then, maneesha mithal talks about the agency's report online consumer privacy. later, orlando sentinel correspondent mark matthews talks about the international space station. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning and on this saturday, march 31, 2012. we will kickoff this "washington journal" with your take. cameras in the senate have made the partisan divide and gridlock over the years worse. tell us what you think. give us a call.

the numbers are on the screen. if you are outside the u.s. and you have thoughts on cameras covering congress, give us a call at 628-0104. you can also send us a comment on line through e-mail, twitter, or facebook. and a very good morning to you. we want to take you right to the comment yesterday to get this issue started. >> i think one thing that has made it that way is c-span. you have folks on tv, and now, instead of doing political commercials, they rant and rave during dinner time on the east coast. and then at 9:00, you see the west coast guys up there. >> and the center's office

yesterday send out a statement to talking points memo when asked about his comments on morning joe. they said that the point he was trying to make had nothing to do with reducing transparency, but that through special orders, speeches, etc., some lawmakers use c-span to political -- to communicate politically in a way that they only used to be able to do on the campaign trail. give us your thoughts. one thing before we start taking phone calls, i want to take you to his comment about the partisan divide. it is hard to argue. this is from the university of georgia, from his home state. talking about the liberal and conservative dimensions in congress. the chart here shows that by getting worse over the years, the vertical line is a list of whether members are more conservative the higher the up

they are, or more liberal the lower they are. back in the 40's and 50's and 60's -- in the 1940's and 1950's and 1960's, they were in the same area on the chart. the divide has grown worse over the years. the university of georgia politics determine also put one out on the senate. you can see it is not quite as strong as the house, but the partisan divide in the senate is getting worse as well. let's get your calls. we want to first start in houston. kalisha is on the republican line. caller: i want to say that i do think is a good idea if we have cameras covering the senate, congress, what ever they are doing. i think it is ridiculous. gas is costing an arm and leg, and then your soul and your kids.

put them on one arm wage and see how long they last. the things -- put them on, minimum-wage and see how long they last. things have gotten ridiculous. it would be nice to see who was blocking stuff, who is trying to help the american tebow, who was trying to get jobs created. -- who is trying to help the american people, who is trying to get jobs created. it is redundant. kibo ordaz -- people are tired of it. host: is not the cameras, what you think is causing the partisan divide in congress? caller: the average american can donate 10, maybe $20 to our senators. but they started hobnobbing and indeed about who is going to do best for my career. by anyon. i'm 22. i'm thinking about the future --

i am young. i'm 22. i'm thinking about the future. i see people 401k's depleting. i talked to my friends about this. we need to think about the future. with the way social security is going, i do not think i will get that back. host: we are having a conversation about cameras covering congress. interesting to get your thoughts,. i will put a few facts out there for you as we have this discussion this morning. the cameras in the chambers in the house and senate are the control of the respective bodies, but the feed is applied to any credible news organization to use as they will. the footage you see on c-span from hearings and press conferences are are -- are from our cameras, but other news organizations can cover those as well. a few facts as we start this conversation today about cameras

covering congress. let's go to evansville, indiana. matthew is on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was listening to the last caller and i do not really know what i was going to say. i think is important that the tv's or the cameras that are covering congress when they talk about money, that is something they need expert -- that needs expert advice there. that is all. thank you. host: thank you, matthew. fred on twitter says cameras make it impossible for people to live. i do not want members to cooperate to raise spending. the pressure is on and it is hard. give us a call about the cameras in congress issue.

the article as we began this debate -- we've got about 40 minutes left on this segment cameras came up in an article in the politico.com at the end of -- in political or at the end of last year. newt gingrich said his years of debate prep were actually through c-span. he said the cable network gave him a conduit to reach a generation of conservative activists, and a laboratory for figuring how to dominate the news cycles, skills he has relied on in debate performance of last year. the article goes on, it hardly matters if anyone was in the chamber to hear the remarks as long as the cameras were still rolling.

let's go back to the phones. duke is from louisville, kentucky, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not think i would put a lot of credibility into anything that saxby chambliss cents. he uses blatant lies to paint, max leeland a hero. host: you think that the partisan divide has got worse over the years in congress? caller: i think it is because the republicans like all the time. you guys might have checked pryke -- might have chuck grassley on tv, but he's nothing but a liar. host: the you think this is just one side that has made this a part -- this partisan divide

worse? i caller: think it is impossible to deal with people who deal in lies. host: let's go to rose on the independent line in massachusetts. caller: good morning. it is nice to get through. i am 59 years old. under circumstances i ended up -- through circumstances i ended up on disability at a very young age. ayman medicare. -- i am on medicare. i think a lot of people think medicare is free. it is not free. we pay for it. as far as the cameras covering congress, do i think it is good or bad? i think is an excellent idea. and i'm grateful that i'm able to pay for cable and that i can get c-span. i get a lot of my information from c-span. i get to listen to both sides.

host: do you watch the gavel-to- gavel coverage of the floors of? you watch the hearings? caller: i watch everything i can host: what do you think the cause of this partisan divide in congress has been? caller: this partisan divide, well, let me tell you, i'm an immigrant. i turned 75 days after i got to the united states of america. -- i turned 7 5 days after i got to and the united states of america. the animosity between the republicans and democrats, i believe the democrats want to make deals. they really do. but their hands are tied. every time they do something

good, the republicans -- why do the rich get richer and not have to pay? if they always pick on us people [unintelligible] host: rose from massachusetts. we also have a survey going on at our fees -- facebook page. a survey about cameras covering congress, good or bad. the good is winning out by a quite a large number. about 194 people have voted that they are good for the country, and about 10 people said that so far. that is the survey on facebook. we want to have a conversation with you about it. let me take you through a few of the headlines from this morning. president obama's calls for

sanctions on iranian oil is leading the "new york times" and the "washington post" this morning. here is the story as it appears in the "new york times" -- the headlines. hon amy lowry has the byline on this story.

that is the "new york times" this morning if you want to read more about the story. it is also leaving the front page of the "washington post" and in the, uh "financial times " this morning there is a story bows on the samee, t subject. again, that is the "financial times" this morning. we want to go back to the debate about cameras covering congress. and get your thoughts about whether they are good or bad. we have chris on the republican line from sharon centre, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning.

cameras in congress. they are like t.d.. e-bay edit doane coverage. -- leia are like tv. they edit their own coverage. when a bill comes to the house or the senate from of a senator has to do is stand up and object and that particular bill is tabled until it goes to committee or until they actually tried to force it through. they never show that. the senators have the right to basically stop the business of the senate by just a single word. that is never shown. that is my only objection to the cameras in congress. otherwise, i am for it. host: is it never shown on local news stations, is that you are saying? the process is not explained well enough?

caller: not only is it not explained well enough, but it is never shown. i go on and i watched the show is on tv, i watched the senate and the congress, and you never get to see when these people object and stop the business. you do not know who it is. even if you go on line and try to find our who particularly objected to a bill, it is almost impossible to find. you have to be a research analyst at in order to do so. host: you are talking about this hold that you can put on a bill behind the scenes. i wonder if you think having cameras in congress allows senators to change their minds more. are they stuck in one position because there is some of them making a statement in a certain way about a certain position? caller: unfortunately, if you're a politician, saying one thing and doing something else is the norm. if you expect them to always do

exactly what they say, you will be a sadly disappointed person. host: chris from ohio. a few e-mails have already come in on the subject of kamras in congress. this is from maryland. back to the phones. we will go to gertrude from manhattan in new york. on the independent line, good morning, gertrude. caller: good morning. i agree with the cameras in every courtroom, including the supreme court. because i shall never forget -- i am 97 years old. i will never forget when judge

thomas was elected, and his wife made a statement shortly thereafter saying, my husband owes the black people nothing, and i'm going to make sure they get nothing. she made that statement. and it appeared in all of the papers at that time, but no one can remember it now. host: you think it is time for the supreme court to open up the cameras as congress has? caller: yes, and let me go back to the origin of what you call the conservative republicans. they first started out as nightriders. then they graduated to the complex plan. host: we want to stick to this subject of cameras in court.

you brought up the issue of courts. we are just coming off an important debate this week about the health care bill, and the idea of cameras covering the debate came up for months leading up to the discussions in the supreme court this week. we want to take you to some of the video we have. we want to take you to some of the comments of the justices talking about why they did and did not want cameras covering those proceedings. >> i was initially in favor of televising, but the longer i have been there, the less good an idea i think it is. the justification usually put forward is we want to educate the american people about what the court is and what is not. if i really thought the american people would be educated, i would be for it. if they sat three days of our proceedings gavel-to-gavel, it would teach them a lot.

they would learn that we are not most of the time looking up at the sky and saying, should there be a right to this or that? we are doing a lot in the bankruptcy code. people would never come up and asked me, as they sometimes do, justice scalia, why do you have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court? the constitution does not say so. no, it does not, but 90% of what we do is law, only staff lawyers can do. if people learn about, it would be a great piece of education. but for every 10 people who sat through our proceedings gavel- to-gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a 32nd take out -- a 30-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which i guarantee you, would not be representative of what we do. host: and that was justice scalia talking about why he does not support cameras in the courtroom. let's go to justice can talk

about why she would. [video clip] >> i have said before that i do think it would be a good idea. in this i differ from my colleagues. in this last year, i've come to understand better the opposite position. i came to this view when i was solicitor general. and i was sitting there, as i said before, just watching case after case after case. this is an unbelievable court to watch. this is the court before i got onto it. everybody was so prepared, so smart, so obviously deeply concerned about getting to the right answer. i thought, if everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it is operating. host: and as you know, the supreme court decided to

release same day audio for the first time for the historic health care arguments in the court this week. an article from the daily beast yesterday talking about the release of those audio tapes, and actually, how the writer, dick summers, believes those audio tapes may have made it a little bit harder to get cameras in the courtroom. he also writes for "newsweek" and he writes --

again, that is from the daily beast yesterday if you want to read more of nick sommer's story. back to the phone lines, nick from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning host: in your thoughts on the supreme court covering -- on cameras covering congress, or the supreme court for that matter? caller: i have gone back to what the inner workings of government are and how they perform. i want to thank c-span for that opportunity, to have a glimpse inside what actually does happen. previously, i would have only

gotten information from the nightly news, maybe they sound bites. and it would have been out of context. and that in and of itself would have been for me, not the only information that i would have gleaned from any portion of any government workings. for me, i agree with some comments i have heard previously that having the gavel to gavel, or being able to sit through a large portion of something does provide you with a lot of insight to what is really happening. i really appreciated that. i do not know whether the supreme court needs kamras -- cameras or whether that is necessary, but i have also appreciated the audio, personally. because i cannot always be -- i am not able to hear it when it was first aired, but i can catch

it later on. other than having the news, or a television show in some of these more modern comedic styles were they just read a sound bite and troller that you, or just the nightly news, it has been really nice to have c-span's full coverage. i feel like i understand better both sides, whether republican or democrat, or even independence. host: another comment on twitter. and another comment over e-mail that we received.

next to toms river, new jersey, he is on the democratic line. good morning. not caller: thanks for taking my call. i agree with the last caller, but not the last e-mail. i am very grateful to c-span. i have learned so much just about our congress from watching the senate and our representatives on the floor, you know, putting names with faces, and states. and i love that. and i find a much more positive view of our representatives when i watched them in their committees and they do their hearings. i find them to be so much less

partisan, and genuinely concerned about the committees that they serve on, whatever issues they are dealing with. i find them to be genuinely concerned about them. and making problems or solutions for whatever they're working on. that is whether i see, just a partisanship go out the window -- that is what i see, just the partisanship go out the window. when we see the commercials and the campaigning, that is one thing. but i find it restored my faith in my government to watch them work together on the problems that we have. it makes me very proud. host: the me ask you why have you, joseph barbaro yesterday said one of the issues he remembers -- joe scarborough yesterday said one of the issues he remembers is not necessarily the issue of speaking to the constituents, but when they

ratchet up the other rhetoric, the other members of congress here them on tv and what they ought to say, and it kills the collegial nature of congress like it was back in the old day. he was not particularly in favor of cameras helping out in the partisan divide. what do you think? caller: i did not see the comment. do you mean on the floor? host: yes, the members actually watching each other on television and on c-span has been creating more of a divide because they can hear what they actually say about each other on the floor. caller: i'm not sure the cameras do anything to that. hasn't it always been pretty lively on the floor with filibustering and things like that? i think that is just a matter of their personalities and their passions about issues and constituents taking place. maybe a little bit, but i think the benefits that americans get

from learning to their congressmen and women aren't -- learning who their congressmen and women are, i think that is too important to take that away from us. it is to educational and, yeah, holding them accountable is one thing, but it is more or less that we need to be an edge -- and educated constituency. host: thank you for the call. i want to take you to a few other headlines and goings on in the country, but we will continue this discussion about cameras in congress, and in the supreme court, since it has been brought up. the "wall street journal" were about sanctions. -- wrote about sanctions.

which brings us to the goings on of the campaigns yesterday. president obama and mitt romney made some -- receive some endorsements from some high- profile supporters. it a new record of the byline on the story. this is from portland, maine.

this story begins with paul ryan -- that is today on the campaign trail in the "washington post." we are still talking about cameras in progress. give us a call. we will go to out on the republican line in georgia. -- we will go to al on the republican line in georgia. caller: you have to consider the

source. in this state we were recently named by the center as dead last in ethics. and to prove that, thursday night, on a bill dealing with hunting and fishing licenses, there was an effort to gut the ethics regulations and laws we already have. host: do you think the senator is right in saying that the partisan divide has gotten worse over the years? caller: it has certainly gotten worse. i would think up the camera might even temper things somewhat. host: the cameras have kept it from getting too bad? caller: i think there is an argument to be made for that. host: why is that? caller: there are some in congress, if they really got aggressive, the cameras would

tone them down, i think. host: that was al from georgia. another e-mail that came in from florida. one more phone call. we have about 15 minutes. we will have several more phone calls. let's go to kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i really appreciate c-span. i see it every day. i have seen a little bit of everything on there. but what it is, of four parties, independents, democrats, republicans, and

tp's. and indeed tp party should not even be involved. that is what is causing the republicans to mess up. and i appreciate c-span. they do a lot for people. they get up and fly. i do not care what they say. they get up and lie. i watched them lie. i am a democrat. democrats rely once in awhile, but not near like the republicans -- the democrats line once in awhile, but not nearly like the republicans. host: that is samuel from kentucky. i want to continue this conversation, but on "newsmakers" this week, tim jordan, the ohio republican appeared with us to talk about

budgets this week. i want to show you a little bit about his comments about conservatives rally a republican nominee this fall. [video clip] >> right now it appears to be mitt romney. he has paid his dues and if he is the winner, i will be behind him off 100%. >> are you are not ready to endorse him yet, it sounds like. >> i'm comfortable with any of the top three being our nominee. the key thing is, we do not want a second term of the obama administration. >> how are conservatives going to get excited about mitt romney after we have seen, even now, he is struggling to win in the states in the south? >> two words, barack obama. host: that was representative jim jordan.

and you can see that interview at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on sunday at c-span, or online at c-span.org. jim jordan was talking about the republican primary that is still going on. the front page of the "washington post" this morning has this story about a long and short of the mitt romney short list for his vice presidential pick. also from appleton, wisconsin.

the "washington post" also has a good lineup of what that short list might be. and some of the potential picks that mitt romney might have, including potential picks that have endorsed him, and battle ground states that will be up this fall. a few of those people that are listed on there are new jersey governor, chris christie. also often mentioned is the u.s. senator from florida, marco rubio, who has endorsed mitt romney and is in one of the swing states. mercurio might be the pick. he is young, hispanic, and from a key swing state. he is a leader in the tea party and could be a strong choice. another one listed further down is more -- is paul ryan, who endorsed mitt romney yesterday. although heavily courted to join the presidential contest, he turned it down.

he may still not be interested in the race. and the only woman listed on the list is new mexico gov., susanna martinas, the first hispanic female governor in the country. you can go through all of those potential picks on mitt romney's short list in the "washington post" today. we want to continue the conversation about cameras in the courtroom and in progress and whether you think it is a good or bad thing. next call from the independent line in jacksonville, florida. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to make it is -- make a statement and hopefully get a response. the first thing i want to say is, the free world has nothing to hide. i think we should definitely advertise everything, point blank, that the united states

does. in the courtroom, i think the justices -- i think it would be a great opportunity for the justices to show the rest of the world how the free world does business. the united states of america has not a thing to buy. it seems like other countries and retired military have a a heckuva lot to hide. host: what do you think the partisan divide is being caused by, if not the grand standing in front of the cameras, as the saxby chambliss says it does. host: -- caller: let me break it down for you. they make money in interviews. a couple of guys in congress, they go in there, $40,000 out of college, and then later on in life they get $300,000 to work in progress. find out where the money came

from. it is from interviews, books, other stuff. if they are televising, it becomes an issue for them. now they are not as -- they cannot really sell their products. they are there for life. and anything that they say should be televised and broadcast it. host: johnny from jacksonville's adjusting to follow the money. i want to -- not from jacksonville, suggesting to follow the money. i want to take you through a few more headlines. mitt romney in wisconsin in the upcoming primary here. this from the "new york times" -- podcast

the, that is again, today in the "new york times" by monica davie. also, a programming note for you today. we will have the wisconsin state and freedom coalition, a presidential kickoff event there. speakers include mitt romney, rick santorum, newt gingrich. that is live at 11:00 a.m. on c- span. i want to get a few more calls

in about this issue of cameras in congress, while we have the five minutes we have left. we will go to houston, texas, marcus on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i like the cameras c'mon bought i find that the cameras -- i like the cameras, but i find the cameras in the hearing rooms more informative host: more informative than the four statements? caller: yes, absolutely. as far as the partisan divide, i believe the congress is more partisan, or the house at least, because the districts are drawn more partisan. that is my thought. host: thank you, from houston, texas. let's go to kevin in charleston, south carolina, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning.

my comment is, i am a democrat. i favor democracy. the more cameras the better. if there were more cameras, people might wake up to the fact that the president does not in control much. it is more of the federal reserve and trying to bring in an international currency. maybe people would wake up to that if we have more and more cameras. host: kevin from charleston, south carolina. one more call from atlanta, georgia, home of the saxby chambliss, who started this debate on "morning show" on msnbc. larry is on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i love the congress. -- i love the congress under camera. i would like to see more

cameras watching congress. however, the supreme court, that is kind of touchy. it would be great to see people benefit from the educational process, but i would never let me yet in. the nose news -- no newsrooms, news crews, anything that might think the court system, because the media does. i think the legal process -- i would hate to see that happen at our highest court. host: do you think the media does that already with the supreme court? print media is allowed to cover, and the audio tapes have been released. caller: the regular courts and courts that they do go into, yeah, i think they sometimes do harm. but they are not allowed to do that at the supreme court now, right? host: cameras are not in the supreme court, but members of the press can go in and cover their arguments and they have

released the audio tapes of those arguments as well. and the press has reported a lot on those critical caller: -- all lot on those. caller: i was not aware of that. host: what you cannot do in the supreme court is the camera footage. that is what they have not allowed in yeah. caller: i do not see much of a difference. host: i want to bring up a few other pieces of news for you today. this is something that is being talked about around the country, the front page of the daily news. "read them and we" these 640 megyn million dollar jackpot happens. and the news this morning was that at least one winner was found, somebody in maryland, baltimore area bought a winning ticket. and if we can bring it back to a public policy perspective, the washington -- "washington post"

has a story about how much money was spent chasing that mega millions. it is by more rain gillespie and paul wiseman. it is asked whether the money could did the government out of debt. that is probably something staggering details cannot solve. it could trim this year's expected one -- $1.3 trillion federal deficit by just over a

10th of 1%. that is a story in the "washington post." let's take you to a tweet by joe on twitter. talking about this issue of cameras in congress. talking about one of the earlier callers, he says -- we have one more call, and it will be kendra from gladding, mich.. caller: i think it would be a good idea to put cameras in our congress. we have another to will to keep an eye on these guys and we could figure out who is detrimental to society and who is not. host: do you think that the cameras that have been there for over 30 years have been a cause of increased partisanship in increase -- in recent decades? caller: i do not see how it would be. they should not have anything to

hide. they're working for us. why wouldn't they want their employers to know what is going on? host: we appreciate all of the calls on that topic today. we are going to take you now to -- coming up next, a discussion on the highway bill extension that was passed earlier this week. but first, this weekend, we feature little rock on the tv and american history tv. all weekend long, we explore the history and culture of arkansas's capital city. >> there seem to be more of them. and they were just warming. and as i looked up the hill, you looked up and you could see the heads of people and they seem to be waiting -- waving, like heat. and there were so many of them, we could not figure out what they were doing. but we did not speak, not even

to each other. the ministers talked a month themselves, but we did not say anything. and as we walked, the crowd intensified. they kept on telling us the same thing over and over, over and over. you are not supposed to be here. go home. go back to your own school. this is not your school. things of that nature. and it kept on and on and on. we stopped right here and we started to walk again right about here. and by this time, there was a crowd behind us. there was a crowd coming from the street, as if they were standing there waiting. and they were coming from that way. now there are people all around. as we started up the steps right here. and the crowd did the same thing. they surrounded us.

this big sea of people. i said a couple of times that it looks like 10,000 people out there. but the truth is, the paper reported the next day that it was about 500. maybe my fear had something to do with thinking it was that many. and we started up the steps, and as we got a -- as we started up the steps, they started up the steps. we just walked off up the steps -- we walked up the steps, and about right here as regard to the top of the steps going up to the school -- as we got to the top of the steps and are going up to the school, the crowd is now in a circle. and all over here. and somebody put their fingers on the back of my neck and all they said was, i just want to see what's a nigger feels like. i do not know who it was. i do not know if it was a boy or

girl. i could not tell you. at this point, we did not know what was going to happen. what is going to happen when we get up those steps? >> "washington journal" continues. host: it has been over 900 days since congress passed a long- term extension of the federal transportation program. congress gave themselves 90 additional days to do it this week. alison black joins us now. the question is, can this get done by june 30? guest: we are certainly hoping so. and we are looking at the legislative process to continue looking -- moving forward. we do have the legislation that has been passed in the senate. that is a very good sign. and we are waiting for the house to make their move and the two chambers of congress can pass the bill in the next 90 days. host: explain why this bill is so important.

what would have happened at midnight tonight if this extension had not been passed? if guest: we have been operating under a series of extensions and continuing resolutions, as you pointed out, about 913 days now. the extension allows money to keep flowing to the federal highway program, which is crucial when you are talking about construction for highways, bridges, and transit across the country. over half of the actual construction market in this country is from the federal aid program. it is passed through states. that is where the spending is, but it is the driver for -- but for transportation. it is vital to the market. host: there are a couple of versions of this bill. take us through the one that has been passed through the senate. how much money is that going to cost? guest: it is a two-year bill and it would be retroactive to the fiscal year that just started

on october 1. it would basically provide obligation level for highways and bridges, federal spending, and it provides for a little bit of growth. it would be $41.5 billion in 2012, and $42.2 billion in 2013. that is the amount that states are allowed to obligate toward a project. they earmark the money for projects that they want to do over the next few years. and that money is spent out over time. host: and the administration has proposed their own version of this program, and that is much longer term. correct? guest: it is. and typically, when you look at the highway program bills, they tend to run six years. the issue right now was coming up with the money for those bills. host: and how does the administration proposed to pay for them? guest: they have several ways that are somewhat transportation

related. traditionally, the money people pay when they get their gas, at 18.3 cents, that is what funds the highway trust fund. host: the federal gas tax? guest: exactly. that is of a program is funded. but what has happened is that over time, yet increases in prices, inflation. the purchasing power of that has dwindled. host: we are talking with alison black with the transportation builders association. we want to hear from you. the battle of -- over this extension has been playing out for months. if you are on the democratic line, give us a call. at the numbers are on the screen. the third player in this game

that we have not talked about is the house. they do not have a version of the bill, as i understand it, but they are looking at maybe five-year extension. guest: a five-year extension is what they are talking about. basically, their funding levels would stay about where we are right now, about $40 billion. again, the obligation number, which is what states can use to support their own programs. and state and local governments also use their own funding to pay for highways and bridges as well. host: what is likely to be passed? and what do you think is the optimal built from the choices we have here? guest: are looking through the legislative process -- we are looking through the legislative process to work. the bill has been passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. that is something that has been

encouraging, to see something passed by both democrats and republicans, but we will see what the house chooses to do. they're talking about the five- year bill. another option maybe to take up the senate bill. but once they passed their measure, they will go to congress -- they will go to conference. host: explain what the american and transportation builders association is. what is your stake in this game? guest: we are a trade association in d.c. we are federation style, so we represent all facets of construction. people who build, supply equipment, also transportation officials. we have over 5000 members, and our sole mission is to protect and increase the transportation construction market. that is all we are focused on. host: the numbers on the house side and specifically, those who are trying to hold up the process out of concern that we

are spending too much, you would disagree with some of those members? guest: i would. i think the mission of our association is very much aligned with the best interest of this country and in the best interest of transportation. it is vital to our economy. there are well documented needs. there is a huge spending gap you start talking about these numbers and they get bigger and bigger as time goes on. but the spending gap is $30 billion. that is published by the department of transportation. we need to invest just to maintain our current conditions, let alone see any improvement peridot -- improvement. traditionally, we trust fund has been funded by users. the idea that if you go out and use a lot of gas and drive your car more than another person, you are paying more into the system. it is a user-fee based concept. but with the recession, people driving a little bit less, what we have seen is that the money

that is being collected by the gas tax cannot support what we are spending right now in projects. host: senator jim demand has been one of the critics for this bill getting too big. i want to give you a few of his comments. this is from a political -- politico article earlier this month. this was after an amendment to the senate-passed bill that would send some of the funding issues back to the states. i want to take you to a few calls out there. barbara is on the democratic

line, and has been waiting to ask a question from portage, mich.. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have a question about this gas tax. we have had a couple of them, two or three of them in the past, where we're going to tax the gas. and we as a people accept it, and then we see nothing being done with the roads or bridges. how can we be sure that this so- called tax is actually going to go to the road construction, and bridge repairs, instead of into the general fund where they can spend it anyway they want to spend it? guest: thank you, barbara. that is a good question. the way that the federal program

is set up is that the money collected from the federal gas tax goes directly to the highway trust fund. and that is separate from the general fund. and that money as firewalls and protected. and that has over the last several reauthorization and several bills have kept that protection. that money is definitely used for highways and bridges. state to state, that can vary. estee programs differ significantly -- state programs differ significantly. most states do have a gas tax that they collect better also put into a special fund, but that it can -- if can depend, where the money finally ends up. host: let's go to shirley in texas. good morning, shirley. caller: i have a question about a bridge being built in west texas. it is a six-lane, high-tech

bridge into mexico. it is called the tornelo bridge, and we are building it. a couple of months ago they have the grand opening and some officials from mexico were there. this goes right into the heart of drug country. is in chihuahua state, about 35 miles southeast of el paso. and why, in the name of patriotism, we are doing that, i do not know. it is just stupid. i called the gsa in dallas and they said it was approved >> there are a couple interesting points. there are earmarks which lends itself to the political discussion and what's been going on in congress. each state does choose which projects they're going to build. i don't know the specific reason force that bridge but i

would surmise there's about $8 trillion of freight that is moved around this country each year. a lot of that by truck. so that connection to mexico, there is a lot of trade with the country, legitimate trade, that we're trying to facilitate that commerce. and that's one of the core functions of a national transportation system, something like the interstate highway system where most of the travel is on the interstate that is very important connection for freight and for the prosperity of our country. >> again, we're with alison black from the american road and transportation builders association. we want to get a comment in from jan on twitter. this extension is the ninth extension. so talk a little bit about it. is that how you feel this is? >> absolutely.

>> and are they going to do another extension? >> i believe all the signs right now we are very hopeful that they will get their job done but we elect our members of congress to do certain things. pass bills and legislation like this is one of their jobs and they haven't been doing this. and this has reeked havoc when you look at the market which there are over 3 million jobs dependent on this industry and the work not to mention the longer term benefits to business and commuters of having better roads and bridges. host: i want to talk about what that extension does. this is a story from yesterday about the extension.

so who vithe here? guest: what would have happened had that extension expired at the end of march, what would have happened is seats would have had to stop works unless they funded them on their own terms or continued to pay out of their own pocket but what that would have done o is stopped a number of projects across the country which would have sent workers home. then you have material suppliers, other folks part of this industry and eventually those people are out of work, that spreads to other parts of the economy. they're buying less at the store, they're having trouble making their mortgage payments. host: talk about this concern

over the construction season in northern states especially and why this folks are concerned that this timing of moving the can down the road to june is going to mess up the construction season. guest: it will have an impact. host: what does that mean? guest: what that means is most of the construction activities for highways and bridges occurs in this country tover summer months and you do have concern that winter will arrive and a lot of states slow down their activity in the september-october time frame. so what that means is the federal program states are using that money to put that towards projects. then they have to go through a bidding process where they put out a plan for a road or bridge in the local community, a contractor will then submit a bid and that contractor is awarded to the lowest bidder. now, that takes time from that obligation, that initial obligation of that federal money so the longer you delay

giving states an idea of how much money they will have from the federal government to obligate towards their programs, it means that they're going to delay that entire process and construction work will start on those projects much later than originally. so a delay of a couple of months actually shifts things beyond the construction season. so that money is not in the system, it's not being put to good use. those workers aren't getting paid for those projects until a later point. >> let's go to a question from george on the independent line from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm in my 60s and i help completed the last phases of the baltimore beltway and bridge toversuss question hannah river they renamed for john f. kennedy. i am mightly confused. i thought jim demint wants to

take us back to the articles which federation and john mica who opposed mightly the federal festess in 2010 are just not understanding the nature of construction. construction has a critical path. you have to start, you have to end. you have to have all these logistics in line. and if we are going to allow 10,000 bridges to remain substandard, we are going to allow high speed rail never to be built in this country, if we are going to dissolve amtrak, i wonder where we're going to be in the 21st century when we have people thinking like 19th and 18th century people. i understand your trade association is violetly involved. i wish you had been publicly involved earlier. but the failure to pass the

senate bill or something close to it means we're at a standstill for the longest time as far as bridge maintenance and postponing the day when we have yet other collapses and closhurs. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> that's a very good point. i couldn't have said it better myself. one of the reasons that investment in transportation has such a big economic benefit and when you look at the economic literature there's clearly a connection between investing in transportation and growing your economy. and one of the reasons is when you invest in transportation there's a benefited for all businesses. you're not just benefiting one sector versus another. it can help the person whose trying to get to another plumbing or electric job. they need to maybe make a stop in their day if they have better roads. host: i want to give you a few

stats on who owns the roads in the united states. this is actually from your group some information you supplied that almost all the roads and bridges and airports and transit systems in the u.s. are own bid state and local governments or government-created agencies. let's go to steve from illinois on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to know what impact the federal highway bill will have on future bridges and roads that are over 80 years old? i know a lot of these bridges are mostly defisht and not very well traveled or used.

what impact this will have down the road on the bridges and roads on the main highways in the future. thank you. guest: thank you for your call. typically what we do see is when there is a new federal bill a lot of times state d.o.t.s and local governments will use some of that money for bridge scombrokets and about a quarter are what we call structurally deficient or functionly obsleet. that does not mean that they are going to fall down tomorrow or that they're unsafe to travel across but it means they do need either some minor work or significant work. but we do see the bridge market there's been a lot of investment over the last 12 years in bridges because there has been some concern about improving that infrastructure. so i would expect that once a federal bill is passed and states have some certainty about what they can expect as part of the federal aid program, we will continue to

see some additional bridge work. but again, talking about the timing of the construction season we do expect the bridge market to be down in this coming year. host: you talk about a lack of certainty. this is from the national journal this week did a story and the bill being passed in congress. the short-term extension. the national journal writes. are there any estimates out there about how many jobs total

we're talking about being impact bid this short term extension versus a longer bill? >> not a specific number of jobs. there is typically every billion dollars of transtation supports just under 28,000 jobs throughout the economy. so what we're doing is holding back but i would say the industry is at a point right now there's been so many challenges over the last few years that we're actually operating well below capacity. so there is room to do additional work and ramp up. so i wouldn't expect to see any major changes in employment the extension is just keeping things going. >> looking back would you have preferred a shorter term extension to keep that pressure on congress? are they just going to wait until the end of the 90 days? guest: they need to buy themselves a little bit of time. the legislative process does take some time. host: let's go to craig on the republican line from blue

field, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. tiffs wondering what mrs. black thought of the future oftology as far as a way to fund roads. >> absolutely. that's a very important part of trying to raise money for this program. we have seen there's a lot of i want rest in what's called public-private partnerships which tend to be larger new construction projects in urban areas that tends to be where they work very well so you have enough cars that can pay those toles to support the cost of building that roadway. overall anywhere from 2 to 5% of the market and since it works in very select areas that's not going to solve all of our problems but it's a very, very important part. host: wasn't that an issue that senator bingaman actually had an amendment about in the senate bill this private ownership of roadways? guest: well, it does. there are some questions that are raised about who own that is roadway at the time. but that's states have to pass

legislation that and actually there's only legislation about half the states right now to even use something called a public private partnership and that's kind of an umbrella term for several different things. host: would the bill mean that the senate bill would not allow these partnerships to happen? guest: i'm not sure if that was passed. host: let's go to mike on the democratic line from santa barbara california. good morning. caller: good morning. i was, after you guys answered my question earlier but i was wondering about the funds that were generated and if they were firewalled there and that question was answered. but also, i was wondering like in the news that you just read there, both sides have said that they are saving jobs. and it seems to me that jobs

are actually halt for this whole season and it's for both parties to claim that they are saving jobs that only realistically one side is actually saving the jobs for this year was trying to save the jobs. is that correct? guest: i think the idea being that if you do get that federal bill passed sooner there is greater certainty and state d.o.t.s are going to give award more of those projects and get the process moving faster. yes. and in as far as that would help grow the market, that would help create some jobs. the short term extension -- and the reason i was alluding to the fact that it doesn't have much of a jobs impact is because it just keeps funding at the current level and it basically gives states and

drips and drabs about three months of their obligation authority. so giving you $39.1 billion to obligate an earmark for projects this year and you get three months of it right now. so that's where we start to see that delay and that holding back. host: i want to get your reaction from a comment. guest: you would have thought with the bridge collapse in minnesota a couple of years ago in 2007 have we forgotten that already? unfortunately, a lot of times with congress it does take something drastic such as this is a little bit down in the weeds but the issue of running out of funds for the highway trust fund that what we're collecting can't support what we're paying for projects right

now. that's the type of crisis situation that congress puts itself in. host: what happened to this program after the bridge collapsed? guest: at that time chairman oberstar, head of the committee, there was some efforts they did put some additional money towards specifically towards the bridge program in response to what happened. unfortunately, it's when something like that occur where you have a disaster or in i believe it was 2005 when the new york -- there was a strike in the new york transition system shut down and that cost new york estimated that actually cost about $1 billion in lost economic activity. and that's what we're talking about by not investing in our infrastructure what are we losing as far as economic growth? and it's hard to quantify that. host: take you to mississippi. ken on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling with a couple of

comments. one of the things is the federal government is broke. we're not going to raise gasoline tax which pays to fix the roads. so our big problem is how do we get the money to fix the infrastructure in our country which is critical to our future? a couple of comments. china has 1 trillion, 150 billion dollar of our treasury debt and they have come up with a comment that said they're interested in investing $410 billion in what they call the developed west. in other words, they want to put their money where they can make a return. and one of the comments from one of the people that follow these people said that the infrastructure market suits china in several ways. it isn't in the high risk spect rum and it doesn't have the swings a in value that many

other assets have. our retirement systems have been beat up so many times i can't believe it. and yet, we in this country continue to borrow money from china rather than letting retirees have the opportunity to invest in a bank. and i have to say if it's controlled by politicians, i wouldn't trust it as far as i could throw a flat car roll steel because politicians use it for their own political gain. guest: the situation, the discussion about what do we do to fix the roads and bridges and you do, you have three options at this point. you can raise revenues which would be increasing the gas tax or some other type of fee to pay into the highway trust fund. you can borrow money from the general fund or you could use something like bonding. and that is what congress is struggling with. there's no question that we need to invest more and i think

most people in congress and on capitol hill would agree to that. it's just how do you pay for it. and that is why we have had these extensions. host: talk about the future of the trust fund. there are projections out there that it is going to be broke as soon as is it next year? guest: fiscal year 2013. so at some point after october 1 the congressional budget office who does these projections is forecasting that what we are bringing in will not cover the outlays for ongoing projects so the reimbursements to states for the work that is being done. host: also talk a little about how the stimulus played into this program and as i understand it sort of floated it along. guest: it did. there was about a little over 40 billion that went towards transportation from the stimulus. 27.4 billion of that was for highways and bridges and it entered the system just like normal federal funds so that money was obligated and paid out to states over -- and those

projects lasted for several years and it really helped support the transportation construction market. unfortunately, we had a pullback at the state time because of the recession -- statement for some of the state and local money for their own projects that were going on. so it helped. host: let's go to warner on the democratic line in louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: it seems like the entire government needs more money. but it seems like one side the republicans want to hold the money back and keep the government from getting the money. every aspect they come to the rich don't want to pay more, oil doesn't want to pay more. but they're making more. the government keeps losing more and more money. and our -- all our systems are starting to fail. it's just like your home. if you don't invest in your home, your plumbing goes bad,

your electrical goes bad. everything goes bad. and then when it comes time it's an emergency and then it cost more to fix then. so you need to get on an even keel. you need to see how much the government needs over the entire section of the government and we need to provide that money for them. so they can provide the services that we need out here to work. guest: i think it's important for people to also talk to their member of congress you voted them in. tell them this is an important issue. and we certainly as an association that's what we encourage our members to do while they're home on recess. tell them how many jobs. and transportation is something that impacts everybody, every business every person. host: the american road and transportation builders association actually released a statement after the short term extension criticizing congress for advancing political objectives and what they were trying to do here. can you talk a little bit about

what you see? guest: traditionally transportation and this bill and the reauthorization of this bill has been something that's been bipartisan. where you have republicans and democrats coming together because we believe that transportation is in the common good and the i want rest of our country to advance our transportation system. however, i think what's happened over this last reauthorization cycle and over the last 913 days is that you do have a situation where political interests and party interests have basically trumped that common ground that we need to continue to invest in transportation. poort of that has to come down to the issue of spending and our general fiscal situation. host: do you have any confidence after this short term extension? i believe it got something like 37 democratic votes the house version is there going to be -- do you see bipartisanship happening after nine extensions?

guest: well, we're hoping that the house will pass their bill again so we can get it to conference. at that point the house and the senate can work out their differences. so we're really just as an association our policy we don't prefer one bill over the other we are just trying to get the two chambers to get to conference so they can work this out. host: mississippi, you're on the air with alison black. on the republican line. caller: this is submitty of nume. do you have a question? guest: alison is being a little disingenuous when she talked about the min bridge because that was a design defect from the day it was built. it had nothing to do with maintenance. and it's not indictive of what's going to happen to all our bridges.

the gussets holding that together were poorly designed when it was built. nobody knew it until it collapsed. so there's not a nickle you could have spent that would have had any effect on our transportation. this country needs to realize we're spending the $1 trillion-4 more than we're taking in and unless we start cutting back in a lot of places we're headed for a crash that's going to make 2008 look like a mini earthquake. thanks for answering. guest: sure. i would point out the issue when we were talking about the bridge, we were talking about there's a context there's a reaction from congress when something like that happens. as far as the spending i would argue that if you don't invest in your roads and bridges that is going to impact your ability -- our ability as a country to grow and remain competitive and there's some investments like that that are very important to the future of the country. host: let's go to terry on the

independent line from georgia. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i saw you on diane sawyer a couple of weeks ago that we've got three or four major bridge projects going in america right now. chinese companies are doing these with chinese labor. now, how is that going to help the american workforce? guest: i did not specifically see that. but i would say that these are american jobs we're talking about. there is some international involvement in our industry. there's some material suppliers and folks that are companies that are based in europe. i think that in part there is some international investment in our system. but most of these are jobs that are based in the u.s. host: and a comment again going back to twitter from free lancer asking the numbers question.

guest: well, i would say it depends on what we're talking about. there are about just under 1.7 million jobs that are directly attributable to the construction activity and then that ripple effect throughout the economy is another 1.7 million jobs and so it's a lot of jobs that are dependent. i would also add there are thousands and millions of additional jobs in things like tourism, manufacturing that are very dependent on the transportation system. host: we've go got just a couple minutes left with alison black. got time for a few more calls. david is on the republican line from riverside, california. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have a question for you. my whole city is being built on a bond.

and i don't understand what a bond actually does. and when you talk about government jobs, i mean, when you talk about jobs do you mean more government jobs or do you mean more private sector jobs? guest: for the jobs, that would be a combination. so that is private sector jobs so that includes people that are hired by the construction firm to do the actual work. it includes the as fault or concrete supplier who milingte might be hiring more workers if there's more roads and bridges being built. as far as bonds, the way that works that's often a toole that we see local areas and states used what they will do is issue that bond which gives them a large sum of money to usually do some very specific or larger projects and then that money is paid back over time. so you're in effect issuing that bond and borrowing that money up front and you are paying service on it. so there is an additional cost to that. as opposed to raising revenues

through increase in the gas tax or some other form of user fee and getting that money as you're going along. guest: host: let's try one more call from randy on the democratic line from jones boro, arkansas. good morning. caller: host: lost randy on the democratic line from arkansas. before we leave i want to talk a little bit about some of the fun facts that your association puts out there about the highway routes and the bridges in the united states. you can find all of this on the american road and transportation builders association website. but a few of them that were particularly interesting when we were talking about bridges. nearly 25% of the 54,663 bridges on the internet system were built between 1965 and 1969. do up a sense of what the oldest bridge is?

guest: i don't. but there's very little new construction that actually goes on right now. most of what's being done is to restore or rehabilitate existing roadways. i think it's only about 10% of our money is actually going towards building an actual new road or bring. host: an interesting one is the longest route is i-90 stretching from seattle washington to boston, massachusetts. and the shortest route is i-73 which spans 12.27 miles in north carolina. so a lot of fascinating facts on the american road and transportation builders association website. appreciate you coming on. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up next a discussion on federal efforts on online consumer privacy and we'll be right back here at the "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

host: the associate director of the privacy division of the federal trade commission is here to talk to us about federal efforts on online consumer privacy. welcome. guest: pleasure to be here. host: this week, the ftc released its final report on online consumer privacy. what was in that report? guest: basically we're recommending that companies do three things. first, we want them to implement privacy by design that means they shouldn't launch a product and then think about privacy afterwards because once information is out there you can't put the tooth paste back in the tube. we want them to give consumers better choices. we're asking companies to pull out the most important information from privacy policies and present them to consumers in a just in time moment where a consumer is sharing their data so that consumers can make informed

choices. and third we're asking companies to streamline their privacy policies. host: what led to the creation of this report? guest: well, as you know privacy has been in the news quite a bit lately. you can't read a newspaper without seeing a story about aps sifening off information from smart phones or large companies track youg on line without your knowledge or consent or companies experiencing data breaches that compromise consumers information so what we want to do is build sexurep trust because we believe that these types -- consumer trust. host: now, there are five basic themes and we're going through several of them. the first one as reported by it world.com is finishing implementation of do not track. tell us what that's about. guest: currently there are lots of companies that can track you on line as you're looking up information about depression or your banking sites or your travel.

and all we want to do is make sure that consumers are in the driver's seat so that they know that this is going on and they have the opportunity to opt out. and we don't want them to have to go company by company and opt out on a per company basis. we want a one stop shop where consumers who want to can opt out of online tracking. host: the second recommendation is ensuring privacy of mobile users. guest: that's right. so as we know, the screens on mobile devices are very small and it's very difficult to convey information on those devices. and so we're asking companies to come up with innovative methods such as maybe an icon that can tell consumers ok this ap doesn't share my information with third parties. host: we're going to continue our conversation regarding online consumer privacy with our guest the associate director of the privacy division at the federal trade commission and if you would like to get involved in our conversation by all means give us a call. the numbers are on the bottom

of your screen. the third privacy recommendation from the ftc online report is create a centralized web site for data brokers. guest: that's right. so data brokers are inindividual middle men that buy and sell your data without your knowledge. for example, not only when i'm on line are companies tracking me but if i go to the grocery store or to target there are companies that buy and sell the information about my purchase history. they compile it with other data and build profiles about me. again, we just want to increase the transparency of this industry so that consumers know that this industry exists and it can exercise choices. host: now, these are recommendations but they're not new legislative offerings not new regulations. why wasn't it put in that kind of a form as opposed to just recommendations? guest: we have recommended that

congress enact baseline privacy legislation. that means things like notice and choice and privacy by design. in the event that congress doesn't enact legislation, we don't believe that companies should wait. we believe that these are the principles that companies should implement now and the best companies already are. host: our first call from rhode island. mary on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i am glad that you are having this discussion. the problem is this. when so many of our services including government services are outsourced to foreign countries which are not required to comply with our law it's difficult to enforce our law on foreign soil. for example, last segment you had the woman on from the transportation business organization, she misinformed the gentleman who talked about chinese companies manufacturing

u.s. roads and bridges and it wasn't, it's they bring their workers with them. we really aren't getting the questions answered when it comes to these things whether it's by the government that allow the outsourcing of so much of our data from banks, hospitals, what have you, even government. how are we going to get any straight answers from companies? the government has to start honoring their promise and their claims of transparency because as just a consumer i mean starting -- i mean, i called one time requesting some software that needed to be replaced and the gentleman in the other country attempted to get my social security number from me. and if i had been like a teenager, i might have done that i might have been ignorant and not realized you're not obliged to provide your social security number to a business. we really need to rethink this because our independence and -- the health of our own economy.

how can we have a strong sustainable economy when we allow it to be gutted out like this? guest: i appreciate your comments. i think one of the things i would say is that for us if a u.s. company outsources their customer service or any of their data abroad, we would hold the u.s. company libel if something went wrong with the data that's abroad. so there is a u.s. hook. we do have some authority in this area but this is an emerging issue. host: next up is terry on our line for republicans calling from kansas, most. -- missouri. guest: my question is day and time when our government seems to be wanting to surveil the people at every aspect putting cameras in our telephones or tvs as well as speakers and microphones to listen to us why is it necessary for all of this? why do we have to have tracking devices and cell phones?

we have 9/11 systems why is that necessary? guest: two things. first, i would say that at the federal trade commission our report is about commercial privacy. there are certainly a host of issues with respect to government privacy that are very important but they are beyond the scope of what we have been looking at. in terms of companies tracking you on line and on devices, there are benefits to that. so for example there are applications that can provide you with map and so they need to know your location in order to give you directions. so there are positive benefits of these devices. all we're saying is that we want consumers to have more information about this and to be able to exercise choices. host: going back to the list of the ftc's online privacy recommendations that came out this week. the fourth one is focus on how large platform users -- providers use data. like goodle, facebook, twitter,

apple, microsoft. tell us about that. guest: there are these large entities that you mentioned that are able to track your movements on line. they have a relationship with you, you may have an account with them. and then they're also able to track you on line. we believe that practice raises special concerns. so we're going to be having some workshops later this year to talk about that issue. but we think that at a minimum consumers should be given a choice. so let me give you an example. so facebook has a like button that appears on many sites outside of facebook. so there's a like button that appears on the "washington post." so i may not know that facebook by just having that like button even if i don't click on it facebook is able to track me on the weamb post. so what we want -- "washington post." we want to make sure consumers know about that. host: isn't there some sort of a warning when you sign up for these services like google or facebook that lets you know that they will be doing this kind of tracking? guest: sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. in a lot of cases if there is a

disclosure the disclosure is not that promenent. we know that if consumers see a 15 page box with a lot of text they just click i accept. so we're asking companies to pull out those most important choices and present them to consumers in a short easy to understand way so the consumers aren't clicking through a bunch of boxes and they'll actually understand what they're clicking. host: the fifth privacy recommendation is more self-regulation amongst the industry. guest: so one of the things we know is that if congress doesn't enact legislation we want industry to step up to the plate. so we're asking them to develop codes of conduct. once they develop a code toff conduct if they don't abide by that code of conduct we can sue them for committing a deceptive practice. we also think that companies have an incentive to signed up for these codes of conduct because they can be viewed as good corporate citizens, they can build trust in their brand. so that's something we encourage. host: will the ftc review this

code of conduct and have input on the code of conduct? guest: the details remain to be worked out but i'm certain that we will be watching the progress closely and participating in it as well. host: back to the phones. we're talking with ms. mithal. jason, are you holding the winning mega ball ticket? kiverageds i haven't checked my tickets but i will shortly after. host: your question or comment about online privacy? guest: i have two and i hope you'll let me get those i'll be brief. one relates to mobile device that is in their agreement they went to total access to your device such as permission to turn on your camera. i had a dictionary ap that wanted to be able to turn on my camera. the other one relates to cookies, fire fox allows you to

view cookies before accepting them. but they're either in the same language or coded that i think the ftc should require cookies to be in plain english so that you can know what you're agreeing to. guest: thank you. so in terms of mobile devices, i think that's an excellent point. i think that's one of the thing that is we're asking companies to do. so you might have your dictionary ap that you talked about or a wall paper ap or a kids' game ap. there's no reason for these aps to have your location information or your contact information. so one of the things we're asking companies to do is to think about what information they need in order to conduct their business only ask for that amount of information and nothing more. as to your question about cookies i completely agree with you that we need to put things in plain english so that consumers can understand not a lot of technical jargon not a lot of legal jargon just plain

english. host: and for those who are not familiar with all this technical jargon what is a cookie? guest: a cookie is a small text file that a company can place on your browse tore identify it. so if i go to amazon my browser can say let pe place cookie one two three four on amazon. then when i go to another site they can read and see i'm the same person that looked at amazon that looked at "washington post" that looked at c-span. host: back to the phones. chuck on our line. you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: thank you for listening to me. first i would like to pass along a method that i've use ford years to find out who is has been moving my information. the average person can sign their name like a dozen different ways your first initial last name, middle initial, and i've done this for years andive found out who has been selling my information. by all i get advertisements with that particular way that i

signed. another thing too that i want to complain about is v.a. hospital system. i'm a disabled veteran and when i go there for a clinic and they say well you're going to this clinic or whatever, all of a sudden i'm bombardd with all kinds of advertisement from hearing clinics or whatever. and i'm going, whose selling my information over there? so this is happening at the government level also. host: go ahead. guest: so i think that's a great way to ferret out who is selling your information by signing your name differently in different places. so i don't mean to imply that consumers don't have existing tools. if you're going on line currently there is some tools in your browser. you can delete cookies, your browsing history. sign up for the do not call registry so you don't have to get telemarketing calls.

there's an association called the direct marketing association that has certain options not to receive catalog mail. we think the tools are few and far between and need to be more comprehensive. host: next up, calling from kansas city, missouri. go ahead, wally. caller: i'm originally canadian and i want to ask a question about how your recommendations will apply to nonu.s.-based citizens. and i'm also concerned sometimes in canada when we use web sites that are domssiled in the u.s. there's always reference to the u.s. patriot act. i'm very concerned about the privacy and liberty issues. so please could you comment on that. thank you. guest: sure. so our, in terms of how our law applies to foreign businesses, there's a lot of legal tests to determined if they're doing business in the united states if they're conducting --

directing activities towards consumers in the united states they are subject to our law. but as a practical matter we might not be able to police ourselves against foreign companies. so that's why one of the things we're doing is we're increasing our international cooperation. so around the world there are movements afoot to try to improve consumer privacy and we're talking to our counter partsdz in other countries to make sure they're consistent. as to your question about the u.s. patriot act again we deal with commercial privacy issues. i know that patriot act issues are a concern for many consumers both here and abroad. but that's not something that we've addressed in our report. host: on thursday the subcommittee on commerce manufacturing and trade had a hearing regarding privacy and regulation on the internet. the chair of that subcommittee representative mary bono mack republican of california had this to say about doing any harm to the internet. this is what she had to say. we'll get your response. >> so before we do any possible

harm to the internet, we need to understand what harm is actually being done to consumers and where is the public outcry for legislation? today i'm simply not hearing it. i haven't gotten a single letter from anyone back home urging me to pass a privacy bill. they want data protection but no one is beating down my door about the privacy issues. that may change and it probably will if industry doesn't come up with better safe guards for the future. but right now we should resist the urge to rush to judgment because we feeling feel a compelling urge to do something even if we're not exactly sure what that should be. host: is protecting consumer privacy on line a solution looking for a problem? guest: i don't think so. i think one of the things that we've heard is that companies that offer consumers choices build trust and confidence in their brands. so if consumers don't have confidence, they're not going to engage in these new technologies. so we think that building better privacy protections enhances trust and confidence in the market place and therefore helps both businesses

and consumers. host: michelle sends us this tweet. guest: so i think that i have a slightly different take which is that i think a lot of companies are engaging in best practices. a lot of companies are seeing these headlines and saying i don't want that to be me and so they are stepping up to the plate. they are implementing best practices and they're implementing many of the principles that we recommend in our report. host: you joined the ftc in 1999 and are the associate director of the privacy protection. we'll go back to the phones. daytona, florida. bill is on our line for republicans. bill, you're on the "washington journal." caller: i have a question. i'm trying to review the

installation of a smart meter on my house and i keep getting harassed by the florida power and light company. i was wondering if you have any comment on how to stop that. guest: sure. so the smart meters, these are meters that can get individualized information about your own energy use. and we believe there are many benefits there fur able to see how your -- if you are able to see how your energy rates compared to your neighbors consumers might have some peer pressure into using less energy. so there are benefits but at the same time there are risks to privacy. again, what we're asking for is companies to make clear what information they're collecting about consumers, who they're sharing with, and giving consumers a choice as to whether they want to engage in that practice. host: next call from west virginia. arty on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: well, i do my name in different ways like the former caller said and i needed to get

my drivers license renewed and i've had drivers license forever. and in west virginia now they have a rule that you have to have all this identification. well, i brought my social security, my birth certificate, and all this stuff. and when i got there, no, i had to have my marriage license. so i had to go back home. and then they copied all this stuff and right there in front of me. and whenever i on my drivers license it has my first name my maiden name and my last name so i know that whenever i get mail to that particular thing they have sold my name. and i'm wondering what else are they doing with all that information that they've copied? guest: so i think that again what we're asking companies to do is to provide more information to consumers about what they're doing with their information, hour they're selling it and to give

consumers choices. you raise an interesting issue about how much information your mmv need -- dmv needed. on the one hand you want to make sure that companies are doing a good job making sure you are who you say you are so that an identity thief can't get a drivers license in your name. on the other hand, if they're getting all this information, they're not safe guarding it, it could get into the wrong hands, that's a concern as well. so these are issues we address in our report as well. host: kentucky, sandra on our line for democrats. caller: i'm on a no call list for both my home phone and my cell phone. my problem is i'm getting consecutive calls from people selling debt relief and stuff like that. and to be perfectly honest with you, it's machine operated. i tell the machine i'm trying to tell the machine that i'm on a no call list but it does not

no good at all whatsoever. if you stay on the line and press the button so you can talk to a human, when you get there they hang up on you as soon as they find out you're on a no call list. that lasts for about two days and then the calls start all over again. i have written down five different numbers from the same company. i don't know what to do about this. guest: one thing i would suggest is filing a complaint with the federal trade commission. call us at 1877 ftc help. one of the things we do is collect consumer complaints and then actually sue companies that are violating the do not call list. we also sue these debt relief and loan mod companies that promise to provide you service that is they never provide so the information in our complaint data base is very useful and i would urge you to complain. host: we are talking with the privacy division associate director at the federal trade commission. we have another tweet talking

about cookies. how does she deal with that? guest: that's a really interesting question. so one of the thing that is we've said is that if there's a first party cookie, then that should be allowed without consumer choice in most cases. for example, i'm on amazon and amazon drops a cookie so that next time i come back they can recognize me as the same consumer so i don't have to reload my shopping cart that's a good thing for consumers. the third party cookies, yes a lot of companies do at allow third parties on their site and that has many benefits for consumers. consumers can get adds more targeted to their interest, free contents, and all we're asking companies to do is to explain to consumers what the trade-offs are and consumers should be able to make those decisions. host: if you want to read the

ftc privacy report you can find it on their website. the address is www.ftc.gov. and that's where you'll find their privacy report on their website. whoo we're going to take another call from bridgeton, new jersey. natesdzing, i need you to turn down your telestrigs set. caller: all right. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i want to know the option available for insurance or whatever the company is, is this will be a standard for all the consumers instead of going and learning about the things later on? guest: yes. so currently there are some opt outs available to consumers. you can go on the do not call

registry and not receive telephone calls. you can go to the direct marketing association website and not get certain catalogs or mail solicitations. the law also prohibits e-mail solicitations or allows you to opt out. so what we're asking for is that this opt out information be made more easily available to consumers that consumers know the choices that they have so that they can exercise those choices. host: how do these e-mail opt outs work? and will that protect us from getting pop up ads? guest: the e-mail opt out is only for unsolicited e-mail messages. in terms of pop up ads, there's currently not anything that prohibits those pop up ads. there is an organization called the digital advertising alliance and if you go to their web site they have information about how you can opt out of targeted advertising. so that's another tool that's available to consumers. host: new york susan on our line for republicans.

you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. in 2007, i helped the federal government postal service launch a website. they had commercials about different scams and online frauds. i don't see these commercials any more on tv. what the website is called and it's great for consumers because it's a good learning teaching tool and not only that you can also report an online scam or fraud and they will investigate it. i will give you the website. the website is www.fake checks.org. this was organized through the postal service because there was such a rampant of counter fit money coming into this country due to online scams and business scams, which is still

occurring in this country. but for protecting the consumers out there because i go out and lecture and colleges and schools and senior citizens because this is such a good website and it's great for consumers to educate themselves on any online or through mail scams and this is a great learning tool. and you can also again report it as well. thank you for take mig call. it's a great, great category that you're talking about. guest: thank you very much. and i think that's terrific information for the viewers out there. i would also like to point the viewers to the ftc site, on guard, on line,.gov. that also has a host of information about various online scams and also talks about how parents can teach their kids about being safe on line. host: in the papers this morning this story emblematic about what's written in the

baltimore sun with the headline data security breach hits card companies. host: is there anything either in regulations, legislation, or in the pipeline that would protect consumers from this kind of data breach? guest: there is a law that prohibits companies from

committing unfair or deceptive acts or practices. if a company has your sensitive information and does not protected adequately -- protect it adequately, if they could be committing an unfair practice. there is a lot. that would apply. second, in terms of what consumers can do, they should monitor credit statements, and they can check credit reports. they can check been bins for free once a year. -- they can check their credit reports for free once a year. host: we have another tweet --

host: is there anything in the recommendations or anything in the ftc is working on that would protect american consumers from being violated, i guess, by information that either goes overseas or equipment that is manufactured overseas? guest: i would go back to what i said at the beginning of the program. if a u.s. company is using foreign out-sourcing, we would hold the u.s. company responsible if anything happened to your data. so, there is usually a u.s. hook. host: walter on our line for independents. caller: my question has to do with texting.

i am on no-call list, and i am starting to get text messages from companies. i am wondering if the lists cover that. when you try to view one of those, it does cost you money. the do notndering if call lists covered text messages or not because i report calls that i get. >> thank you, the registry does not cover text messages. i believe there is a trade organization. you can look at their website. we have sued companies that have sent unsolicited text messages where there is deception or unfair practices.

i agree that this is a problem. host: we are talking with maneesha mithal of the federal train -- federal trade commission. saginaw, michigan. sandy on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking our -- my call and your efforts for providing privacy for us as citizens. i hear that there seem to be objectives to safeguards due to cost to companies? is there something that you can comment on that, that they might be able to reduce the costs of things that might safeguard our information and exploited those things for us as consumers? guest: that is a good question. we have tried to be mindful that small business will not be able to implement the same measures

as large companies with a lot of consumers. if a company has sensitive data, they are sharing it with third parties, the privacy program for the company would look different from a small mom and pop store. we have tried to take it and say that it should be proportional to the size of the country -- company. host: the white house has released a consumer privacy bill of rights. tell us about that, and how that differs from the ftc privacy report. guest: they are very consistent and complementary. they both recommend the same type of high-level of principles that we have been talking about. where they are a little bit different, the white house paper is more of a blueprint for how these need to be implemented

into action. our report is about the guidance to companies, and providing examples of what companies might want to do. we put out a pours the proposed report in 2010, and head up -- put out a proposed report in 2010, and got a lot of comments that are similar to what the viewers are raising today. host: if i send a message to the ftc requesting information, will i be put on some kind of a list? guest: we are not asking companies to do things that we are not doing. i think you're pretty safe looking at the ftc website. host: mike, on our line for independents. caller: i have had a phone call repeatedly from a number, and

when i pick it up there is nobody there. when you dial it back, you get a message that it is not working or disconnected. i have called the ftc. there is nothing they can do about it, they claim. this is an outfit that is false- feeding a number to my caller identification. why is it that i need a power of attorney to get my wife's license plate sticker, but these people can sell my information for money? why do i have to opt out? why do i not have to just popped in? when you opt out, that is no good because they do not take you off of a list no matter what you say. let's put the system so i have to opt in. thank you. rob, keep up the good work.

host: mike in dover, ohio. guest: we believe the consumer should have the opportunity to opt in to financial information, children, location information, social security's, and health information. a company should get your consent for that information. for other categories, we recognize there are benefits. for example, if i had to opt in before a company could place a cookie, a lot of consumers could not get a free content they are used to. host: eugene, oregon. martin, on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. are there any computer programs

that notify you when cookies are uncertain and who inserted them? guest: i do not believe there are. you can check. a lot of browsers have a tool. you can go into your settings, look at privacy and see the cookies. you can clear the cookies, then you can go to a website and see if the cookies that have been added have been added from that website. host: chesapeake, virginia, tim, on our line for republicans. caller: i just want to tell you what we do with unsolicited junk mail. we take the prepaid envelops, keep a stack of them next to the front door, and when we go out

in the morning we put a blank piece of paper, so they have to pay the postage. that is my rebellious way of getting back. make them pay for postage. if everybody did that, maybe they would stop sending junk mail. host: in addition to what can says, we have a tweet . guest: one of the interesting things we are hearing it is privacy is a bipartisan issue. people on both sides of the aisle recognize it is of value to consumers, and there is a lot of support for companies to do more to protect privacy. host: the next call comes from cathy, on our line for

democrats, calling from dayton, ky this morning. go ahead. caller: i would like to know if the person who created the internet, the computer, are they held liable for what has been created since the computer has been up and on-line? it seems like everyone is aware in the federal government that this problem exists, that it has gotten so out of control and so large that it is not reversible. you have to sign a release waiver to get your health insurance or medical records, but you can go online and someone is selling your information of privacy.

it kind of shocked me the first time my sister put my name him and all that information -- in, and all that information came up. who gave them permission, and how did it did so far out of line? guest: in terms of who to hold liable, there is a law that protect some platforms. your e-mail provider cannot be held liable for things you put in an e-mail. there are reasons for that. there are benefits that we would not want to stifle. i absolutely agree that you should be in control of personal information. companies should explain what is happening and put you in the driver's seat. host: florida. bill, on our line for republicans. caller: i have a question about

ripoffs on the internet. people claim there is no way to get the lines removed, and i was wondering if there is. guest: there are lists of people that have fallen for scams before and are targeted again. so, in terms of how to get your name off of those lists, the tools that we talked about -- do-not-call lists, opt outs of spam, this is a problem, and one of the reasons we oppose that data brokers who are buying and selling your information to be held more accountable and make practices more transparent. host: a tweet --

guest: that is an excellent point. on the computer, there are certain trade-offs. i agree that consumers should be provided choices if somebody is placing a cookie on your computer. there are good uses, and we need to strike the right balance. host: last fall, columbia, maryland, susan, you are on "washington journal." caller: i have a question about state governments proposing -- posting information. anytime i go it can be viewed. anyone can log on in maryland,

get your name, date of birth, where you live, and every other personal effect. guest: i agree that that is a problem. there is a balance to be struck. we want to make sure the government is putting all materials that we want to see, but certainly social security numbers should not be in public records, and we recommend legislation to restrict the public display and that is something we can all agree on. host: we have been talking with maneesha mithal of the ftc. thank you for being on the program. guest: a pleasure. thank you. host: when we come back, a discussion regarding the international space station right here on "washington journal turncoat and we will be right back. -- "washington journal." we will be right back.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] let's follow c-span's local content of vehicles throughout the weekend as booktv and american history tv explore little rock, ark. . today, the little-known riots and killings of at least 20 african-american sharecroppers. >> you had calls up and down the mississippi delta, saying that blacks were now in revolve, and the next morning, between 601,000 white men pouring into phillips county -- 600 and 1000 white men poured into scallops county and began shooting down blacks. -- into phillips county, and

began shooting down blacks. >> integration. >> they say we know what is pointed happen, but we do not know what will happen. they seemed to pare the crowd is with us. the momentum is behind us and they're pushing us up the steps. stories and others this weekend on c-span 2 and 3. >> i am appearing here today as one spokesperson for hundreds of thousands of marines, sailors, their families, and hundreds who have been exposed to contaminated drinking water.

>> the film's producer joins sunday. >> one thing they have done over the years it is obfuscated the facts so much, told so many half-truths and total lies, omitting all lot of information to the media, and now as they were to sit down with me face- to-face, i could show them with their own documents and counter what they say, and they do not want to do that. >> more, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: mark matthews is here to talk about the future role of the international space station. before we get into the future role, tell us about the current

role of the space station. guest: you have to appreciate the station for what it is. it took 13 years to assemble it. it started in 1998 and finished last year. it is roughly the size of a football field and houses a crew of six. it is a floating observatory about 200 miles above earth, and for most of its history it has been about construction. now, nasa is trying to do more on the science side. host: when they made the plans, what was their intention and what did they want to use it for after the construction process? guest: the size has always been the goal, and nasa and international partners have done about 1200 different experiments. it sounds like a big number, but in fact nasa has not been doing

science until now. in 2008, the government accountability office, the watchdog for congress, reported that the crew was only doing three hours of science a week, which was not that much. i spoke to nasa this week, and they'd say it has increased dramatically. we are starting to see returns on investment. i imagine most u.s. taxpayers and people would like to see that, given that the cost is estimated as high as $150 billion. mark we're talking with matthews of "orlando sentinel." let's talk about the future plans for the international space station. guest: nasa is trying to do something on the order of 300

or 400 experiments a year. getting to space is somewhat difficult, as is trying to figure out what applications you can do there. so far, the type of experience is traditional observations of the sun, the earth. one of the big things they are doing is research into protein, the building blocks of sells, and trying to build these proteins is somewhat limited by gravity. when you put it in micro- gravity, it enables a better protein that is more useful in developing better drugs. the catch could be trying to get the protein samples back to earth, and this is one of the many issues nasa is trying to deal with. host: if you want to get involved in the conversation regarding the future role of the

international space station, give us a call. host: we also will be taking your messages electronically, on twitter, e-mail, and on facebook. our first call comes from portland, maine, james, on our line for democrats. james? no longer with us. at some point there was discussion about the international space station been a way station or a rest station for trips to mars and beyond. is that still in the works? guest: right now, the human exploration program is trying to figure out where it wants to go next.

the obama administration and congress canceled the constellation mown program that was started under president bush in 2011. they're trying to figure out what to do next. some of the potential goals are a return trip to the moon, or going to a nearby s. trade. when president obama was that the kennedy space station -- center, he said he wanted to see a trip to an asteroid by 2020. host: how far from the surface of the earth does the international space station orbit, and to give us some perspective, how much further do they have to travel to go to the moon? guest: the station is up about

two hundred miles above earth and the shuttle would generally take about one day and a half to get their. in comparison, during the 1960's and 1970's, and the apollo mission took about three days to get to the moon and back, but that was more of a straight shot. host: this week, the house science, space and technology committee held a hearing to examine the role of private space-bar companies in the space station -- private space companies in the space station. space x has a scheduled launch. is that going to happen? guest: this is a great debate -- what do we do next. space x is trying to develop

space craft that can dock with the international space station and hopefully give them supplies. the april flight for space x will be the first time they ever work with the international space station. they made history by becoming the first company to blast a capsule into orbit, and orbit earth, and haven't come back safely. -- have it come back safely. host: west palm beach, florida, richard. caller: are they going to gut the international space station program just like the shuttle program and a few of the others? guest: right now, the average annual funding is about $1.5 billion, which given the overall budget of $17.7 billion, it is not that bad.

most of the money is for operation and maintenance. the expectation is nasa and the u.s. government want to continue with the station until 2020, and possibly until 2025. one of the big controversies is what to do about china. the head of the european space agency has been in talks with china about potentially docking, which is opposed by many on capitol hill who are concerned about china using this to steal technology from the united states. that is a big debate going on. if you want to look at history, obviously the united states and china are big rivals right now, similar to the way the united states and russia were rivals in the cold war. he then joined, they were able to overcome their differences in sipc -- they were eventually able to overcome their

differences in space. host: the numbers again if you want to get involved -- host: cape cod, massachusetts. tom, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. when i was a young man, i saw the spot that go over, and my father would drag me out of the house and say there they go, the russians. now, we just go on the computer and we look up human space flight, and right to the second almost, you can go outside, look up at a certain position, se or northwest, and see the space

station come cruising out at fabulous fab speeds. it is a miracle of man's imagination that we have people serving -- circling the earth. it is to the credit of everyone involved that we have such a great thing up there, and i hope that it never goes away, and it would be a feather in the camp of the united states of america to explore the moon again and do all of these things that are required to go further and farther into space because it brings great promise back to us in many great devices. host: sorry about that, tom. we have a similar tweet from mary. host: tell us what they're doing out there now.

guest: the vaccination. a similar vaccination is a research project they have done up there. what i find fascinating is this giant doughnut-shaped structure that is actually attached outside of the international space station, and the role is to essentially penalized pieces of space particles that flow through the center. i was put on board the station about one year ago, and today, roughly 13 billion particles have been analyzed. when they looking for? two types of space-bar articles. one called anti-matter, and one called dark matter, the cutting edge right now. dark matter is believed to make up the mass of the universe that is not seen, and could hold clues to the structure of the

universe and galaxies. anti-matter gets to the heart of how everything started. there is the big bang theory that happened about 13.7 million years ago, and the reason for it was an imbalance between matter and anti-matter, and when matter had the upper hand, the big bang happened, but the question is where did all of the anti-matter go? i was talking to the principal investigator, and is probably the smartest guy i have ever interviewed -- a nobel prize winner from the 1970's, discovered a subatomic particle, and generally a nice guy. i asked him where is all the anti-matter, and he gave me a smile and said we do not know. to have one of the smartest people i have ever spoken to say we do not know shows the

cutting-edge signs that can be done on board the station because we're looking for things we do not have much idea about. host: back to the phones. we are talking to mark matthews, washington correspondent for "the orlando sentinel." our next line comes from florida, tom, on our line for independents. caller: i always wondered why the space program had to go begging for millions of dollars, and the last thing i heard was that a lot of research teams were being split up because of a lack of funds. they take years and a lot of coordination to get these guys together to work on these projects, but when we spend $4 billion a month on afghanistan, i find $17 billion a year towards larger projects and and

more beneficial projects to be a bit disconcerting. guest: nasa generally gets about half of 1 cent of the federal dollar if you look it everything we spend money on. there is a campaign called one penny for nasa, and it wants to double the budget to get to 1 cent on the dollar, because i feel a lot of people share the priorities that nasa should be funded for more money now. host: talk about the private companies that will be shuttling, to use a phrase, shuttling men and material to the international space station. one of the companies is space x. tell us about those. are they completely privately- funded, or is there government funding? guest: there is some government

funding, which is why is constantly being debated on capitol hill. last year, roughly $4 million went toward efforts. right now, space x is trying to build space craft that can deliver supplies to the international space station. the goal is to have the up there for 10, 15 years. you need supplies. space x has a flight in april and it might be one of the more critical in the last 10 years. if they succeed, it is a father in the cap four commercial flights, because they can save we have succeeded, give us more responsibility, and if they do not, there will be question about whether nasa can use commercial providers rather than

the government itself. earlier this week there was a push to have nasa developed its own rocket faster to serve as a backup instead of these commercial companies. that is likely not going to happen. the first test flight for this new nasa rocket is going to be in 2017, and they're not willing to have a crew's 2021, which is a decade away. so, the ides of nasa, even with more funding, to produce a rocket that can be a supply backup, is likely not going to happen. much of the u.s. hopes and keeping the space station aloft is on the commercial rocket company. host: tell us about the folks that are up there now. guest: there are six people on board now. there have been more than 200 visitors to the international

space station over its life span. the u.s. and russia are the prime occupants, with other members of the european space agency and japan cycling in and out. it is truly an international effort, and could serve as a model for international flights, maybe even to mars. host: russia is the only country going back and forth to the space station? guest: russia is the only country with people back and forth, but there are several options for supplies reach a european space agency's, japanese, russia, the uss commercial providers -- the good news in the short term is the last two shuttle flights to the international space station had supplies, so we have about two years before things get hectic.

host: do they fly to the space station, where it is it just in some kind of orbit where it is on auto-pilot? guest: it is not auto-pilot. it is controlled in houston and moscow, ended zips around the world in 12,000 miles an hour. i think they have seen 14 sunrises a day. i thought that was pretty neat. host: new york, new york, kenny, you are on "washington journal" with mark matthews of "the orlando sentinel." caller: thank you for having me on. my heart prize for any of those soldiers that fought that war, and when i see someone begging for money on the transit system or on my way to work, i feel

that money should be given to them for their efforts. i feel we are in 2012, and we do not think about how much those men have sacrificed for us, and if you have a loved one in that war, you would forget about anything moving toward the future without fixing our past. i just want to mention to the politicians out there, if you are a real american, you will take care of your own kind. host: let's move on to larry, on our line for republicans, tampa, florida. caller: doesn't this show what a waste of money this is? the smartest man in the world did not know what anti-matter was? is this a waste of money that could be used building roads?

isn't the talk of going to mars to play along with foolish fantasies of those that do not participate in voting anywhere -- anyway? guest: i have to correct the caller, he does know the difference between dark matter and anti-matter, but has to answer the questions of where is all going and where it all began. i am sure there will be a difference of opinion. this is the united states. host: stan, on our line for independents, florida. caller: you talked about formal experimentation, which is important, but it seems to me the whole station is an experiment. all of the equipment has to be tested and develop, and lead to

next generation equipment if we're ever 0.2 leave before but, we ever going to leave the orbit, this equipment needs to be -- if we are ever want to leave the orbit, this equipment needs to be tested. guest: it is true. one of the neat things just attached was a 360-degree observation booth, where astronauts can do better earth observation and have been neat experience of being able to look out and see what is around them. one of the things, too, that they are looking to do, is try to figure out how space-bar it affects the human body, -- space effects of the human body, and this is particularly important for a trip to mars. with the technology we have, a

round trip to mars would take about three years, and to give you a perspective, the average stay of a crew member on board the international space station is about six months, and there are concerns that taking that long to go to mars and back, in addition to deal what would -- with what would likely be claustrophobia, there is concern about how much exposure you would have to radiation, and last year, a new health condition pop up, and they are beginning to worry about spending too long in space and the effect on your eyes and vision. they have reports of esther not set have permanent effects on how well they can see -- on astronauts that a permanent effect on how well they can see. it does not affect everyone, but they are not quite sure what is causing this cranial pressure that is affecting their

eyesight. host: maybe it is looking into all of those sunrises. long beach, california, matthew. go ahead. caller: i was wondering, if you could put the size into perspective. we talk about the money going into it, i just want to see something like -- is a big, it is a small, are we using it for something? guest: again, the size of the international space station is roughly the size of an american football field. in terms of the usage, this might be a matter of perspective. right now, nasa has about 19 science racks on board the station, and i was told they use between 60% and 70% built

with experiments. an optimist might say this is great, that is a majority, and someone else might say we spent $150 billion of the station, why are they not all filled? nasa is doing what it can, but there is room to grow to figure out how to complete the utilize the station, which is the point we're at now. host: we have other numbers regarding the international space station. host: the solar array is what? guest: i am not sure the length, but it is a larger part of the station and one of the hardest pieces to insert. there was a situation where one of them did not unfold as it

should and left a heroin spacewalk to repair this. host: back to the phones, miami, florida. johnny on our line for republicans. go ahead. johnny is gone. guest: to talk a little bit about fist -- fixing the space walk, one thing we need to underline is there is an inherent danger of being on board the international space station. like the shuttle, i think we get complacent about what is going on, but there have been a couple of occasions where the crew has had to get into one of the life boats for fear of a piece of space debris crashing into it and causing a catastrophic

representative. it is a genuine worry. host: we have an e-mail from florida. guest: well, it is not an outpost. it is one of the potential goals, like going to the moon, where a nearby astroid, another potential destination is one of these points, which is really need to scientists and such, but to your average earthling, is a little bit arcane. essentially, it is a gravity well where you can stick something in, and because of the cool of the earth, the moon, and the sun, you can hold something in this without using much fuel to keep it there.

the lagrange point is less interesting to the human exploration and more interesting to scientists. the big science mission over the next 10 years in addition to the station is trying to put a telescope into one of these points and hold it there. this will be the successor to the hubble space telescope, and it will be 1 million miles from earth, and the hope is it will tell us more about the very beginning of our universe. host: marsh also writes about -- guest: that was one of all very long term goals of the program.

right now, mining helium, you are more likely to see that in science-fiction movies than reality. it certainly is a possibility. in a way, it gets to another essential question, which is for the space program to continue and for the u.s. to push beyond where we are right now, they're what? to be an economic goals to do so, and helium -- there would have to be an economic goal to do so, and helium offers one of the few areas where you can make money. if you look at exploration efforts through human history, the to italy folks coming from europe, they were looking for -- particularly people coming from europe, they were looking for ways to make money. nasa is looking for the same. host: fort lauderdale, florida. neal, on our line for

independents. caller: this is entertaining and interesting. our need to explore and go where s star trek said, where -- boldly where no man has gone before, is fascinating. you talk about philosophical things. matter, anti-matter, the big bang, who lit the fuse to the big bang, and where did it come from? it is incredible. some people have difficulty completing their naval let alone the origins of who we are, and where we are going, but in a bit of humor sensitive -- since it is saturday from the elton john song "rocket man cocoa mars is no place to raise a kid --

rocket man cocoa mars is no place to raise a kid." host: any observations with how we take care of earth? guest: the international space station has summerall, the one of the things nasa has been pushing for lately it is trying to track how much ice is there each season to see how much climate changes effecting the earth. host: we have a tweet from american hero of american joe trademark . [laughter] host: gaithersburg. stuart, on our line for democrats. caller: i would like you to talk a little bit more about how the

private sector is supporting the space station and adding new jobs to the private sector in that support in regards to cargo, cruel, and even some of the orbital flights they are doing. the private sector will hopefully takeover the real operations and allow nasa to do the job they started out with, which is exploration. a lot of people say we are wasting money, but there probably calling you on their cell phone. that technology was developed through nasa. if you could just touch base on what the program has done to technology. it is moving technology forward. that is will we get out of the program, otherwise we will be back in the dark ages. guest: the caller is right about

the goal of involving commercial space companies. the hope it is for net -- is for nasa to do the work of resupplying -- have them do the work of resupplying the station, nasa could to the confirmations of back to the moon or mars eventually. right now, the commercial crew companies are not doing the supplies. the hope is they will be able to ramp up in the next year or so to be able to do that, but much it is rising on that late-april, early-may flight of space x. it will be a critical moment. host: roy, jacksonville, florida, on our republican line. caller: i wanted to know if the space station would allow commercial visitors to go to the space station in the future.

guest: well, if you happen to win mega millions this morning, i you, too, can be a visitor to the international space station. there have been six space tourists over the years, but i imagine people that have done that to not like to be called that. russia has been the one that has allowed people to do this. the united states has not done any with them. there are some signs of this market growing a little bit. there is one company that is talking about building a second space station, and this one would be an inflatable space station. it sounds crazy, but nasa develops technology early in its history, and they want to do the same. it would not just before space -- be for space tours, as they

would market it to countries to do research. you might have a chance to do more flights and reduce the cost so you can have millionaires, and not just billionaires' go into space. host: another call from orlando, florida. louise, on our line for democrats. caller: we have made it to the moon, but we have the missed theboat on earth. president obama was right in cancelling the move and mars expedition. nasa and the pentagon are connected, and the reason george w. bush wanted to put a based on the loan was to use it to launch nuclear rockets from. i believe most of the exploration is useless. our earth is destroyed by fossil fuels, the greenhouse

gases which might become irreversible because neanderthaloid republicans did not believe in science or global warming. host: mark matthews, is there an advantage from launching missiles from one. on the earth, to from -- from one part of the earth to another, as opposed to the mound? guest: the move has never been an option, as far as i know, for launching missiles. there is a big gain, but there has always been a push within nasa. every time i talk to people from the agency, they are not above military means there. maybe, overall, there is some link, but people within nasa are fiscally independent of their civilian mission of peace.

host: james in southeast louisiana sends us a tweet . guest: i do not believe they do have a greenhouse. host: pensacola, florida. michael, on our line for independences -- independents. caller: is there any chance of the space station drifting off or is it locked in by orbit? guest: the bigger concern is not a been drifted into space, but is being pulled into the earth's atmosphere. it is very unlikely. the biggest risk is the amount of space debris floating right now in lower orbits. there are hundreds of thousands of pieces -- millions of very small pieces out there.

it is it tough crunch for nasa. the shielding on board the international space station can withstand hits of space debris as small as 1 inch. that does not sound like that big of a deal, but when it is going 12,000 miles an hour, it is a big deal. it is like a bullet. it can shield against those, and this sounds remarkable, but they can track space debris as tiny as 10 inches and larger from the earth and be able to keep track of the objects, but the big worry is not-so-sweet spots between 1 inch and 10 inch, they will not be able to track it. host: las vegas, nevada, chandler, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning, gentlemen.

i am a young republican, born in the early-1990's. i have a question. how do you feel with the amount of funding in nasa -- how will that affect my generation and younger generations and do you think president obama is doing nasa any good by keeping money away from it? i really do not myself. i believe he needs to get out of office as soon as possible, but that is besides the point. guest: well, the next generation is always at the forefront of nasa's mind, and they are trying to do what they can to enable it. one of the interesting things is now that they canceled -- the shuttle is gone, but in the midst of all that, nasa has

essentially recruited another astronaut class. they are looking to take these missions off into the future. what will happen is a matter of debate. the space launch system, the human exploration program that is coming next -- there is a long lead time for that. there is nine years between now and the first human flight, and the question is whether or not there is enough patience in this country to be able to allow nasa to take this program all the way, in addition to nasa been able to do it. frankly, nasa has had a major problem in keeping its programs on time and on budget, and a fast way to get your programs canceled, is not meeting these deadlines. there are some factors in play as to whether or not the caller's generation is going to

see astronauts. host: our last call for mark matthews comes from north carolina this morning. william. caller: i would like to make a couple of comments right quick. we cannot solve problems on the earth above the common cold, and we talk about going to mars and everywhere else. we are 16 trillion dollars owed in debt. i think we need to be looking at something else. we did not even have our own space program. we have to rely on russia. host: mark matthews, you get the last word. guest: indeed, we are relying on russia. we are paying them for the service of taking our astronauts. what happens next is largely reliant on the commercial

companies to develop their capability to take people to the station, and ultimately it is on nasa to keep their programs on time and on budget, so it can boldly go where it has not gone before. it's called mark matthews has been our guest -- host: mark matthews has been our guest. he is the washington correspondent with "the orlando sentinel" talk about the future of the international space station. thank you for being on the program. on tomorrow's "washington journal" peter coy will talk about the debt crisis. then john velleco and dan gross will both be here to talk about the shooting in florida involvintr