school winner from salmon bay that is all in seattle and he will ♪ "the wallstreet journal" reporting that hundreds of small banks the received federal loans have a significant challenge in raising funds. the commission has ruled that a california woman denied a job after planning to change her sex can now seek legal action under sex discrimination. romney's delegate count now stands at 144. romney wants the same thing. those of you who are still carrying student loans, we want to get your take on what the federal government can do and the work of the federal

government when it comes to student loan debt. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. you can always send us an e- mail or ridges on our facebook page. if you want to send us a twitter -- tweet. the denver post has a right up. it gives some information in the lower parts of the store and want to share with you now. this is in december 2001. it's as of the total outstanding student debt now stands at $996 billion.

there are some other categories on that list as well. the president directed -- remarks at the crowd. [video clip] >> we have to make college more affordable for young people. that is the bottom line. [applause] and like i said. not everybody is going to go to 84-year college or university.

you may go to a community college -- a 4-year college or university. you make a to a community college. no matter what it is, no matter what field you are in, you are going to have to engage in lifelong learning. we to make sure it is affordable. that is good for the country. that is good for you. at this make-or-break moment of the middle class, with to make sure you of a chance before you get started in life. [applause] because i believe college is not just one of the best investments you can make in your future, it is one of the best investments america can make in our future. [applause] this is important for all of us. [applause] we cannot thrive if the middle

class does not have an education. not at a time when most jobs will require more than a high- school diploma. whether it is at a 4-year college, we cannot make it a luxury. every american family should be able to afford it. host: that is the president addressing the college crowd when it comes to student debt. we want to get your thoughts as well. again, the number to call for our republican line is 202-737- 0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. if you want to reach out to us on social media, we also have a facebook page as well. robert byr that is one of the comments

weighing in this morning. first up is south carolina on our republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. let me see if i have this right. the democrats took over the student loan from the private thing. they made the percentage rate. they made it go up right before the election. it seems to me this is all a democrat way to try to get some votes. the government should stay out of student loans just like the man said.

the liberal democrats' ticket over smith have something to whine about and something else to hold people to. if you vote for a democrat, we will keep your loan rate below. host: the larger issue of student debt. what you think should be done if the government has no role? caller: that is up to the individual. i do not get anybody to help me pay my bill when i get it from the bank. that is my choice to have that loan. that is not the government's choice. that is my choice to get a loan. host: florida, our independent line. good morning. caller: listen, a graduate with a degree in special education.

there are two critical shortness areas. unfortunately, for some reason, i do not qualify for any forgiveness loans. i am a teacher. we have been stagnant in the state of florida for five years. people are not allowed to raise their level. i'm trying to support a family. my loan is more expensive now than it was 10 years ago when i graduated. host: how much are you standing at? caller: i am standing at $35,000. at the amount that i make, i will have to quit teaching to be able to pay that off. here is the thing. you take a look at china, india, africa. a lot of the european blocs from russia of. they all invest in education. because of that, the private sector, the middle class is growing to the point s where the rich are getting richer, but the

middle class are still able to afford a comfortable life. i do not want to be a multi- millionaire. i want to be good at my job. i am trying to educate the next generation. i cannot put food on the table. host: this is off of twitter. palmdale, california. this is the republican line. caller: hello. i just wanted to comment that student loans, most people that take student loans, it damages the budget. and that it puts the president, but the governor, and the lawmen in the deficit. host: so what should be done

about it? caller: what i would do, instead of loans and things like this, i would give them grants. you know? they could write papers, like a term paper. things about budget. world issues and all of that. low incomes take more loans than anybody else. this is just like mortgage and rent. caller: this is a photo in the washington post. is barred students in north carolina at chapel hill. when it comes to some of the specifics, this is a gardener riding out of colorado.

steady jobs available over the . pennsylvania was the site where governor romney spoke about the issue of student loans. in this club, we have him talking about his desire -- in a this clip, we have him talking about his desire to extend relief on student loans. [video clip] >> one thing i wanted to mention, i forgot to mention at the very beginning. that was that with the number of college graduates cannot find work or can only find work well

beneath their skill level, i fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans. there was some concern that would expire halfway through the year. i support extending the temporary relief on interest rates for students as a result. in part, because of the extraordinarily poor conditions of the job market. host: that as governor romney from pennsylvania on monday. twitter, contributing. it if you want to contribute, 30 or so people have this morning.

staten island, new york's. caller: good morning. this interest low pay. the colleges are so expensive. ok? the kids go in, pay all this kind of money and they learn nothing. in class for so many hours, but they ditched the kids. this is not in america. they have to teach the kids everything for history, for this country, today. host: so what should be done

about a student debt vanna? caller: if they stop raising the price for the professors and the schools to get some much money. i know my granddaughter goes to college. it is is $50,000 a year. she does not learnt nothing. when she gets home, the professor doesn't to get that book. i say, why does he tell you to get that book? host: huntington, md.. caller: hello, good morning. on at the student loan question, i have a stafford alone. to me, it should not be surprising. it is tax deductible. we bought a house in 2005. compared to what we lost there,

my student loan is nothing. in terms of what the government is doing by keeping the interest rates where they are, that is plenty. it would be nice if the market were differenct. costs are increasing because there is more of a demand. what does the economy do? what to expect out of a market economy? -- what do we expect out of a market economy? it should not surprise anyone. host: what is the difference between a stafford loan and other loans? caller: this was 1995, so it may have changed. at the time, a stafford loan to be subsidized or unsubsidized. the subsidize was guaranteed by the government compared to a bank. if it was guaranteed by the government is to be a lower interest rate. i do not know if that were

actually true. but that is what i had, that is all i can go with. host: what is your interest rate? caller: i want to say 3.75% if i remember correctly. host: how does that compare? caller: my wife had a private loan. was around 8%. host: how long have you been paying and how long do you still expect to pay? caller: i refinanced to a 20- year term. i expect to pay for another eight years. host: so, the money you invested your education. you got something out of it? caller: without a doubt. my dad was close to the welfare line even though he was just above it. i went to a college that had a lot of private investment.

that a lot of grants. 3/4 of my school was financed by grants. work study was maybe another 2% to 3%. i would not have been able to make it without a student loan. there were small contributions, but i do not regret it in the slightest. host: that is huntington, md aryland. habi illinois, you are next.

independent line. caller: i am calling in because i am soon going to be graduating from high school this year. i notice that it is not the fact that we do not want to go, it is literally the fact that we do not know how we're going to afford to get there. there are not many people who know if they're going to be able to go to college because our parents cannot afford it and we did not want to put ourselves through debt to do it. what they originally went therefore, they cannot find jobs in. we do not know what to do with our lives anymore. we watch politicians play games with our country. we're just upset. host: what kind of debt are you and your friends ticking on? what are the numbers like?

caller: we haven't started yet. we don't model for community college. host: next up, of ventura, california. caller: good morning. the united states is becoming like a cash system almost. you can get into these colleges and it took air -- and universities, but did not make it affordable or reasonable. it is almost like republicans have a hateful attitude. i think in other countries where they subsidize education, with their workforce. you always have to be an athlete or unitarian to get a scholarship anymore. and they subsidize oil

companies for billions of dollars. they subsidize farmers. they practically lend money to financial institutions at a 0% interest rates. host: so what is the government's role in your opinion? caller: if you want to have a society that has a trained, educated population, that he should subsidize education. cut down on costs of books, materials, and housing. not everybody is born wealthy, but give these people an opportunity to gain an education so they can go out and work. then they will generate wealth. you're going to have almost a slave system.

host: here is the republican delegate count standing after last night. mitt romney with one under 44 -- 844 delegates. ron paul standing at 79 when it comes to delegates. the democrat from pennsylvania. bids arkansas on the topic of student

loans. anthony, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to echo with the previous caller from california said. i teach at our local university. i am also a graduate student. in at this point in my mid 40's still pay for my undergraduate student loans from 20+ years ago. what i hear a lot of the callers say, i took out a personal loan for a house or a business project, no one is helping me pay it back, i have no sympathy for those people because they do not seem to understand that the average student is not going to college so they can then sit around and ask somebody to pay back their loans. they're going to better

themselves, to educate themselves, and broaden their opportunities in the work force and in their careers. if america is supposed to be what we all claim that we believe, which is the land of opportunity, the land of progress, this is a very odd way for people who are calling in and sang students shouldn't be doing this. it is an odd thing to call this america. the other, i want to make is that this is one of the reasons i am no longer a republican. that perspective that, you know what? everybody has to do what i did is the reason we have the debt today. it is why our military has a tremendous amount of money spent on it. we to be spending more money on education. that is my comment. host: social media perspective this morning.

you can reach out to us on c- span on twitter. we have also posted on our facebook page as well. you can join in on those conversations as well. you can find those links to our c-span page. misery -- missouri, independent line. caller: i want to talk about that student loan deal. i had a young man who went to the community college. he would leave in the morning at

8:00 and he would go to class. by 9:30 he would be back home and would spend a couple of hours working on the computer. if you go back to the school for a couple of hours. he would come back home and spend a lot of time working on the computer. he told me that all of these professors had done was give him an assignment to study on the computer. to me, that is not teaching. they ought to teach them and get them ready for a job of some kind and then the government ought to get the job started. these people cannot work. their families cannot work. the students cannot find a job. and another thing. everybody wants to remember these student loans. they want to give a temporary relief.

well, no matter which one gets in, republicans or democrats, what are they going to do after they get in office? host: the front page of "usa today" has a story about colleges across the united states.

the university of minnesota -- oklahoma city, good morning. caller: thank you very much. good morning. i do not understand how it is the taxpayers fault. we're all glad and cheering obama. if he feels so strongly about this he accuses on money, not the taxpayers. the kids are also working. i live around a college. it is not an education they

spend all those loans on. they go to the bars, they buy clothes. they get tattoos. they buy old cars. taxpayers do pay for education. it's called pell grants. it is just another democratic unit to try to get votes. if your that your student loans paid off, it is called of the army. thank you very much. caller: south carolina -- host: south carolina. caller: thank you. it is amazing to me that people do not understand that congress has everything to do with the price of school. without schools, we will fall so far behind other nations that it will be but that it in at 10 years with the technology and everything we need to learn. if people would watch c-span more and understand that republicans are trying to kill

our education. they're trying to kill social security and medicare. all the thing about is giving more money to the top 2% so it can trickle down. it does not work. host: let's keep it to student loans. what you think about the current role the government has? more or less should be done? caller: more should be done. absolutely. if we cannot keep our children educated, and where are they going to be? our nation will fall into disarray if we do not have an education. of course. everybody should be responsible for their own debts and everybody should just be a little bit more informed about how they get their credit. the government has everything to do with education. host: you said more should be done, specifically what? caller: we should give more money to education and attacks the crap out of the top 2%. they're the ones to benefit from our work.

host: hi. caller: my view is we have a dilemma for people who want to go to college. either they do not go to college and they do baseline. they have to have a college degree to even meet the minimum standards of getting a job. but, they cannot afford a college degree, most of them. yet people calling in. the guy has been in debt since 1995 and will be pay another eight years. he has a long-term debt on his student loan that he will probably have on his house he just bought. please, tell me, government and private sector, how can you justify that? i'm not being a socialist, either. sometimes the daddy is to step in and get control of his children, figuratively speaking.

host: talking about an arrest been made when it came to the oil spill. "the new york times." ambac a little bit from last night and mitt romney after his win in five primaries. he speaks about the concept of a

better america. [video clip] >> to all of you, i have a simple message. hold on a little longer. a better america begins tonight. [applause] tonight is the start of a new campaign to unite every american who knows in their heart that we can do better. the last few years have been the best that barack obama can do but it is not the best that america can do. tonight is the beginning of the end of the disappointments of the obama years. [applause]

and it is the start of a new and better chapter that we will write together. host: alabama, wayne. democrats line. caller: good morning. the first tier -- the first call you have from south carolina was talking about the student loan deal was a democratic deal. the interest rates on the student loans was under the bush and administration. it was cut in half for a five- year period. and the five-year period is running out in july. the caller from oklahoma was talking about the president was wanting to pay student dead for the students. -- debt for the students.

no, he doesn't. he wants to keep it at the highest price now that it has been in the last five years. those people need to get their facts correct before the call. host: warren buffett on the page of the "the wallstreet journal."

host: maryland, on the role of the government and a student debt. caller: yes. i am calling about what i saw about when they hit these grants and donate money to these colleges. in return, they write it off on their taxes. then the turnaround and their kids go free. if that is the case, the poor people is paying for them to go to school. what about that? host: jacksonville, florida.

republican line. caller: yes. if we all look back to 2007, a democratic controlled congress is the one who passed this bill. they are the ones that are responsible for the student loan program going up. you stand there and make it seem like we republicans are responsible. no, we will be the responsible ones to go ahead and vote it down, yes. but only because of an election. this is a technology age. you can look it up. please, everyone. look it up. you'll see the democrats for the one -- were the ones that forced this issue. there winking their eyes like it doesn't matter. these are democrats that are responsible for this situation we have. they are the ones that passed it and the bush had to sign it

because, once again, they had control of congress and the senate. that is my issue. host: new jersey. independent line. huntington, new jersey. one more time. are you there? let's move on to connecticut. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. i am a republican. i would like to make it, to the last republican that said when they take out the student loans, they go drinking and get tattoos. my daughter is in new haven university. the first two years she went to a committee college so she didn't have to have a loan. i cannot write a check for $60,000 a year. we took the lowest amount of loans just to pay her tuition. there is no drinking and tattoos. i do not know what students she

knows, but most of the children there what their degrees. why do you want to raise the interest rates on them? host: justin little bit of information when it comes to student debt, -- just a little bit of information when it comes to student debt, it surpassed credit-card in all the debt in 2008. average estimate is $25,000. eight in at 10 loans that are government issued are guaranteed. americans 60 and older 0 $36 billion. when you look at default rates, there are rising. 6.7% in 2007. that rose to 8.8% in 2009. marshall county, ky. independent line. caller: good morning.

i am an independent. i think the colleges need to start cleaning their own. baby these coaches making millions of dollars of year. they would lower some of their pay. give it to the kids and committees here on the parents. -- and the parents, it will make it easier on them. host: not only did the president talked about student debt with college campuses, he also went on a late night program to doctor up them as well. this is from nbc's "late night with jimmy fallon."

this is in conjunction with his appearance at the university of north carolina. [video clip] that means about since will be paying about a thousand dollars extra just to get their education. i have called on congress to prevent this from happening. what we have said is simple. now is not the time to make school more expensive for our young people. [applause] >> ahh, yeah. you should listen to the president. or as i like to call him, the preezie of the united steezie. host: this is kevin, republican line. hello. are you there? one more time.

new york, new york. democrat line. caller: i just want to say that i love your show. but in a single mother with a child getting ready to graduate with her bachelor's degree. i worked very hard. every time i hear republicans talk about the student loans, the deficit, i really think they do not get a clue. every industrialized country around the world learned years ago that they cannot be strong as a nation if they did not educate their people. we need to put our biases aside. we need to put our breed a for capitalism aside. we need to invest in education -- our greed for capitalism

aside. we need to invest in education. we need to understand that years ago, countries like japan that treated there people like crap realized that they cannot stand up against the united states, nor could china. if they did not invest in public education for their people. today we are no longer the educated country by ourselves. countries around the world are educated. there is something wrong with that. why are we not educating our students that are paying and letting the government give them a public education? my daughter is in debt almost $80,000. ok? and we have loans. we did the right thing.

this is craziness. out of the patriotic republicans to understand that you cannot have capitalism unless you have port. who chooses to be poured? yet to measure your gains by someone else's. if he's not prosper, you do not feel like you are wealthy. host: we will leave it there. that is the last call we will take on this topic. one more story from the u.s.a. -- from "usa today." bu

the supreme court takes up the case looking at arizona's 2010 immigration law. it joining us on the phone is adam liptak from the n.y. times. he is the supreme court correspondent. tell us a little bit about what faces the justices today. we lost him. we will get him right back. one more story to tell you. this is also from "the new york times." this deals with a ruling by the equal opportunity commission.

also, "usa today" takes a look at the economy. particularly the role of economics and growth. it is a logger story on the first page. it was on to the fourth page on 2b. as the recovery puts down stronger roots, it faces one bi.

some look at the stories that are making the papers this morning. the defense budget has various plans on capitol hill. we will take on the issue of social security and one of our

studentcam winners. you will meet that student and talk about the first amendment as well. that will take place all during this morning. like we had said, the supreme court taking up the issue, adam liptak from "the new york times" joining us. what does the fourth -- what does the courts face as far as a question? guest: the big question is whether immigration is something the federal government can control or if states can use their own efforts as arizona has in this aggressive law to try to control its own borders. host: when it comes to the issue, tell us what the government's role is in immigration policy and how it might supersede what can be done at the state level. guest: arizona would say it is

just cooperating and helping the federal government, which it says has fallen down on the job and has created an emergency in arizona which the state needs to address by essentially taking the federal law and aggressively enforcing it. the call at all attrition through enforcement. they say they should be able to pick their priorities and controlling the border is a uniquely federal job. there are foreign policy indications. if you do things to citizens of foreign countries, backed up diplomatic consequences for the country, not just one state. it said that it tried to find the places where it could push harder. it could take the structure that the federal government has already set up, which forbids people here from working illegally. requires to be registered and so on, and puts additional pressure

and sometimes penalties. the controversial part, as you know, is the so-called "show me your papers" provision which requires them to check the status of anyone they suspect might be here illegally. that has deepened consequences. host: the law in 2010, and already it is at the supreme court. is that a surprise? guest: it is only been one month since the had another huge case, the charge to the health- care law. in part, the two main lawyers are back. host: adam liptak, "the new york times" thank you for your time.

later on, we'll talk about cyber security bills, including his own. we'll talk about cyber security. up next, we'll hear from adam smith, a democrat from washington. do not forget on c-span today you can see that hearing that is taking place in london dealing with rupert murdoch and james murdock on the issue of phone hacking. you may see a little bit from yesterday. here is a bit from james murdoch yesterday, dealing with the issue. [video clip] >> did you read "the news of the world" on a weekly basis? >> i would not say i read all of it. >> did you read "the son," i'm not saying every day. >> i tried to familiarize myself with what is in it. >> did you see any risks

associated with this particular brand and its included delving into the private lives of celebrities and others. >> i think "the news of the world" brand as an investigative newspaper with expos days and the like was not only concerned with celebrities and gossip, but also on covering real wrong- doing, scandals, campaigning, and so forth. >> i am focusing on this part at the moment. the question was did you see any risks associated with those aspects of the brand? >> at the time, i cannot recall discussing those risks, but i do recall, again, receiving assurances around a journalistic ethics on a number of occasions.

>> reading "of the news of the notd" as you did, i'm asking a -- a reaction. that would be wrong. ethical risks which could turn into legal and reputation risk. >> i think the ethical risks and the legal risk around that was something that was very much in the hands of the editor on things like public interest and the like. there were things of the editor, in consultation with legal advice -- i was not in the business of deciding what to put in the newspapers. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us from capitol hill, rep adam smith, ranking member of the armed services

committee. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: how does this cycle differ from years past? guest: i think the biggest challenge is the overall budget deficit and the budget control act that was passed last summer which places pretty hard caps on what can be passed on discretionary spending to begin with and there is sequestration at the end of this year. we will essentially be three months into the fiscal year when that would happen. that creates a lot of uncertainty about exactly how much money we're going to have to spend in the defense budget. that is the biggest difference this year. host: the idea of uncertainty overarching all this, what might specific plans look like coming out of this week. guest: i think the administration started as an

irresponsible way. about one year ago they did a strategic review of our national security. in light of the budget pressure that was coming down, the ticket hard look at where we were a at to figure out what a reasonable plan was. now that has to go through congress. we all have opinions about what should or should not be implemented. there'll be that tug-of-war. at the end of the day, how does the money add up? how will that fit into the overall budget picture for sequestration? now we will debate them robustly in congress starting in the subcommittee's this week and full committee of the house the week after next and then on the floor the week after that. >> what military programs might be most affected? guest: there are a number of decisions we are facing. one is the uav, whether or not

we go with the global talks. it is a major debate with the air force. there was a proposal by the air force to make some significant reductions which we were fighting over. there is the issue of the abrams tank. there's the procurement holiday in there. there is concern about the impact of the industrial base and that. we worked very hard to get to the point where we were building two attack submarines per year. there is a fight over that and alas, certainly not least, a fight over tricare and how much members of the military should contribute in terms of copays and premiums. in most cases, they're

politically difficult and will be debated. host: adam smith, the ranking member of the armed services committee. you can ask him questions. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. first call for representative smith is from buffalo, new york on our democrats aligned. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman. if i ask you what is the first priority of the defense department, probably many people would answer differently. but i would submit to you, and i hope you will agree, the first priority of a defense budget is homeland defense. i think he would agree with that. now, let me ask you. if that is true, and i think most people would say homeland

defense is the first priority of our $750 billion defense budget, and it's the biggest danger is not some sovereign nation attacking us because they would end up as best if they did, it is the type of 9/11 criminals. that is our biggest danger. host: go ahead. guest: i am sorry. i don't think he got to a question. i agree. protecting our country is the first role of national security. i agree that the asymmetric threat is our biggest. that is the shift we need to make. from world war ii to we have the notion of being ready. the threats we have seen recently are more unconventional.

how does that change what we need? how does that change in terms of our equipment and our forces? we have made significant transitions in the last 10 years, which is the main force of fighting asymmetric threats. i agree with the caller that is where the attention should be. the greatest threat is asymmetric terrorists. host: maryland, democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a comment more than a question. i was in the military. i retired. i work for the national security agency. after 9/11 i became interested in politics. most of it was republican- related like dick cheney. most of the people who were in office when george bush was in office. they said they needed to

increase the defense department budget. in order to do this, they needed a catastrophic event, like pearl harbor. or they had something to do with 9/11. the defense department budget is basically out of control. it will always increase. guest: first of all, i certainly cannot agree that president bush or dick cheney had anything to do with 9/11. the defense budget has doubled since 2002. it doubled in response to 9/11. there's no question about that. i think the threat was and is very real from al qaeda and other groups. that being said, there is no question the defense budget can be brought under control. it's doubled in the last seven or eight years.

we can find savings. the present proposed nearly five under billion dollars in reductions over what the defense budget was projected to spend. that is something i said i support. that is something i have said that i support. i think that is appropriate. we need to look for savings everywhere we can. the last point i will make is during the course of the build up, there is no question the money was not spent efficiently or effectively. if we did not do our process as well as we should -- should have, so savings could be found, and must be, when you look at where our deficit is that. host: harlem, new york. independent line. caller: we can save money by getting dignity back. america is my mother, and america needs to clean her house. bring the people in.

block illegal immigration, call our people in, and get our house sixth. clean our rooms. each state is our room. our mother, america needs a makeover. we need to get our dignity back. we need to, together as americans. -- we need to come together as americans. puts the president's focus on the asia-pacific region. does the defense budget reflect that? guest: i believe so. a big part of the asia focuses not necessarily military focus. it is where we will negotiate relationships we want to build. the defense budget plays a role

to make sure we maintain partnerships with a variety of allies. i think that strategy does reflect that. we have seen that in terms of building relationships with the philippines, australia, existing relationships with japan, south korea, india -- there are a lot of the nation's we want to maintain a strong relationship with. that is certainly aware of what of the growth is going to happen in the decades to come. host: bruce, democrats line. carolina. caller: good morning. how're you doing? i think we need to cut out war, and stop our troops going overseas, and we have to pay

more money for the troops staying over there fighting. the first time i went there, instead of going back and forth, did defense is to get the economy going. in america, we could have jobs. we were the furniture capital of the world, now that -- there is not that many jobs here. and i have been out of work for two years. the biggest thing is to get the economy going. just like ireland, they do not let outsiders into their country. that is why they have more jobs over there.

guest: getting the economy going is the most important issue facing us. admiral mullen up -- admiral mullen says the economy is the single most important issue we face. that has to factor into our decisions on our national security budget. i will agree with the caller that wars overseas have drained us. major military action is not something we want to do. understand as one of the first scholars said, our greatest threat is asymmetric. we need to protect against that. going into a country, where we did in iraq and what we have done in afghanistan, it is enormously expensive, and what we have learned is very limited in its effectiveness.

we need to be cautious about getting involved in those types of wars going forward. host: will discussions about the budget factor in to the goal in afghanistan in 2024? guest: could you ask that again. host: does the current budget reflect the president's goal? guest: the president did not say we would have troops there that long. what he is saying is that our interest in afghanistan is a stable government. we did not want the taliban coming back or al qaeda allies coming back. we need to help afghanistan be stable as a government. the lesson we have learned is that it is not necessarily a

stabilizer. they need their own security forces so they can be responsible. it is something we will have to be focused on for a while. afghanistan and pakistan are dangerous parts of the world. the ideology that a al qaeda espouses is present in that region. the instability of both of those governments gives rise to concern that the taliban another al qaeda organizations could rise up. we need stable governments in that part of the world. we need to achieve that goal. colorado springs, colorado. richard. republican line. caller: there is an opinion piece that says robert gates is

a failed secretary of defense because there is no strategic coherence in our budget. there is no coordination. the second point is there is a professor with an opinion piece in "the wall street journal" that says obama is going for the wrong -- silver bullet. third, when we had clinton in the white house, he cut the defense department significantly, and we went into

to afghanistan and barack. as best as i can see it, it does not seem like we have a strategic vision reflected in the garbage budget. you're failing to learn the lessons of the -- in the budget. you are failing to learn the lessons from the past. guest: i think it is legitimate that our acquisition and permit policy has been a disaster. we have a number of programs that have wound up way over- budget, and several have had to be canceled. there is a fundamental problem with our acquisition process, and we envision big, huge technological weapon systems that are difficult to achieve and we get far down the road before we conclude we cannot achieve them. that gets costly. we also have the problem of the

discussion we have had with earlier callers. we have been built to fight conventional wars. we face a different threat. why do we need? the people selling the equipment are great and coming up for creative arguments for why their weapon system perfectly fits this new strategy and we get a little lost in terms of exactly what we need. if that needs to be figured out. congress passed a reform bill the year before last, and we are trying to get past the point where we have a better understanding of the strategic plan. secondly, how prepared are we, that is a double-edge sword. you could imagining any threats that are real. you could spend $2 trillion on defense budget and arguably not have the size, the force, in the

equipment you need to meet the threats that are possible, but there is also the risk of spending so much money on something that does not happen that you bankrupt the country and the economy. we have to strike the balance between a massive military force ready for anything that could weigh down the economy, and not being prepared. that is difficult because the world is not predictable. current adversaries are not predictable, and future ones that might emerge are not predictable either. you have to strike the balance. it is not always easy to do. host: pennsylvania for representative adam smith. col. republican line. caller: i am a retired military personnel. i spent 33 years in the united states air force. guest: thank you. caller: my concern is we are

coming out of afghanistan. we are already out of iraq. we will bring vehicles, airplanes, and people back. the vehicles and the airplanes are worn out. we're talking about cutting the budget, and it is went to take us a tremendous amount of money to get the equipment back into some type of condition to fight a war again. secondly, in the air force, we are using airplanes that are so out-dated that it is becoming a serious problem. not only that, the spare parts have never been available because what we do is build air frames, rubber on the ramp, as we call it, but we do not make the spare parts to keep up with it. that has been the strategy for years. i'm worried about the emphasis

on the national guard and the reserve. we are already having problems with recruiting. if we cut the active force and depend upon the guard and reserves, where is this going to come from? anyone that thinks the military is so robust that we could deploy to any part of the world that quickly is kidding themselves. guest: well, first of all, you have to look at the size of our defense budget. the defense budget doubled in the last eight years. we are projected to spend well over $500 billion a year for the next decade and beyond. we are spending an enormous amount of money on defense, almost as much as the rest of the world combined. there are needs, but you have to look at how would balances against the rest of the world, and the size of our debt and our deficit. those are major threats to our

economy. we could spend an enormous amount of more money on a wide variety of programs, but can we afford that? does it fit? you have to strike that balance on the defense budget. the savings the president proposed, which is not an actual cut, just keeping the budget flat, it is just a reduction in what we projected we were going to spend. we have to live within our means. if we are spending $600 billion a year, we should build defense to protect this country. you make a legitimate point about the areas we need to look at, but with $600 billion a year, that should be enough to give us the national security we need, and if not we need to spend our money and better. host: there are several stories when it comes to wish lists from

various departments in the military. what are they, and you're chairman wants to make the topic a part of the 2013 budget. could you explain that? guest: the thing you have to understand about the way the military works and we've heard this from a few callers about requirements that are not met -- you generate requirements. how large a force doing need to meet this requirement? you also have to go back to the start of the requirements and say is that really a requirement? do we really need that to meet national security needs? people rarely ask that question. once the requirement is set, they simply try to build to it, and that is why we wind up with the enormous budgets and people say it does not meet our needs. it depends on how you define the

needs. why do we use these ships, these systems, particularly when you think about them being built in the cold war, which is gone. we have these legacy systems based on that. people say we are not ready, but we need to fundamentally look at the requirements and see if they really are required for national security. this stuff does not come for free. we had a one $0.30 trillion deficit last year -- 1.3 trillion dollar deficit last year. it is not the only piece of the pie, but you can not just blindly say we need to spend more money. we have to make this fit within a realistic budget. our entire national security

strategy will crash and a mountain of debt no matter how many ships and troops we have. host: california. democrat line. caller: i was listening to a previous caller about spending more money on homeland defense, defending our borders. i remember vividly after 9/11, we went into afghanistan, and i was not watching the news for a while, and all of the sudden we are in iraq, and i'm thinking to myself, did we get bin laden? what is going on? when we invaded iraq, there was no taliban or al qaeda in iraq. the point i am making, is our defense doubled at that point in

time, and all that was timmy was dick cheney and george bush supporting the military industrial complex. i think we want to cut social security and other things. i think we could cut back defense spending in half and just protect our own borders. that is all i have to say. guest: i think we could find savings within the defense budget. cutting it in half would be difficult because part of the problem with protecting the borders is i think both -- you could build a wall on each side, but there are threats that come from each side of the world. 9/11 hit us from a small group of people planning in afghanistan. that is the impact from a long,

long way away. we cannot jeopardize homeland security, and that requires us to pay attention to what is going on far from our borders and we have to strike that balance as well. host: charles. independent line. caller: good morning, mr. smith. i agree, it is not the cold war. it seems like we could substantially reduce our defense spending. be more surgical. drones are a good thing. i believe the best way to fight the taliban is training the afghans, bringing the nation's up. towe need 10,000 f-16's

fight? i think we are over-building. i think we need to go in surgically and get rid of these threats. mostly, it seems like the way to do dead is not through -- to do that is not through using the big hammer, but using the surgical knife. al qaeda is in 60 countries. do we attack 60 countries? their guerrilla warfare. they can move anywhere. we have most of them. we cut off their funding. it seems like we are spending way too much on big toys we do not need. host: caller, thank you. guest: i think the caller makes an outstanding point that al- qaida is in 60 countries. do we invade them all? now. we try to defeat their network.

al qaeda was and still is a network. how do you find out where they are and defeat them? a lot of that is intelligence- gathering. a lot of that is small forces targeting them. it is more affordable and more effective. we will not fight a major, conventional war, so how do we think about how to protect ourselves from the threats that are most prominent. host: when mal -- one more call for -- for the representative. georgia. republican line. caller: why does it take so long to train the afghans? what are we doing? who gets all the money that we are spending on the war, and what kind of links to the head

to our politicians, even our president? guest: we cannot train our u.s. forces in two months. it takes longer than that. i strongly disagree with the point that the afghans have been fighting for a long cut -- for -- forever, so why does it take them so long to train to fight? training them to be an organized force, to follow the leadership, to have a hierarchy, to not fight as a solo, an individual, or strong group, -- small group, it takes time. it takes time to train the force and build the structures that are necessary. you have had some of the largest military is in the world where you think they have 5 million troops, and they cannot fight to save their lives because it

takes time to build a structure, organized force. that is why it is taking so long. in afghanistan there are deep ethnic divides. there is a low literacy rate. that makes it difficult as well. as far as money is concerned, we spent nearly $600 billion a year now on defense. that goes to a large number of people. there are a lot of defense contractors, employees, union workers building the planes, ships, tanks that we need. that money is spent on a lot of different people, different companies, different individuals, and that is part of the debate. if we cut this program, you will lose 5000 jobs at a shipyard in norfolk, virginia. how does that effect the economy? we need to spend based on

national security needs. it cannot be a jobs program. it has to be based on whether or not we need the equipment to protect national security, and if not, there are better ways to spend that money. we will have many debates in the next couple of months. host: you hinted at what will take place over the next couple of months. walk us through it. guest: we have markups in the house this week. two weeks from now, we will do the full committee markup. the house will vote on the bill. we do not know what the senate put the timeline is. sometime in june or july the senate will go through the same process. the plan would be to get a defense bill by the end of

september, but will be a long, hard pull to get that done. host: presented adam smith, ranking member of the armed services committee, thank you. coming up, representative mike mccall will join us to talk about cyber security legislation, and an update with secretary. first, a update from c-span radio. >> a new report is accusing international forces of misleading the public by calling military operations afghan-led him even in cases where nato or u.s. forces are the only troops on the ground. a u.s. spokesman says since december, all u.s. counter-

terrorism and special forces missions have been afghan-lead, but he did not provide details on what made them so. the day after republican presidential candidate mitt romney's primary wins, a democratic super pac backing president obama's reelection campaign is starting to air $1 million of advertising in colorado and nevada tying mitt romney to oil companies. they are testing the likely republican presidential nominee as the "$200 million man cocoa asserting that governor romney is "in the tank for big oil cartel prosecutors brought the first criminal charges -- oil cartel prosecutors brought the first criminal charges in the bp

oil spill. two years and four days after the drilling rig explosion set off the worst offshore oil spill in u.s. history, a 50-year-old in texas was arrested and charged with two counts of obstruction of justice for allegedly destroying evidence. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> rosie o'donnell was the president's first choice to be here this weekend, and she withdrew, citing a nasty nomination process. i was not even the second choice. dennis miller was the second choice. he was hung out by a illegal nanny. is that not one the process is

about in washington? >> i must say to the president, i thought when you got to the office he would put in a slip to the pickup basketball president. come on. the first black president playing basketball? that is one step forward, two steps back. really, are you any good? i think your game -- i think you think your game is really good. nobody is going to give the president a hard fall with the secret service standing there. >> comedians have tried entertaining -- tried entertaining the press corps and c-span will offer live coverage saturday night. see what other comedians have said that c-span.org/ --

cspan.org/videolibrary. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael mccaul will join us, as we sort of technical difficulties, but until then, we will take open phone calls. host: we will take as many phone calls as we can during open phones. later on in the program you will need one of the winners of our studentcam documentary who did his documentary on the topic of free speech. there is a profile of a congressman in "the new york times."

here is the profile. host: he cited a gerrymandered congressional map -- host: "i am almost like a dinosaur."

host: again, if you want to read the profile is in "the new york times." michigan. hello. caller: i am calling about the secret service incident in colombia. it seems like everyone is omitting the fact that those girls that the secret service agents -- although they were prostitutes, were they here in america, they would all be under age, and the secret service agents were not acting like college students, to me, they were acting like perverted pedophiles because they were just little girls. host: ky. george. republican line.

caller: i am a little overwhelmed. yesterday, it seemed like the media was saying mitt romney is the presidential candidate. for a very long time i was an independent and i felt like i was throwing my vote away, so i went into the republican party, and i do not know what ron paul is going to be doing this year, but regardless if he is on the ticket or not, i am one of the americans riding in ron paul's name. i hope many of -- i am one of many americans to support ron paul. host: what is it about ron paul that you support? caller: the thing about ron paul is these wars.

the financial aid going out to the world -- it is time to tighten up our own country, give up on the rest of this policing the world. we are past that in the year 2012. host: albany, new york. go ahead, please. this is crag. caller: i am calling about mitt romney. i saw him last night, trying to use president bush's line, help is on the way. all he wants to do is fire people, i do not think he will be able to succeed because they cannot fire people the time. host: what do you think governor

romney's philosophy is? caller: the same old stuff. smaller government. less taxes for the rich. it is in this wrapped up in a delusion. h. norman, independent line. -- host: norman, i independent line. calling in response to the comments from adam smith about the defense budget cuts that need cd made. ina to vietnam veteran. -- that needs to be made. i am a vietnam veteran. i hope everyone understands when you are in a military you are trained to be a killer, and defend this country no matter what it takes. to hear representative smith play politics with people's lives offends me very much.

host: we will have to leave it there. another representative joins us, representative michael mccaul. several bills this week specifically dealing with cyber security. what is the message? guest: is an historic week. we of not have legislation like this on the floor in the history of the congress, and i think the message is america is under attack. we have been hacked into in the private sector and the federal government -- about $1 trillion of intellectual property has been stolen from the united states from countries primarily like china. if you look 50 espionage, it is more frightening. -- at the espionage, it is more frightening. they stole plans for a fighter plane. that is just one example.

they are interested in satellite and rocket technology. when you look the cyber warfare, that keeps me up at night. that is the ability to go in and hit critical infrastructure through the quick of a mouse, bringing down power grids, nuclear plants, financial institutions, s.a. a -- you name it. -- faa -- you name it. we are attempting to harden the federal networks so they cannot steal this information from the federal government, and to have a sharing of information between the federal government and the private sector in terms of signature threat information so that the private sector, which controls about 90% of the critical infrastructure could better protect itself. if i say every federal agency

has been hacked into, including the pentagon, and imagine if they stole papers out of the pentagon and it was caught. that would be all over the front page of "the washington post," but in the virtual world, that is happening every day. i think the legislation we have is good to remedy and that probably -- problem. host: we have about 20 minutes with our guest. if you want to ask about cyber security, the numbers are on your screen. host: how does your legislation, the cybersecurity enhancement act, differ from the others? guest: mine, frankly, passed unanimously out of committee, bipartisan support, in a very

partisan-charged congress we are in. it was refreshing to see that solidarity. essentially, it hardens the federal networks. it allows the national institute for standards and technology to apply standards to the federal networks, to harden them, to protect them from the threat of a cyber attack, first and foremost. secondly, it has a research and development component that involves the universities, which could be a great asset to our ability to protect the country. it also has an education and awareness peace. when you talk to the nsa, they will tell you that computer hygiene is so important. if we could make people aware of how people get into your computers and attack you, that

would cure 80%-to-90% of our problems. finally, procurement practices -- we need more security standards in terms of how we procure hardware and software, which we think will have a ripple effect in the private sector. it will do a lot of good. we try to avoid mandates to the private sector. we try to incentivize. host: florida. democrats line. caller: hello. talking about what we have built in china and other countries, if we build them here in the united states, our computers would be more secure. i used to build motherboards, and you can manipulate components that go into these motherboards, and they go into our computers, and that is what

is messing up everything in our world, really. if we built our own, we would be much more secure. guest: the caller makes a good point. china is so advanced that this game that they have stolen so much -- it really rivals the size of the library of congress, the amount of data they have stolen. any time you travel to, say, china, i would not advise taking your blackberry. they are so sophisticated and getting into your electronic devices. it is a big threat. the caller knows the threat, obviously. what i tried to do as a chair of the cyber security caucus, is raising awareness to the high level and seriousness of this

threat. the military knows the threat. they know day in and day out what we could do offensively. that capability in the wrong hands would be a huge threat. finally, when i asked the director of nsa, can we expect a cyber pearl harbor his response was the question is not if, but when. host: albany, new york. tim, independent line. caller: there is no doubt cyber terrorism is one of the scariest frontiers we have, but it seems like if it is to far- reaching, it could be used against the american people themselves for reasons that would be ridiculous.

h -- guest: we have a lot of offensive capabilities that can be turned against us. i cannot speak to the origin of these without getting into the classified realm, but having said that anything we can use be turned against us. it is almost like we created nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons. the genie is out of the bottle. it is ever-evolving. they call them viruses because they are ever-evolving, and the idea that could be turned against us is a real threat the stock not one is a highly- sophisticated -- a real threat. the stock not virus is highly sophisticated, sent into iran, and they did not know what was

happening. that against us is obviously a scary idea. we have to stay ahead of the curve. what we are very good at the offensive capability, but debt is where we are weak, and we need to remedy what legislation we have on the floor. >> other bills -- host: other bills released -- this was released by representative rogers. host: houston, texas. david, a republican line. caller: good morning. how do you plan in the bill you sponsored to implement the

grant's private companies have to establish the road map you need to get everyone intertwined and state police involved in terms of protecting their systems? do you indorse competitive edge competitive bidding -- competitive bidding process ies? guest: any information-sharing networks -- i did not share the question in terms of the intelligence bill, so i want to speak to get -- any of these information sharing conferences we have let me say first and foremost are completely voluntary. again, 90% of critical infrastructure is controlled by the private sector. we're trying to encourage and incentivize them to work with us with the federal government so we can share signature threat information. this would be various viruses, how to put a patch on to protect

themselves. again, a voluntary system. with respect to the intelligence bill out there, there was a pilot program called bid defense industrial base program that worked very well with the federal government sharing this information with the private sector, and we want to do it in a protected environment where these companies are protected from vulnerabilities. if we can not work together with the private sector in sharing threat information, and that is all this bill does is share information with the private sector, who could share information with the federal government in terms of thread- specific, signature threat information -- if we cannot do that, but we cannot solve this problem because it goes to the core of where we are. this pilot program was highly successful in protecting not only the private sector from

these threats, but also agitating the federal government as to how to better -- educate the federal government as to how to better protect federal networks. host: are there concerns in terms of how they operate in sharing the information? guest: there were some concerns voiced with the bill still being worked on by the homeland security committee. what you want to avoid is burdensome regulatory frameworks, mandates, and being punitive. when you start crossing that bridge, i think you get into trouble as a legislature. we are trying to avoid that. we are trying to make this a voluntary system, incentivize the private sector, rather than start to mandate the private sector. host: a report about a precise act making the floor was that it

would create new regulation -- and one of the reasons it hit the floor was because it would create new regulation. guest: i think the issues were cured in the full committee markup edit when i spoke to janet napolitano, and the director of the nsa they said that existing authorities should be codified and there should be an information system put in place, which we were able to do in that bill. that alleviated a lot of the concerns the private sector had. unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, democrats objected to the bill, and it is not bipartisan, unlike the other four going to the house floor. unfortunately, the homeland security bill has been divided. every democrat voted against it.

i think leadership made the correct decision to hold off on that bill until we get more bipartisan support. host: one of the lines from "the hill." guest: i was on the task force, and our recommendations were to incentivize, not mandate, make it voluntary, and not regulate. when you get on to the internet, you have to be careful about what you were doing as a legislator. our philosophy is more to incentivize and not to have punitive measures on the private-sector when it comes to cyber security. host: illinois. dan. democrats line. caller: good morning.

i give a couple of simple comments to make. do you not do around checks on the people you hire and why would you put these major facilities online, so anybody can get on to them? guest: well, of course, most federal employees, if not all, go to a background checks. i used to work in the justice department and i went through numerous background checks prior to congress. the fact is in this age of internet and computers, we are all tied to it. we cannot simply on plug ourselves. having said that, at the very classified level, we have very restricted measures to basically unplug it from the internet, so there is not that connection. there are ways they will still try to get into steel

classified information, but i feel very confident of classified information as well- protected. there is the .gov, and the .mil. .gov is probably more formidable. we are ever evolving. the einstein program is a great programs to harden our federal networks. we just move the bill where i introduced a measure to enhance the highest fine program. host: spokane, washington, republican line. mary. caller: i am calling to say i really do not think we need the regulations where internet should be governed from tom-to-

town or state-to-state. you should not be allowed to watch [unintelligible] when it comes to homeland security, i think it is a farce that they're not calling 8 what is, the continuous government act written up in 1983, designed to keep the state and federal powers and control of all times -- in all time is because of so- so -- social strife. i do not think we need more regulations by our government. we need more deregulation, even though i tend to be more on the democratic side of things. i do not feel that it will do any justice for america as long

as we continue to pay officials $80 an hour when they are just turning around people that i've worked for 30 years only $3.80 to live on for social security. guest: i agree. i emphasize that we do not want to go down the road of regulating and putting mandates on the private sector. secondly, we need to always be mindful of civil liberty and privacy protections we are put in these bills and legislation because my philosophy is we do not want an over-reaching federal government, and particularly when it comes to the internet. if i could add another plug, if i can, i introduced a bill that the united nations has been looking at in censoring and regulating the internet. i have a resolution 5 introduce

to oppose this legislation in the united nations. -- i introduced to oppose this legislation in the detonations. host: illinois. james. democrats line. caller: what are the consequences of the actions of cyber attacks, and how do you plan on catching the cyber attacker when he could do it anywhere in the world? guest: we have learned that they have the ability -- not only international property craft, the espionage, in terms ups military -- in terms of military secrets, faa -- you name it, we have sophisticated techniques to determine whether an intrusion has taken place.

the cia probably has 100,000 attempted hacks per week, and the house of representatives has close to 1 million. we know about that. the members are notified. very few are successful. that is the good news. they can sometimes intrude to get in, but when they try to get out of the system, there is a wall that stops them from escaping. attribution is important. anytime we have had a cyber attack, being able tortured dead to the computer and the source and find out who was behind -- and being able to track that back to the computer and the source, that has been very successful. we have brought down multiple bad actors 7 responsible for the crashing of -- that have

been responsible for the crashing of websites and stealing of credit card information. these groups are stealing a lot of economic information. it is very damaging. we're very concerned about these groups as well. host: in "usa today" comments are made by the director of intelligence at u.s. central command who told a group in washington -- host: what do you think of them as a strategy? guest: i think that is appropriate. when people realize you can blow up a power generators to the click of a mosque, -- did not realize -- click of a mouse -- did not realize that, but you

can. we are to be careful to use capabilities with approvals of the highest level because it is an act of warfare in my judgment. the challenges determining what is an act of warfare from a rogue nation or a state. can we trigger the act back to the computer, and we have the intelligence to determine if that was state-sanctioned or a rogue operator? this will be the future warfare. when you talk to the military, knowing what our offensive capability is, and our defense is not as good as our offensive, but they will tell you this is what they're most concerned with because they know what they can do offensive lead. in addition to connect response, he will be additional warfare. host: he also played down the prospect of an enemy of the u.s. could shut down the internet or

disable the power grid because they are designed to sustain a tax. guest: we have hardened those networks. an idaho national labs program through the click of one maas' literally blew up a power generator -- of one mouse literally go up a power generator. by doing things like that, just like looking at developing vaccines to protect humans from viruses, it is the same thing in the human world. we have developed better vaccines, if you will. host: represented michael mccaul. thank you for your time. guest: thank you so much. host: next, what the senate is doing when it comes to the debate over postal service legislation prepared --

legislation. rachael bade will join us. first, an update from c-span radio. >> talking about cyber security, there is an investigation going on in britain on phone hacking, and adam smith, an adviser to a u.k. minister has resigned after saying he created a perception that news corp. had a code to close of the relationship -- "too close of a relationship." this comes after a suggestion that james murdoch had smoothed the way for them to take over b sky b. official figures in the united kingdom should the gross domestic product fell for the second consecutive quarter, making the british economy back in a recession for the first time since 2009.

in the states, the federal reserve releases its latest policy statement today, and we will hear the updated forecast at 2:15 p.m. patrick leahy in remarks earlier said he wants to know how serious is a thorough investigation into secret service misconduct has been, and whether such behavior has been tolerated in the past. the vermont democrat said he thought it was a legitimate question and he raised it twice with the director of the secret service. homeland security secretary janet napolitano faces questions about that live on c- span 3 or on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines. >> born in a north korean war camps, it is the only world he

had ever known, and is also the only one to escape from camp 14. >> his first memory at the age around four was going with his mom to a place near where they drew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot, and shooting, public executions in the camp were held every few weeks, and they were away to punish people that violated camp rules, and to terrorize the 20,000-to-40,000 people that live in the camp to obey the world -- rules from then on. >> sunday, author blaine harden on the journey out of north korea at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." may 6, look for our interview with robert caro on the multi- volume biography of the 36th

president, lyndon johnson. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the debate going on about the future of the post office. looking at postal service legislation. here to talk this through with, rachel bade, staff writer ed "congressional quarterly." can you tell us what is expected from the senate specifically when it comes to the postal service today? guest: absolutely. the senate today is expected to pass a much awaited overhaul of the u.s. postal service. the service in the past two years has been in the financial front. they are a 200-year-old institution basically having trouble conforming to the 21st century. whereas most businesses could downsize or make changes to address challenges, the postal service has -- congress. congress is considering, the senate specifically today, joseph lieberman's bill that is

bipartisan. it has democratic and republican co-sponsors but it is also still a little controversial because most lawmakers, as you very well may know, are sworn to protect their local community post offices. they don't want to see these closures. senator barbara mikulski said it well when she said that this is local politics. this is a code politics. everybody has their opinion. people are in an uproar and other people are afraid if we don't do something now, the postal service will go under in the next year. >> when it comes to senator lieberman's bill, what are some of the elements? >> are a number of things it will do. the first thing is allow the postal service to recoup $11 billion refund. this is a set of money but postal service over paid into federal retirement accounts. it will allow the postal service to take the money back and use the surplus to give incentives,

about $25,000 worth of incentives to people who want to retire early or paying -- or separate on their own accord. it will also delay the postmaster general plan to make a whole bunch of drastic changes to the post office. so, the postmaster general -- general was to get rid of overnight delivery for first- class mail, eliminate saturday delivery and this bill would basically keep him from doing so for several years. bill also slows post office closures. donna o. would like to close about 4000 post offices, half the nation's mail processing centers and this bill would basically make him do so many things before he could make these closures. the local community post office ). host: you looking at a picture of patrick donahoe on the screen. talk about how it compares to the house side. guest: the senate bill takes a

more conservative approach to this overall. it basically delays a lot of these changes that postmaster general would like to implement the next two years. the house a bill on the other hand takes the opposite approach. basically tough love legislation. it basically mandates donanhoe makes the changes and if he does not do, they are going to make an derwood. the house bill would set up a commission to find about $3 billion worth of post office closures and mail processing center closures. it would also set up this effort oversight body which would actually have the authority to seize power over the postal service -- if more than $2 billion of debt for two years at a time. host: rachel bade with us for a few minutes from "congressional quarterly" about efforts from the senate side concerning the post office. if you have questions pertaining to that --

eastlake, ohio. democrats' line. caller: i understand there is a portion of the bill that will take under consideration the medical insurance of the postal worker. it is going to change it. they were going to take it away from the normal federal employees in medical and put them into a medical program on its own, which would in most cases be not as good as the insurance program the regular federal employee has. and it would cut back on their coverage. the other thing i am concerned about is, why they would want to do this to the post office -- not only the metal -- medical

problem but cut 100,000 jobs at a time this country needs people working and buying things and taking care of things, why would you want to put another 100,000 people on unemployment? host: we will let our guests respond. guest: two-part question, good question. i will answer the second one first regarding cutting 100,000 jobs. the postmaster general wants to cut the workforce by 40%. he is saying most of the jobs are actually going to be folks retiring and they just would not fill the position. as far as we know right now, there are not going to be any layoffs or they have not announced any layoffs. the first question you had asked about, part of this bill allowing the postal service to basically change the retirement benefits of postal workers. patrick donahoe --

take the post office out of the government federal health care benefits and instead make his own postal service health care benefit program. this lieberman bill would allow him to negotiate that but he is going to have to negotiate it with the unions, who of course aren't going to fight for the benefits of the postal workers. also, this league -- going to fight for the benefit of the postal workers. this lieberman bill would require the same amount of benefits to be offered if they make this a new program. they are going to have to get dental insurance, they will have to get vision insurance. so that is a concern being talked about right now on the hill. and as i said, the unions, who are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the benefits. host: where does the funding from the postal service primarily come from? guest: it comes from the postal service. if they do not see much taxpayer money, if any.

i think they receive a couple hundred thousand dollars every year for election mail, basically for people who live abroad and want to vote in elections. but for the most part, everything comes from things you and i purchase when we send packages, when we buy stamps, the money we give the postal service is what prompts them up. host: port run, pennsylvania. bob, independent line. caller: the postal service has been bloated by the government for years. i can understand why it is not privatized. it is just a big waste. the little guy subsidizing no matter what. i am just astounded at why they are always in the hole every year. fedex is not in a whole, things of that nature. why don't they just privatize? it would be run more efficiently.

guest: you are not the first to say that, i would tell you that. there are a lot of republicans who believe that and conservative think tanks and say we should privatize the postal service. opponents of that argument would say if you privatize the postal service folks will not be receiving universal service anymore. if the postal service was a private business, for example, they would make alaska pay large prices to send mail to us because they are out in the middle of nowhere and it will be expensive to ship their mail. so it would be run very much like a business so if you are living in a lot of room area and you will be paying a lot more for male and raises a question, do you have to pay more -- should you have to pay more because you live in the mountains of man -- montana or the middle of a field in nebraska? city have to pay more? host: south carolina. carol, republican line.

go ahead. caller: i was wondering if maybe you thought the issue of the forever stamp. you could buy 15 of 20 books of them today. if the price went up two or three or four or five times, they are still good. how do you feel about that? things like paypal taking it away. people getting money orders before. how do you feel about the stamp? i was very curious about it. thank you. guest: pedro, the question was about the price of stamps? host: specifically the forever stamp. i guess she questioned whether the issuance might have affected revenues at the postal service.

guest: i can't say the specific stamps and stamp types are topics i know very much about. i can tell you about the price of stamps right now, the lowest in the united states. or it is lower in the united states than most countries. most countries require folks to pay a little more for their stamps, first-class mail. i think the next two years we will see the prices going up in little bit. the postal service can only raise the price of stamps a certain percentage each year. host: south haven, mississippi. the democrats' line. caller: i found out about five years ago that canada was operating the post office -- who is operating in now? guest: canada's post office -- i am not as familiar. i know the prices are higher but i know in some countries they have kind of de-federalized it, but i think they still have the

universal mandate. kind of like a balance between the two. host: has the postal service outline ways it did -- it can become more competitive against other services? guest: both of these bills would allow the postal service to brainstorm new ways to make revenues. besides raising the price of stamps which, as i said, there are kind of capped, these bills would allow them to ship -- the senate bill would allow them to notarize documents. the house bill would allow them to sell advertising on postal trucks or envelopes to make revenue. and both of these bills are basically encouraging the postal service to look at new ways, new products they could offer, new services they could sell two balks, in order to make themselves more competitive in

the 21st century. host: lafayette, indiana. james on the independent line. caller: my question is about civil service employees. they did away with it at the end of 1983 and now in 2013 there will be no civil service people working. they will all have 30 years-plus in. who will pay these people's pensions? kedzie answered that question, if nobody is working -- can you answer that question, if nobody is working and everyone is retired? guest: the civil service liability right now is a big question right now. not an area i am as familiar with as the postal service. obviously there are polls co- workers invested in the civil service. -- postal workers and reston in the civil service. they will be getting the pensions they were promised. i know there are bills moving through the house right now that would change people's

contributions to their pensions, to kind of make it more sustainable, i guess, in the future. but right now the people who are already retired or who are going to be retired and investment in the civil service, i do believe they will be receiving the pensions as promised. new workers will see changes when they retired 20 years and now. host: should the lieberman bill passed today, what are the next next? guest: it is going to have to go to the house and the house is likely to favor its own version of the legislation rather than lieberman's. after the house passes its version, there will be conference. a lot of work to be done. host: rachel bade from congressional quarterly, staff writer, talking about the postal service. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: up next, you will need the middle school studentcam 2012 first prize winner. we will have a discussion on the topic of free speech and the

first amendment. to give you a sense of what he worked on, here is is video called "who owns free-speech clause " which focuses on the first amendment. studentcamr's competition asked students across the country will part of the constitution was important to them and why. the first prize winner in middle schools selected the first amendment. >> every night millions of americans said down in front of their tv to watch the news. they read the morning newspaper with a cup of coffee and they stand the internet for the most recent updates. the first amendment is one of the most cherished freedoms americans have. it is essential to the well- being of our democracy. what challenges does it face in the 21st century? >> freedom of the press is one of the bedrocks of the u.s.

constitution, of our democracy frankly. >> jefferson and the founding fathers really understood that governments without a vibrant press was zero ultimately going to become a government not of and for the people. >> it puts a layer of transparency into the entire progress of democracy, a way for the government to keep tabs of the legislature and executive and judicial branch. >> journalism is basically the watchdogs over society in addition to reporting on it. it is a very important role. >> without the press, i think what you would tend to see is people will exercise power on the basis of self interest of profit or maintaining power rather the best ideas for

building a great place for everyone. >> if you have lawmakers or executive officers who know that nobody is keeping an eye on what they are doing -- the whole idea of power corrupts will come into play. >> the ability for people to question and challenge their governments -- to do that would think one pay for his -- paper or electrons and a computer screen -- >> all round the world there are enormously courageous journalists who at great risk to themselves are trying to shine a light on a critical issues and that people of the countries space. >> the most support in thing to the country is to have an informed populace, inform the public. >> so, do you think the american media is doing a very good job? >> that is a very complicated

question. >> are there terror cells in your neighborhood? >> mass of gas line -- >> the tariff threat -- >> serious danger >> did you know there could be stuff in there that could harm or even kill your kids? >> are your kids being brainwashed? >> a live from the pit of. >> the and of the world? -- the end of the world? >> we are in a pretty challenging ever right now with respect to media. i think we have seen in the course of american democracy lots of different ways of operation. >> a new gallup poll showed media credibility at its lowest point in decades. 55% of respondents say they have

either not very much confidence or none at all in the media's fairness and accuracy. >> some of the media does a pretty good job. npr does a good job, i jobpbs does a good job. i think other news organizations cannot do a very good job informing the public. >> people find new sources to confirm their beliefs. >> there is a wonderful quote -- americans these days use the media away a drunk uses a lamppost, for support, not illumination. what it means is more and more people were turning to news sources essentially echo chambers to support their own beliefs. so, if you are a conservative you get your news from fox news. if you are a liberal, you get your news from msnbc. >> people will just plug in to people who agree with them. >> there are some people who would rather be entertained on television that actually

learned. >> the media will does give us whenever we want to see. they just want to bring in as many viewers as they possibly can. >> advertisers will pay a premium to reach a smaller audience but actually they are people who have a defined profile. >> there is a financial incentive to go to the extremes that we are seeing the fox news and increasingly with msnbc. >> straight news content has given way to a celebrity and crime is. stories with public policy content decrease. conflict and sensation take their place. >> the stories which should get reported or should get more attention like stories about money and politics or corruption and things like that cannot get as much attention. >> advertisers may have to much influence over the content of a newspaper or tv station because the media outlet is concerned about where the revenue comes from. >> the people who have a free speech are the people on the

press. >> media companies and not having trouble staying in business -- they are having trouble staying in trouble -- journalism. >> if you could change one bit about american news media, what would it be? >> i think what really needs to change is us. news outlets are businesses of they would just be like businesses and they will just give -- they are going to supply whenever -- whatever there is a demand for. >> we have to chart a different pathway for our future. i think younger people and people who can see these challenges need to get deeply involved in challenging the status quo. of them ultimately people prevail, ultimately demand their rights. if we keep demanding --

>> i want journalism, i want stories to be told. i want that to live. i want to encourage vigorous and robust debate on all issues that affect our society. >> we have to have a conversation. we have to talk to people who don't agree with you. spam and the 21st century, -- in the 21st century, we face challenges. but we can overcome them. what kind of news media do you want in this country? your answer may very well dictate the outcome. >> don't accept that the way things are and the way things have -- are the way things have to be because it has always been that way. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continues. host: times it will meet our

studentcam when a, leo pfeifer, a student at salmon bay middle school. welcome. guest:hi. host: how were you? guest: i'm doing well. host: and we have james duff from the newseum. thank you for joining us, too. guest: thank you, pager, for having me on. -- pedro, for having me on. guest: i really think it was first amendment and freedom of speech and the press. host: specifically how does that impact your daily life and why did you choose to make it into a documentary? guest: in our daily lives we would not be able to communicate and get our ideas out there. it gives power to ideas. and a documentary just came from that.

host: so, from the time you first got the idea, who did you go to and what did you have to do to make it a reality? guest: i really just sent e- mails out to as many people as i could to get interviews. you would really be surprised as who will e-mail you back. you just have to be persistent enough. host: give us an example of some of the surprises you had along the way in putting this together? guest: interviewing dan merck from the onion. i got an email couple of days later seeing if they can set up an of you. it really just things like that. host: from the time you started to the time you finished it, what did you learn about free- speech and the first amendment that you did not know before? guest: i really learned how much influence our country and how our country relies on it. and i also learned about the issues that it is facing,

especially from our perception in the modern era. host: such as? what do you mean by that? guest: that we are not really willing to see all the different viewpoint. like we did in past times. that we are just willing to plug into what ever we want to watch. host: who helped you put this together? did you from this and added this yourself? guest: yes, i did it all by myself. i was pretty independent. host: did you get help from school or your parents or anything along that line? guest: not really. host: james duff from the newseum, you heard the winner talk about the first amendment and perceptions and even at the young age -- what would you like to add about the concept, particularly as it deals with the younger generation growing up in the new age? let me first,

congratulate -- congratulate leo for the wonderful romney put together, very inspiring and well thought through and gives us a lot to think about. it is very encouraging for me to see young people take such an interest in it. i firmly believe it is the only way we are going to preserve our freedom is is if our citizens -- if we understand the importance of the first amendment on our freedoms and how we protect and preserve them. host: both of our guests joining us for the remainder of our time this morning to talk about issues of free speech and first amendment. if you want to ask questions --

james duff, you are the ceo of the newseum. for those who do not know, what is it? guest: very interactive museum on pennsylvania avenue. at the front of the building there is a tablet of the first amendment of the constitution of the united states. it is full of artifacts and interactive exhibits that demonstrate value of the basic freedoms of our first amendment. a real history not only of news but a history of the country. we believe it was -- it is a real civic educational experience to walk through the museum and we encourage all of the visitors to washington and those 11 the area to come by and experience it. host: do you realize students at an early age like leo pfeifer getting interested in these issues? guest: we do. we have a number of school

groups visit here every single day of the year. very pleased about that. we encourage it. for all walks of life and age groups, but we are particularly interested in bringing in younger people and school groups to help educate them about important freedoms and first amendments. host: pour leo pfeifer, what sources discontinue putting the final product together? guest: for a topic like this there were some of different sources. i really talked to as many experts as i could and i went through a lot of the c-span footage. i got from as many places i could. host: started with a longer list and ended up with a smaller amount of people and and the documentary? guest: at most of people i interviewed and up in the documentary -- i think most of the people like interview ended

up in the documentary. host: when you started this project, did you have a certain theme in mind, the general theme of the very beginning, but it developed as you working? tella said little but about the process. guest: that was an interesting thing for me. the main theme and even the topic really evolved as i was talking to people, looking at the c-span footage. so, it was really interesting. so i really did not have a clear set of what i was going to do at the very beginning. host: how did you come up with the title, "who owns free- speech?" guest: somebody in the document came up with something similar and it really inspired me because it is kind of in that -- mainstream free-speech today. host: james duff, tell us in a

modern-day issues free-speech faces in washington, d.c., in politics? guest: i think it is critical that we as a people and every american citizen understands what it means to have the first amendment and how we can preserve it and protected. there is a very interesting story i would tell, pedro, about one of the visitors at the newseum. he was from russia and he was walking through the museum with a friend of mine and he was observing it all and he said, you know, we have a free speech and free press in russia, too. but the difference here in america is you are free after you speak and you are free after you published in the press. somewhat humorous comment but also a profound observation. i think what is important to us as americans is to understand why it is that we remain free after we speak in the united

states, what is it that protect us and protect our first amendment. there are many countries around the world that have a bill of rights and have first amendment protections written to the constitution but no mechanism or means to protect and preserve it. we have then independent judiciary, so if congress did pass a law that would abridge the freedom of speech and press, we have an independent judiciary we are free to go to and challenge the laws of congress. that might interfere with our freedoms. the role the free press plays documentary reveals, by some he has interviewed, as watchdogs over the government. i think it is crucial the public

understand that interaction -- as a mechanism for preserving our freedoms. host: first amendment of the constitution -- short hills, new jersey. caller: two things. i wanted to know whether his documentary addressed issues in the citizens united case, the whole notion of corporate speech, that was one thing. and the second thing i wanted to know is whether he addressed at all is the corollary to the first amendment which is the right to hefar -- right to hear

people's speech. in connection to prosecutions of prisoners at guantanamo or but many other issues that involve communications that would be emanating from speech, emanating from the middle east, on subjects that might not be politically popular here, whether we have a right to actually hear that speech so we can come to understand the point of view of people who have a different opinion. host: leo pfeifer, did you take on any of those topics? guest: i really wish i could have explored some of those in my documentary but i do have an eight minute time limit. because, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is just such a big issue that encompasses so many things. host: you reference that a caller's point of other points of you and your ability to do so. guest: we certainly enjoy those

freedoms in the united states. there are, of course, limitations to the freedoms that you can enjoy for -- being free simply to yell fire in a crowded theater could cause public disruption and a concern there. but as far as political speech we enjoy much greater freedoms here in the united states than anywhere throughout the world and through what world history. we certainly encourage opportunities to hear different points of view, even when we disagree with them. host: long island, new york. cecilia, independent line. caller: congratulations to leo -- great job. i want to know if you were ever

-- ever able to ask them -- the reporters on tv or in newspapers, radio, if they feel conflict about telling the truth versus what the owner wants them to say. host: did you tackle any of that kind of thing? guest: that was actually kind of what i started out doing for the documentary. it kind of advertising that affect on the news. i did kind of going to that but really for me, the eight-minute documentary really evolved into more about us and what kind of media we want. host: you have a tweet from 8 viewer watching it --

guest: that is interesting because the internet is blending freedom of speech and freedom of the press. it is a tool that has helped with a lot of different things. host: the blending of free- speech and free press on the internet and how it is affecting organizations like yours. guest: we actually have a brand new exhibit opening up here at the newseum the end of this week on new media and social media and the impact it is having on news gathering. it is very much a part of our freedoms now and our and our press and the information gathering that we have and we encourage people to come visit and take a look at how we incorporate it that an experience here. host: bakersfield, california.

caller: i am a journalism major myself. the story develops itself. he might have an idea what you're going after. the reason i am calling is in my research, what i discovered is that george washington during the revolutionary war wrote a letter to his troops admonishing them for their profanity and bold heard language. he wrote specifically no man of principle would speak in such way and it would lead them to help. i find it interesting our first president would say or write such a thing and the first thing they put in the constitution is freedom of speech. host: did you do it -- or did

you do this documentary for other interest? guest: in my career i want to be a filmmaker but journalism is interesting. i learned a lot about it in the course of making this documentary. host: vermont. republican line. caller: i want to congratulate this young gentleman for his efforts and looking into this material. my concern -- and i would like to raise the question -- how do we deal with the bias in the press that refuses to print letters of the editor when people have raised questions about what is going on in this country? secondly -- if you read the constitution and the first amendment, it says congress should make no law to establish religion or restrictw 3eir expressiond thereof -- or restrict the free expression thereof and yet we have a court that restricts religious faith

and a country. where we can do, when we can do it, how we can do it. mrs. o'hare, in her lawsuit against the government, established religion at the religion of the country. atheism. her belief was atheism. host: the first point about the ability about public response to the press, whether letters to the editor or a parent means to respond to that. guest: there are various means to publish views and opinions. many of us have written letters to the editor that through space limitations or of the reasons the editors of the newspaper publication chose not to publish. i think it may be a function of space availability.

and number of letters that when newspapers received -- that the newspaper received. there are various outlets for expressing views, in addition to writing a letter to editor. so, i don't perceive a widespread problem in that regard, with regard to newspaper and letters to the editor. you can choose another publication or issue your own published comments for that matter. i have a sense we are suffering too much in america for lack of expression or bank vehicles to express ourselves in. -- we are not suffering too much in america for lack of expression or vehicles. caller: i like to congratulate leo pfeifer for his prize. i would like to expound more about diversity of opinion and

viewpoints and listening to people talk and everything. do you have any opinion about the recent status of forces agreement with afghanistan? thank you. host: listening to other viewpoints and how this documentary change that. guest: that is really what emerged from it, which i think is really interesting. because that is what we need. the power is in us to change the news media in this country and to start, we need to talk to each other and just communicate. host: when you told i begin parent or teacher that you wanted to enter the documentary contest, what was your response? guest: well, i did it last year and i won second place. and i decided i would enter it -- i was really happy when i found out. this year i worked really hard and took all of the things i learned. when you make a film you learned

some many things. not necessarily just about the issue. but you make different little mistakes and from them and can improve and build from it. host: what did you learn this time around than you did last time around? guest: this time around i think i learned more about doing interviews and i think expend a lot more time writing the questions that kind of lead to different things. host: clinton township, michigan. good morning. david on independent line. caller: i think diversity of opinion is necessary and it is constructive and stuff, but my thing is, how does that reconcile with people who, with an opinion that is completely contrary to fact and reality? we have seen in a previous segment about the polls full- service, just got done singing that the postal service is funded by the sale of its products only.

maybe get a hundred thousand dollars to deliver stuff from voting in -- but then you hear a guy calling and saying he is tired of little guy funding the postal service. she just said it is funded by the sale of the province but there are a lot of people out there who feel and think the postal service is sucking money out of people. host: to the larger topic of free-speech and the first amendment? what would you add to it? caller: how do you reconcile inaccurate statements that are accepted by people and promoted by certain people against their ability to exercise their free speech? free-speech said not include inaccurate -- completely inaccurate statements like what we just witnessed in the last bateman? host: james duff, a lot of information being put out there. how the huge rouse -- tell? guest: i think an educated

public is the best misspent -- defense. people can express all sorts of views and some of them are wrong factually. but we can't prevent people from expressing those views and opinions. i think the solution really is to seek all sources of information to get an accurate picture of things. but the first amendment certainly includes and incorporates a right to speak your views even if they may not be factually well rooted. but the freedoms we enjoy in the united states enable us, i think, to make those determinations as opposed to just getting one point of view. host: venice, florida. jane, democrat line. caller: i wanted to make a comment that a previous caller had mentioned. the supreme court case where

prayer was banned in public schools. i remember when that happened and hired to that we always said the lord's prayer. -- prior to that, we always said lord's prayer. in manatee county, the prayer time got changed to a moment of silent meditation which, you know, completely neutralized whatever religion anybody supports but it addressed the spiritual needs that i think people have, and that is not addressed today at school. so, i don't think that supreme court decision necessarily established atheism as the religion in this country. that is my comment on that. host: leo pfeifer, here is a tweet you can answer -- guest: you really just have to check all the different sources

to see if it compares. just get it from credible sources. i got a lot of my video from the c-span video library, which was really helpful. host: how did you determine how much of each guest you were going to put or each interview you were going to put in the documentary? guest: for the c-span footage, i went through hours and hours of it and just found quick little segments that i wanted. getting what you want -- or putting in what you want for the interviews you do is one of the hardest parts. you just have to watch them and find the right parts of the documentary. host: did you have dealt with that? guest: i did the editing by myself. one of the most helpful things was getting feedback from people after i had a rough cut.

guest: i would just add, pedro, leo this superb job asking questions to elicit a variety of responses. and also a superb job of editing and including those in the film. his questions included the challenges we face until the first amendment today and whether the media is doing a good job, and if you could change anything in the media today, what would it be. i thought those all excellent questions. host: oklahoma, democrats' line. lisa. you are on. caller: yes. my comment is, the first amendment is one of our most coveted -- host: just keep going, lisa. you are listening to the tv. ago when it with your question or comment. caller: one of our most coveted

amendments. why would we want to get rid of that now? host: what think you may want to get rid of it? caller: it is about the first amendment and the free-speech. host: it is a larger discussion about it. caller: ok. my concern is, i don't want to see that the way. host: jim duff, the other's share that concern? guest: i think we all have that concern. i think what is so heartening about leo's project and this competition frankly is it is encouraging all americans to give thought about this and it is encouraging an increase in civic education. one of the danger is i think we face today in and preserving our first amendment right is the alarming statistics we see in the decline in civic education levels throughout our schools. i think something like 12% of high-school seniors today for

our position in u.s. history. i don't see how we can preserve our freedoms is those kinds of statistics continued. and i think this project that leo has participated in in such a very substantial way, wonderful way, these projects are very encouraging to me. and we here at the newseum are going to take on the challenge as well. we want to get involved in civic education and getting programs out to the schools that educate people about our history and freedoms and separation of powers and the importance of a free and independent press and these role it plays. host: asking you -- whether free-speech is as free as when you talk in your school studies, and also congratulate you on first place. guest: free-speech is there, it

is available. but mainstream america -- the most people just want to hear it or do they just want to hear what the press is telling them. host: columbus, ohio. janine, independent line. caller: ok, well, first of all i think because we have such a heterogeneous society, we are not like japan or china or some of these other places, we have people coming from all over and right now they seem to have different ideas of what free- speech is. remember the supreme court judge that says i cannot define pornography but i know what -- when i see it? i think we should still have the fcc -- so if somebody sees

something on there that they did not want their child to see, they have a category license. saying this is what they are going to transmit. if it is retail sales or this or that. they want to cheat and lie and do things on the internet and they could easily put the technology today have transmission like coming into your home -- i only one family licenses to come into my home. host: the internet and then free speech and regulations in was referring to. we do try to make determinations and discoveries as to how to protect young people within the

family structure from materials that we don't think are appropriate. there is a balance the fact in preserving first amendment rights and privileges with the needs that we should recognize of families to raise their children the way they see fit. so, i think one of the encouraging things about our system of government and way of life in the united states is that we have mechanisms in place to make those determinations. we don't always gets its rights, but we have freedoms, i think, to determine the right balance. host: leo pfeifer is our

studentcam winner. tell us about your school? guest: it is a really great school. host: what are some of your teachers there and is there a particular teacher you like especially when it comes to topics like the first amendment and stuff like that? guest: i think my favorite class and geography and social studies because you learn so much about history and how it affects us today. host: when you are not at school and not doing studentcam documentaries, what are you doing? guest: i like to hang out and i snowboard. film is one of my big passions. host: chicago, illinois. thanks for waiting. caller: i would like to talk about the consolidation of media. about six major corporations now own most of the mainstream

press, which includes cable and television and book publishing and newspapers -- and there are stories that will simply never gets out to the general population because it is not in the best interests of some of the people who sit on the board of some of these large corporations to expose some of the truth about these stories. i can give you a couple perfect examples of you want -- the exact -- disaster at japan, fukushima explosion, is not considered worse than chernobyl and now we continue to promote nuclear radiation in this country, notwithstanding that several of the nuclear plants are designed just like the one that exploded in japan. there is now great serious problems with people living miles and miles away from this particular explosion site. host: from what you just told

us, how did you learn that? caller: how that i learned that? because of organizations i belong to that get this information and then spread it out. partly the internet. you have to know what particular listerve to go to. you cannot begin to think you will get everything you need to know from the corporate press anymore. it is not possible. host: james duff, the consolidation of media and what kind of information comes out. guest: pedro, your question really exposes a great solution to it, and that is there are various outlets and sources of material, more so at the touch of a finger today than we have ever had and our history. so, there is a proliferation of avenues for getting news. while there may be corporate concentration in some avenues of news dissemination, there is a

growth industry in other news as well. host: manchester, connecticut. frank, democrats' line but caller: hello. i want to commend c-span and the young man on now, leo. when we talk about free speech, it just doesn't seem that bolivia -- controlled by a select group of people. the young woman called in here recently about the concentration of media. in my town or my state, hartford, connecticut, the main paper is owned by a group from chicago who also owns a radio station and also owns a secretary sheet. it is just unbelievable. and also, as an individual, i

would like to get a point across. it is almost impossible -- it seems the only way a normal human being is to get a megaphone and go out and fun of their house and yell what their problem is. there is so much more -- we have televisions in almost every home in america but yet it is all commercials. where is the tool for education? everything is so controlled by so few corporations. host: leo pfeifer, tell us a little bit about the machines used to make the documentary, how you ended did it, what kind of computers used -- a little of the technical side of how you put these things together. guest: i shot with a still camera that takes a video and i edited it on final cut pro.

host: how many hours of editing did it take? the guest: well, it was about three days and i probably spent 8-10 hours each day. it was one long weekend. host: why did it take so long? guest: it really takes time to figure out -- especially for documentaries, because it is almost like you are writing a screenplay when you are editing. you are structuring the story, whereas for a narrative film, you've already done that. host: west virginia is next for our best. a few more minutes before the house of representatives comes in. caller: congratulations to the young man. i would like to know both the opinions about -- journalism. i very much ms. investigative journalism. maybe i should not have been surprised but i was one i heard chris wallace of fox news say that fox news exists to give the

other side. he said that the other networks are liberal and so they are there to represent, well, the conservative point of view. i just thought that media should be balanced. they claim to be fair and balanced. but i -- i fear that it is a little bit dangerous that we have so many networks, fox for presenting its views, msnbc its views -- i just feel like we are not really -- we are missing major, major stories. and except for "front line" on pbs i just feel like we are losing that level of journalism. host: the role of advocacy journalism. suest: i thought leo' documentary exposed those concerns both from academics and those involved in the media and the general public as well, which has been expressed through some of the questions on this program this morning.

i thought leo's last question was a very good one, which is, if you could change anything in the media today, what would it be? i think if you look back historically, we have had these periods of time early in the history of this country where me and newspapers in a particular were controlled by one political party or the other for advancing their points of view. so historically, we have had some periods of time where this has occurred. it has also been independent media outlets. and as you have identified it -- investigate media as opposed to advocacy media. one of the things, if i were answering leo's final question in his documentary about what would you change, and i would encourage more of the civil discourse and sort of the