news that folks still looking for work want to hear is, "you are hired," and everything that we're doing is dedicated to making that happen. last week i signed into law the small business jobs act. first, within the 11 days since it took effect, more than 2000 small business owners have already received more than $1 billion worth of new loans with more to come. beginning today, the small business administration is offering larger loads for folks who need them. second, it expands the tax cuts for all the equipment investments small businesses make this year, something that branded as planned to take advantage of here at mayer block.

the more that we can accelerate depreciation, it will help small business owners upgrade their equipment. it will encourage large businesses to put dollars back into the economy, and it will accelerate $55 billion for in b. it creates a new initiative in the state programs that spur private-sector lending to small businesses, a step that will support $15 billion in small- business loans across the country. maryland, for example, will be able to support to under $50 million in new lending for businesses that are expanding and creating jobs in communities like -- $250 million in new lending for businesses that are expanding and create jobs in communities like this one. a partisan minority, until a few

courageous republican senators put politics aside. imagine the difference it could have made for small businesses had it happened once before. putting the american people back to work, expanding opportunity, rebuilding the economic security of the middle-class, is the moral and national challenge of our time. it is too important to fall prey to pure partisanship or blind ideology. -- thisapids results bill's rapid results prove what can be done when we work together. i believe that instead of extending tap -- tax loopholes, we should probably extend the tax credit goes to companies for all the research and innovation they do right here in america. i believe that instead of borrowing another $700 billion we do not have to give tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of americans who do not need it, we

should personally extend the tax cuts for middle-class families. they are the folks who saw their wages and incomes flat line over the past decades, and they're the ones who deserve a break. i believe that instead of sitting still, we should invest in rebuilding america's roads, railways, and runways. to many american workers have been out of work for months, even years. that does not do anybody any good when there is so much of america to rebuild. our infrastructure is falling far behind what the rest of the world is doing, and upgrading it is vital to our economy and our future competitiveness. this is worthy of america's efforts, something that engineers, economists, governors, and mayors support, and many had been arrested a sobering report about these challenges last week. on monday i will meet with some of them at the white house to

discuss how we can put americans to work doing what we do best, building america. as i have said many times before, it took us a long time to get out of where we are right now. the damage left by this recession is so deep that it will take a long time to get out. it will take determination, persistence, and most importantly the will to act. all elements that the american people have in abundance. if we summon that spirit now, if we keep moving forward, i am absolutely convinced that we will rebuild our economy, we will put our people back to work, and we will come through these tough days to brighter and better days ahead. i want to thank brendan not only for his hospitality here today, but as somebody who has got the courage and the foresight and the skills to upgrade a terrific bills this -- it's a terrific business and support so many

families. thank you very much. thank you again. keep up the good work. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> we need to keep its infrastructure going.

>> president obama talking for about five minutes from a concrete plant in suburban maryland, remarking on the latest unemployment numbers. right after this, he is expected to head back to the white house rose garden. this afternoon he will announce a change in national security adviser. general james jones stepping down after two years at that post. deputy adviser tom donilon is expected to be his replacement. we will have that announcement at 1:00 p.m. eastern at the white house. happening at the same time, bank of america president and ceo brian moynihan will be at the national press club. his company made news today. bank of america will stop sales of foreclosed homes at all 50 states. he is also expected to talk about the new financial law and

the state of the global economy. our campaign coverage continues at 8:00 eastern tonight with the second debate between connecticut u.s. senate candidates, followed by live coverage of the first debate between senate candidates in wisconsin. coming up at 10:00 eastern, a debate between north dakota's democratic congressman, earl pomeroy, and his opponent. tonight, the documentary -- the 31st annual news & documentary emmy awards ceremony. that begins saturday at 8:00 eastern. book, "the latest supreme court." candid conversations with active

and retired justices, and attorneys to argue the cases there. revealing new insights about the court. available in hardcover and also as an ebook. >> now, bob woodward talks about his new book "obama's wars," odd today's "washington journal." thanks for being here. guest: thank you. host: i watched you on charlie rose the other night, and i wanted to start our conversation with your very last thought on tha program. i'm going to play it for our audience and then pick up the h not enough has been done to clarify and set the direction of the war which will not --

it's not just going to define in part the obama presidency, it's going to define where this country is in oneear, two years, 50 years. host: pretty big stuff. you're thinking we're at a pretty important crossroads of history. guest: this war has been going on since 2001. longest war ever for this country. right now, it's in trouble. this report released by congress this week shows that it's not -- if you take in the back of the book, i print the secret orders that president obama issued to the military and his national security team, and he lists four criteria for evaluating progress, and they are four risk factors as they are identified. the first is afghan governance in that war. now, we're dealing with karzai, who i point out in the book,

the intelligence shows is a manic depressive, on his meds, off his meds. a couple weeks ago he's crying in public. one day he says he's with us, the next day he's going after the united states. he is an unreliable partner. second risk factor. the afghan security force and how are weraining enough to get to the point that we can turn it over to them. in these secret debates in the white house, which i describe here, the military's pushing for a goal of training 400,000 afghan soldiers and police. they keep bringing this goal back to the president. he just says no, what's the evidence? where does this come from? and finally, at the end he just dismisses it and says your presentation strains creddult.

there are in fact attrition rates in the police and army sometimes that are higher than the recruitment rate. third area is pakistan, which is the powder keg of sth asia and in many ways the powder keg of the world. weak government, all of these safe havens for al qaeda and the taliban extremists and insurgents. a country that has 100 nuclear weapons. and the fourth area is international support. and as we know, that's on the wane. in this country, the criticism and doubt about the war is great. so you have a situation where the president has forged some consensus, got everyone to sign up to the strategy he developed. but sometimes you get a compromise where none really

will work. and this maybe be point we're at now. host: i pulled the commentary page from the washington times this morning because there's a big piece with the headline, is afghanistan worth winning? you have -- the first question asked was, should we pull out? does anyone around here believe we should leave? everyone was silent. why is afghanistan worth pursuing fundamentally? guest: this is the question. it's afghanistan-pakistan. as the president says at one of these meetings, the cancer is in pakistan, not afghanistan. vice president biden makes a very compelling series of arguments that we should focus on pakistan, that we have enough force, enough intelligence capability and control of the air over

afghanistan that the taliban cannot and will not come back. host: there is a lot of discussion in washington this week about your comments about hillary clinton and joe biden on the next ticket. you've been here a long time. with all this substantive coverage in this book, were you surprised about how much attention there was about the contours of the next presidential race? >> you know, it's reported in the book that one of her advisers told her, look, it may be in 2012 obama's in trouble and that he needs to put you, hillary clinton, on the vice presidential ticket. it's being kicked around. look, it's politics. and if you look at the numbers, hillary clinton has strength with voter groups, workers, seniors, latinos and women.

and obama may need the now, the white house is right, they're not talking about it now because they're worried about the november elections coming up. but after that, when they get into presidential election mode, as we know, in politics people will do anything that's legitimate to win. and sometimes things that are ill legitimate. host: one of the things we're going to do during this program is show some clips from some prior books. but before we get to that, this is the list in the front of the current book, obama's war. you seem fascinated, you can attack the presidency as a journalist but you seem to go back to the concept of presidents and the pentagon. and the leadership around the war decision. why does that aspect interest you? guest: because it's so important. if you travel abroad, you discover we're defined by our wars in many ways i think the

country is defined to itself by its wars. it is a serious moral choice always. people lose their lives, people are maimed. it is the defining undertaking for a nation state. and if you can look at, as i attempt to do here, exactly what obama decides, how he rks, who he listens to, what matters, how he loses his cool sometimes, even barack obama does, it's a window into who he is and theessage control in this white house, like the clinton white hse, the george w. bush white house, is phenomenal. they eek out a few sentences, this is what happened, this is what is going on,.

because i have 18 years, it's the bark obama you don't know. >> host: this is from september of 2008, the war within, one of your several on president bush and the iraq war talking about the president's relationship with his generals. let's listen in. >> the problem is george bush never really solved the dilemma of how -- what is the interaction between the civilian end and the military end. he never had the generals so they were close to him so he knew what was going on. so this is all taking place at a distance or over secure video links to baghdad and there's not that moment of, i've got to call it a come to jesus moment, or meeting, where he got everyone together and said, look, this is a mess. st: compare that with president obama and the generals. guest: well, of course one of the themes here is the

relationship between the civilian leadership and the uniformed military. and in the obama case, as is laid out in great spreadsheet detail as one reviewer said, you see the military resisting and saying, look, you have to send 40,000 troops. this was last year in the strategy review. you have to have kind of an open-ended commitment. esident obama did not buy that and there are some electric moments where he confronts the generals and the pentagon, and says, look, you promised me three options and you've given me essentially on secretary gates, defense secretary, finally says yes, mr. president, we owe you that option. but it ner comes. the president has to take thgs from memos and thing that is gates has said to come with the 30,000 troops and a

beginning, a vague beginning of drawdown next july. so it's cobbled together. again, the problem of not having that personal relationship with the generals when mcchrystal was put in last year initially to be the commander in afghanistan, president obama met with him for 10 minutes. i asked the president in the interview i did for this book, you're picking your eisenhower. how come only 10 minutes? and the president fell off the question by saying, well, that would mean i'm f.d.r. and i'm not and this isn't world war ii. and i just said quite directly, but this is your war. and when i'm picking somebody

to work with, i interview them for hours and hours. those are the most important decisions you make. you need to make a human connection. the book at great length shows the distance that the white house kept general petraeus time and time again. general petraeus, who much of the book was central commander of afghanistan and iraq, is now, after mcchrystal was fired, just the afghan commander. and he says to rahm emanuel, i'll be your lead shred dog -- sled dog on this. emanual says yeah, yeah, yeah, but there's never that team building where the generals are included or some of the generals, some of the military in the inner circle in a way

that all the cards get turned up, face up, so everyone knows where everyone stands. this is done at a certain distance now. on the other hand, in terms of president obama on the intellectual level, these strategic reviews are a masterpiece of professor obama considering all of the issues, debating them, hearing people out. mind to mind in terms of substance, it is a terrific job. on the personal level, which is often more important,s there this curtain that comes down and stays down. host: we've got a call, matt on the democrat's line. go ahead. caller: long-time listener, first-time caller. thank you so much for your insight into helping us say

informed. why does the military, the joint chiefs, the leadership seem to have an agenda that is driven to what they want to do and withholding information? and secondly, how did president obama deal with that differently than president bush? and where was he effective and where was he not in that arena? guest: big qstion. first of all, the military leaders believe what they argue for. their agenda is out of conviction. i'm absolutely convinced that the theme music in the background here is vietnam. the generals remember vietnam, the famous book dereliction of duty by hr mcmaster showing that, in veem, the -- vietnam the joint chiefs were not assertive enough. it's this theme they didn't have this personalelationship

with the civilian leadership and so they didn't tell the leadership exactly what they fe. so admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, general petraeus, know that they have to be assertive and direct here. and that's what they're doing. but the problem is, i think it's one of the other generals in the white house, general luke makes the point that the secretary of defense gates is the final window for a president into the world of choice. in other words, the secretary of defense should make sure that the president has a series of real options. in this case, gates went along with the military. he's quoted in the book telling

the generals look, i'll give you -- i'll get you as much force as you need or want for as long as you need or want. but remember, you've got your battle space and afghanistan i've got my battle space ck in washington. in other words, he closed off that world of choice for the president. andhat's a real problem. that's one of the unsettled aspects of this, as i was quoted earlier on the charlie rose show, we're in a precarious situation here in this war and on thin ice. you've -- the second part of your question. host: it was how does he deal with it differently than past presidents. i think you covered that. guest: i think i did. host: call from mississippi is next, james, independent line. caller: good morning.

i wanted to ask mr. woodward, as long as you've been writing books and as long as you've been a person with integrity to a certain point, do you think it's fair for just anchor people like on the news, like cnn a all these other anchor people to come on tv, on the news and speak like they're experts as far as political? and do you think that the tea partiers are not just people that is looking at the government as far as washington but in the small towns and government in small towns -- in small town with leaders of government and these cities and things where a lot of the corruption is at. guest: ok. first, about the news media. a lot of people do come on and

offer their opinions or make judgments. sometimes they're deeply informed and sometimes they're not. it is a mixed bag. the tea party movement, i don't really know much about. i make this observation, though, that there is a tradition in this country of voting pple's anger and the resentments. if you go back to the declaration of independence, two thirds of the document is a list of grievances against king george iii. we tend to be a group of people in this country as diverse as we are who kind of, when we don't like something, when we have objections that run at a high level, to act particularly in the voting booth. so i'm not surprised that there is a t party movement or any of these movements.

there's a tradition that goes back to the beginning. host: i have another clip. this is an old one. and it's from 1994, when you wrote your boo the agenda. this is about the relationship between vice president gore and

the truth. host: so let's fast forward to this president, because joe biden plays a major role in your book. guest: very much the same. there is an important scene on the eve of obama's strategy and troop decision in afghanistan last year where biden shows up at the white house when he knows president obama's going from the residence down to the oval office and the situation room and meets him there at the port co and says, you're going to have to limit the mission here. and the president has developed this six-page series of secret orders and joe biden says to him, if you don't, you're locked into vietnam. we're going to get into constant escalation and it will

be a quagmire. and he said to him, he said if you -- if this is not working out what you've dobe, you're going to have to make some god damned toughecisions, man. not mr. psident, but man. host: next call, south carolina , republican line. caller: thank you. fir of all, i want to make a few comments. one was about the -- about president bush's excoration, if u will, which began basically in 2006 after the democrats controlled congress so heavily. and it was like day in and day out to blame bush for everything. ok? and then which until now they still blame bush. and -- but, anyway, that -- and

to my mind, i felt a lot safer with george bush as president. i mean, safer in the war standpoint. i believe he was a guy that was maybe barely qualified to be president. guest: you know, one of the things that is interesting is president obama still blames president bush for setting the conditions particularly the economic conditions, particularly, of these two wars which bush started and obama thinks that the iraq war was a diversion and they should have stuck to afghanistan and maybe ended it quickly. host: what about president ama's view of the necessity of war? guest: i talked to president obama about this, and he really gets focused when he talks about war and makes it clear he doesn't like war. he quoted some cliches. war is he will.

-- he will. that the dogs of war, once they are unleashed, they're hard to control. he sees his job as imposing clarity on the chaos of war. i showed him a quote from one of the great world war ii books written by a friend of mine, rick atkinson, day of war, about the italy, italian campaign. and in it, atkinson, who probably understands the military and military history better than anyone, just waxed eloquent in a paragraph about how war crupts everyone, and no heart goes unstained. so i handed this to president obama and said, what do you think of this? and he readt and he said, i'm sympathetic to this. go back and read my noble peace prize acceptance speech.

i ran home and dug it out, and there obama says sometimes war is necessary but it is never glorious and it is a manifesttation of human followly. this is a man who i don't think george bush liked war but bush was willing to go to war for reasons that he felt were necessary. that will be debated in history. obama wants out of afghanistan. host: next call, des mois, democrat's line. caller: thanks for c-span. mr. woodward, i would first like to say thank you. you're a true patriot. i appreciate everything you did. you brought down a corrupt president, and i wish that maybe we could do something about this situation. first off, i've got a good friend of mine, he was over in

fallujaha and he lost 34 of his fellow marines that were friends of his. guest: this was in the iraq war? caller: yes, sir. and the thing of its, what i want is an investigation on when we started pumping owl oit of iraq, -- out of iraq, there's $9 billion that is un accounted for and the pentagon was in charge of this. and i think there should be an investigation. i talked to one of our congressmen here from iowa, and i told him there's not one congressman or one senator has said anything about this $9 billion that disappeared. guest: ok. i'll tell you one thing we find inhe iraq war and in the afghanistan war, all kinds of money floating around in the systems for -- and the systems for accounting for it are not very good. i'm not specifically aware of $9 blion of missing money or

unaccounted for funds. what happens, one of the very important distinguishing characteristics between iraq and afghanistan is that in iraq they have all this money that goes to the government from their oil. in afghanistan, they do not. afghanistan is a poor country. host: i want to clarify one thing. you talked about how the military was arguing that we needed to train 400,000 police and afghan mility. the president talked about the fact that it would cost about $8 billion to do that. is thentention that the united states will continue add infin itetum paying for the afghan police? guest: hopefully not. this is one of the question marks and this is one of the reasons president obama kept saying i'm not going to spend $1 trillion because his budget

director gave him a memo saying ten years more on this war will cost $8 billion. there are all kinds -- $889 billion. there are all kinds of numbers we know from the war in afghanistan and iraq that all of the numbers are low bald, that it always -- balled. that it always costs more. host: this viewer wants a claireication. the president would like out of afghan. he asked, does obama want out of afghanistan but in on pakistan? guest: what the president realizes in kind of the center of all of th is pakistan -- i n't think he wants -- no, in fact i'm sure he doesn't want a war with pakistan. they're our allies. what he wants to do is win more pakistani cooperation to go after these safe havens where al qaeda resides, bin laden is probably in pakistan, the pal ban insurgency leadership in

pakistan. and i recount how the intelligence people have photographs and communications intercepted showing that the taliban insurgents go from afghanistan back into pakistan, get trained, rearmed, r and r weekend, and then they load up trucks with weapons and they're waved through pakistani checkpoints to go into afghanistan and kill american and other coalition soldiers. i quote leon panetta, the cia director saying we've got to get boots on the ground. these drone attacks o from the air are not enough. and as he quite neatly sums it up, this is a crazyind of war. host: michigan, this is steve on the republican line. good morning. you're on. caller: good morning.

i've got a couple quick questions. one, i would like to find out if you're telling, are you a democr or a republican? and number two, i'd like to find out how you voted. i think it was in 68 and 72 when nixon was being voted on. guest: a fair andood question. because i live in the district of columbia, which is so predominantly democratic, i am a registered democrat but i am an avowed neutral. and to put that intoractice, i take my young daughter into the voting booth and she votes for me. she is now 14. we've been doing this since she was about age 4. she is now quite informed and they let you bring a child with you in the voting booth and she actually makes the selections. . .

guest: it was republican george bush who started the war with almost unanimous support from the congress. this issue of the draft is out

there. i don't think we're going to get to a draft in the future. but i think one of the interesting things is the separation in the society. secretary gates gave a speech about this a couple of weeks ago, which i thought was quite good, that there are a group of people who serve, and then all of us -- there are so rigid, but we are not really aware or committed to them at the -- there are surrogates, but we're not really aware or committed to them but the level we should. st: brian tweets -- guest: just a little bit. a war, or an open shooting war, with iran at this point.

one of the components of this precarious national security picture that the president is dealing with, however. host: talking to bob woodward about his new book, "obama's mohrs." orlando, jennifer on the independent line. caller: mr. woodward, i have a comment regarding hillary clinton and the question. carl bernstein wrote an excellent biography -- guest: i agree. caller: called "a womain in -- woman in charge." i agree with him that she has a problem telling the truth. you made it seem that you are the one who first mentioned that the three wanted to play musical chairs with vice- president biden -- that hillary wanted to play musical chairs with the vice-president biden in

2012. i don't think you are correct. stooges like sally quinn and peggy noonan started flooding that i did a year ago. book, which i have read -- the strength of that book is that it is a very balanced account of hillary clinton, and it has some criticisms, and it also praises her drive and intelligence. but i have not come and no one i know of, has suggested that she floated this out or that she wants to change jobs witvice- president biden. in the book, when hillary clinton has decided to accept the post as secretary of state, she talks to one of her political advisers who says, look, it is a no-brainer.

take the job, you will get foreign policy experience, you will heal the relationship with obama which, as you recall, was quite bitter during the primary season in 2008. if, in 2012, when obama is running for reelection, presumably, he may be in trouble politically and ne to put hillary clinton on the ticket because of her strength with four of voting groups -- seniors, working-class voters, women, and latinos. this is how all of this surface. i mentioned it in an interview a couple of days ago, and it became one of the minor media feeding frenzies. host: speaking ofillary clinton, this e-mail --

guest: well, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need military intervention, and it to be done with -- it could be done through economic relationships, through diplomacy, and so forth. i don't think in our lifetime we are going to live in that world. host: let me move to how much diplomacy was discussed as an option in the military at the meetings you reported on. guest: richard holbrooke, the special representative, is the one who negotiated t dayton accords back in the clinton administration that really brght peace to the balkans. heas said, and makes the point, you don't fix this war with the military victory. i think everyone agrees. the taliban insurgency in afghanistan is pt of the fabric and is always going to be

there. you need some sort of diplomatic settlement. that is inevitably how we get out of this war. host: the reports this week that the taliban might be at the table for talks is one that you would have expected from your reporting. guest: yes, i report thathere were secret talks through the saudis. but this is all very preliminary. the taliban still thinks they have the momentum -- host: so y uld they negotiate? guest: exactly. host: ed on our republican line. caller: good morning, mr. woodward. e russians pulled out of afghanistan after nine years. if it wasn't for charlie wilson, maybe it would have been longer. between the russians for nine years and we are at nine years,

it is 18 years but are we fighting a war or fighting a culture? what are our chances of winning a battle with a culture? guest: that is an ieresting question. i don't think it is a battle with culture. i think it is an overhang from 9/11, because the taliban provided sanctuary to al qaeda and bin laden, and the attacks of 9/11, only in part, came from afghanistan. but al qaeda is not in afghanistan in any significant way. in a way, and this is vice- president biden's argument, why don't we just focus on the cancer, the problem, pakistan? but this is an interesting point, that the intelligence people get into this, and the

book, trying to say, what do we know about the enemy? one of the first rules of war is no to the enemy is -- is know how the enemy is, what they care about, how they operate. an intelligence expert who worked for general petraeus, and general petraeus set him up with a special intelligence unit called the center of excellence to actually get on a note around with people in afghanistan -- get on the ground with people in afghanistan to learn about tribes and villages and do the work to answer these questions about who the other side is. as he got in there, he said at general petraeus is the blind leading the blind. we don't know enough. we now note a good deal more -- now know a good deal more. if it is enough to inform what

we do on the ground in fighting the insurgency there and protecting the population, which is the hearts and minds strategy of counterinsurgency. host: thiss from 2007, on the president bush being in a bubble. >> we were specifically asking if you get outside advice from people like brent scoroft, national security adviser to bush's father. he said, "no, i am in a bubble. i don't have outside advisers. i relied on my work cabinet." that is part of the critique of bush, but he did not -- that he did not have a system of considering down sides to decisions. host: how does that compare with this president? guest: the president does not use to many outside advisers. one of its outside advisers is

colin powell. at a crucial point, obama calls him in and asks them, and first powell says, "look, don't be guided by the left or the right here. don't be driven by the media. do what you think is right." on the eve of the strategy decision last year, powell comes in and says, "jus because the military is unanimous in their advice does not mean they are right. you are the commander-in-chief and there is only one commander in chief. there are other generals you can get if necessary." host: orlando, joe, democrats' line. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. woodward. i have a nephew in the 101st airborne deploying to afghanistan. me and myamily paid a little

more attention than most americans to what is going on er there. my first question is, vice president joe biden was put on the ticket supposedly because of his expertise in foreign affairs. however, when it comes t this war in afghanistan his ideas seems to be ignored, i believe, because he was advocating some kind of a limited outpost type of strategy. to me,hat seems like the most logical. we went in there -- what for? to find bin laden and to eliminate or weaken al qaeda. now it has turned into a nation building ploy. what happened with that? guest: let me just answer that one. a lot of people who have read the book -- because vice- president biden comes into these meetings that i have the notes,

and you see exactly what he says, and he makes very strong arguments for a more limited effort here. the president didn't reject it, though. he expected some of it. in the secret orders the issues, he tells the military, look, the goal here -- you are right to call it modified nation- building -- clear, cold, build, and transfer. clear an area of insurgents, hold it with the military and afghan military, build stores and sewers, protect the population and win hearts and minds, and then transfer. obama is very direct with the military, saying, don't go into any area that you cannot transfer, which means turn this over to the afghan police and the afghan army. host: minnesota, paul,

independent line. caller: good morning, c-span, and mr. woodward. quick question -- first, let me say i have about 600 dvds and the greatest eye-opener i have seen is the recent independent film called "why we fight," based mainly on president eisenhower posture prophetic warning to the station about what he called -- president eisenhower's prophetic warning to this nation about what he called the rise of military power and what he called the militaryndustrial complex. guest: i have not seen it, but it is interesting, as president obama was preparing his speech last year, when he went up to west point and announced he was going to send 30,000 more troops, that we would begin some sort of withdrawal next july. the president, in that speech, quoted eisenhower's famous

speech about the military- industrial complex. as part of the speech -- the part of the speech president obama quoted was the part where president eisenhower said the president needs it did not just about national security in mohrs, but there needs to be a balance between national programs, including domestic programs. this is internallyn the meetings and at the white house, the president is very passionate advocate for some sort of refocusing, getting away from these wars, to his domestic agenda. host: here is a photograph this morning of general petraeus -- apologies, it is from "the new york times." you call them two of the most

ambitious, driven man of their age. how well their relationship play out? guest: they have not closed the deal that i know of, on a personal level. they look at this differently. president obama wants to limit general petraeus -- general petraeus is quoted in the book saying privately that this the kind of war we will be fighting all of our lives and our kids' lives. host: last call, kenny, republican line. caller: good morning, mr. woodward, and c-span. i'm a political junkie, an old retired firefighter, and like a lot of firefighters, i hear a conversation in the firehouse. i want to know where the person making the comment is coming from. in the comments i hear on television and read and newspapers, it is always left

out what the person that is making the comment or writing the books personal opinion is about the person they are writing about were the situation they are writing about. if you are opposed to war or the war we are in, i would like to know upfront that i am opposed to this and this is a book i have written in regards to this, or i am opposed to or support a particular parpolitical person -- host: kenny, we got it, we are out of time. guest: a good and fair question. this is a neutral inquiry. i am not for obama, i am not against him. that is why i am able to do this kind of work, i think i am not for or against the war. i am trying to present what carl bernstein and i back in the watergate age called "best obtainable version of the

truth." host: t book is called "obama's blacks but not expected to announce at change in national security adviser at the jacob >> president obama is expected to announce a new national security adviser soon.

james jones is resigning. we had expected to have that announcement on c-span, but that has been moved to c-span-3. >> in the james jones case, it appears that he and president obama never really clicked. his deputy, who will be announced as his successor, did develop a relationship with the president over time as part of doing those morning briefings. >> what market will jones leaves

on the obama administrate -- mark will jones leave on the obama administration in regards to afghan policy? >> i am not sure that we will see a distinctive mark. he has described writing a fairly detailed memorandum for the president and then never sending it to him. people who participated in the meetings say that while he was very good at analyzing the situation in afghanistan -- he had, of course been the american , but in the afgheurope policy discussion itself, he took a backseat to secretary gates, secretary clinton, and vice president biden. >> you write in your column the white house staff had become increasingly critical of some of

the comments reported by bob woodward in his book. >> at one point when we talked about criticisms that general jones had of his staff, and was critical of some individuals including his deputy, that seemed to miss a five and number of his staff. there is some debate -- seemed to mystify the number of his staff. there is some debate as to whether the meeting described by mr. woodward in his book actually took place as described. we were not in the room. we do not know. in any case, the white house staff has made it pretty clear that they are looking forward to a new day here.

he is nothing if not genial, informed, interesting. there was no expectation that there would be a problem. >> what more can you tell us about his successor? >> he was a political aide who went at the very young age to work for president carter. he ended up being a floor manager in the effort to nominate carter again. after that, he went off to become warren christopher's chief of staff. he served as the clinton administration in that role. then he went off to be a lawyer for a while. >> an article reported this

talked about a senate report that there has been hiring of militants including the taliban in afghanistan. how do stories like this and similar stories abound the obama administration's challenge -- compound the obama administration's challenge in afghanistan? >> it is clear that the goal is to get out, which is including having the afghans takeover on defense. one of the questions is, what is going to happen with the december review? >> chief washington correspondent for the "new york times," thank you for your update. >> no problem. always good to be with you. >> again, the president is

making that announcement in about 15 minutes in the white house rose garden. you will be able to see it live on our companion network c-span- 2. coming up, bank of america president and ceo will be at the national press club in about 15 minutes. he is expected to announce a stoppage of sales of foreclosed homes in 50 states while they review foreclosure documents. he is also expected to talk about financial law and the state of the global economy. we will join his remarks at the top of the hour. until then, your phone calls from today's washington journal. and good morning to you. and we have lots of news and political discussion later on in the program. we hope you will not mind listening for the first part of a program about those corian are

a regular audience. would like to -- those in the regular audience. we're going to go back to the archive ensure you what the very first call looks like 30 years ago here in washington d.c. following a speech at the national press club. >> what's the name? >> we have south dakota. >> this is bob jabr frattini sinton, south dakota. -- bob joffra in yankto s.d.. it corrects bought from yankton, s.d. it went into -- host: bob up from yankton, s.d. went into the archives as ourery first caller.

let's begin with our very first caller of the morning from richmond, va., anthony on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning out there. how are you? host: very well. does a bit about yourself and how long you have been watching. caller: i am 51 years old and have been watching since you started. i am one of those junki that has been reading about events from the world and domestic events since i was about 18 years old. five of the -- i went to school in d.c. and i have a master's in gw. and th regard to why i watch c-span, i think you guys have quite a bit of good information that would inform significantly about topics that we cannot get from mainstream. but most importantly, i watch c-

span to get a gauge of how strong of a command to the -- does the american public have of a subject that is when i get fearful and it is not meeting even if this -- it is not m being elitist, but that many people calling in do not have a command of the topic, whether it is on both sides or partisan or whatever it is. then you do find many people who call in and have quite a good command, whether they be republican, democratic, independent. host: before you go, what are your favorite issues? what most attracts you? caller: one thing that tracts me is international affairs and also, domestic on as well.

i think, just got everything. i am extremely interested in just about everything. anything that can inform us from a neutral perspective, a non biased perspective. i think, if it is going to inform us on a topic it does not matter what it is as long as it is not propagandized and it allows you to make a decision on your own without being persuaded court to try to politicize an event. host: anthony, thank you so much. 51 years old and been listening for a long time. this is tim calling from michigan. caller: listen, are you guys ever eligible for emmys? host: theoretically, but not practically.

caller: well, because about -- i have got to tell you and i'm not trying to kiss up. host: i appreciate it, but i'm not looking for compliments as much as i am learning about you. caller: basically, i'm a white collar according to joe. i'm a democratic socialist. host: how old are you? caller: 49. host: how long have you been watching? caller: i have been watching every day since october 5, 2018, because that is when i got what -- laid off. host: and what doou do? caller: i am a machinist. host: what issues do you tend to watch most carefully on the wash -- on the "washington journal"? caller: politics. host: how would you vote in elections this year?

caller: the last three times i voted for nadir. at this election, and voting straight democrat. if i may, i told you what i make an hour, but i was looking at numbers kent kurmanbek, his salary, i have heard, at -- , his salary, i have heard is at $32 million per year. i guess he feels he does not need to pay taxes. this year, i've heard they are spending $53 billion on the campaigncross the country. they cannot extend unemployment, but they spend $53 billion, which based on a population of $310 million would average out to $170,000 per man, woman, and child in this country. you talk about clause 4 -- class warfare, good lord, and

entitlements. host: and going to talk -- to cut you off right there because there are lots of other mornings to talk about these things. let's talk about the nobel peace prize going to a chinese dissident. we are talking to you this morning and our goal is to hear about who is watching each morning. our next call is at walls from

moana. republican line. tell us about yourself. caller: i'm just waiting for the weather to come in. host: how long have you been watching, how old are you, what are your politics? caller: i have been watching since aut 1987, or 88. host: a long time. caller: i am retired62 years old. i worked for the federal and retired at 55. host: where are you doing now? caller: i'm busy with the grandkids. host: what do you tend to watch or reacto on the "washington journal"? caller: i watch the issues on social security and possibly predetermining the way they do the numbers for social security

and politics in general. and my health care plan, of course. host: ok, issues that most directly affect you and your state in life right now. we welcome the twitter followers to tell us a bit about yrself this morning. tell us about who you are and why you watch. also, those who send their comments in by e-mail, tell us a little bit about you this morning. as i mentioned, the washington -- the "washinon journal" has been around since 1985. weverage 60 calls per program and that means we take 23,000 phone calls per year.

the next call is at the south, democrats line -- the next call is seth, democrats line. ♪ i have been watching since i was -- caller: i have been watching since i was too young to be watching, since the eighth grade. i have gone to college and law school. but the information i watched as a child was impressive. we grew up in new york city pork, in the projects, single mother. and -- in the new york city fo poor, in the project, single ther.

especially i watched the senators. i remember robert byrd, his language was impressive to me. and i did not know what they did or how they got there because it was not what i expericed every day, but it really inspired me to say, hey, who that guy is pretty impressive. -- of that guy is pretty impressive. even though people get down on him now. but it was a world that i was not exposed to. down in new his cool york city. i was lucky enough to go to a school in nyc, and then law school and i became an attorney. it has changed my life. i watch because of brain limbs follow-up questions. i watch because of the way the interviews open up questions and

allow them to flow. and now, i have children and they hate me and c-span because it is on so much. but i think there are a lot of good things that you guys do and you have try been a good service to the country ando me personally,ecause allowing me to see that little glimpse of a world i did not normally see really changed my life. host: thank you very much for calling and sharing that. that was a cl from ithaca, new york seth, a democrat and lawyer. and let's do this tweet from donna.

next is a call from her career, new york, charlie, republican line. -- from herkimer, new york, charlie, republican line. caller: good morning. and the socialist from michigan is one -- is your typical caller. i'm one of the five original reviewers that and still watch this. host: i have heard that before. but see if we can hear for many of the other five. fromt's see if we can hear any of the other five. caller: this program has degenerated into lies and hatred and anti-semitism. you encourage hatred of the jewish people, hatred of the republicans and that is why the conservatives stopped watching

this program. you have limbaugh on if you weeks a and he was called a liar and a racist and you allowedit to happen. why do i watch it? i watch for the same reason that we spy on the russians. we need to see what the enemy is up to. let me relate to my favorite guest and my favorite call of all time. host: please do. caller: you have this leftist reporter on to talk about the tea party movement. it was like watching a "saturday night live" nonskid. what do these people know about people who live in middle america? it was laughable. my favorite, call was a guy who called in and he began by talking about the nets in the two-party -- of